Pharmacies: Government Funding

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It takes me back to the days when as a junior Minister I had to answer to you as chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who has spoken repeatedly with enormous authority on these matters. He deserves all our thanks for championing pharmacies.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing the debate and for her detailed compelling speech. I know she does a terrific job representing her constituents locally because my mum is from Leicester and my family are still there, so I get regular reports. I am here today because my mum was a pharmacist and I spent my childhood working in her pharmacy. I saw at first hand the incredible role that independent community pharmacies play in their local area. With flexible opening hours, their location and no need for an appointment, they can be an easy first port of call for families when they need help, care and advice.

I am struck that community pharmacists always want to go above and beyond for their patients. One of my first jobs for my mum was to ride around on my bike in the evenings delivering prescriptions to elderly patients who could not make it in or needed them urgently. That was a sign for me of the role that pharmacists play in their local areas. That is why, extraordinarily, about 80% of those over the age of 65 have visited their local pharmacy over the past three months, which speaks to the role they play.

I see that in my constituency. We have great national pharmacies as well as brilliant independent ones, such as Coopers in Great Ayton, the Village Pharmacy in Catterick, Stokesley pharmacy and Central Dales pharmacy in Hawes, providing vital healthcare in a sparsely populated rural area and reinforcing the lifeline that pharmacies provide. A benefit of knowing pharmacists for the majority of my life is that I have seen the transformation in the role they play. Originally, they just dispensed prescriptions for GPs. My dad was a GP, so I also saw that side of it. They have transformed to being the first port of call for primary healthcare and treatment for minor illnesses.

That evolution had various moments, which the hon. Member for North Somerset will also have experienced. Starting in about 2000, the introduction of hypertension and blood pressure services made a difference. Medicine use reviews were a big statement of trust in what pharmacists could do. The ability to dispense urgent repeat prescriptions made a huge difference to patients. More recently, there has been the introduction of oral contraception and smoking cessation services, as well as flu jabs, catalysed by covid and now accounting for about 30% of those dispensed, which is a huge increase.

That evolution over the past 25 years demonstrates the faith that successive Governments of all stripes have had in pharmacies. Patients and local communities place faith in their pharmacists because they trust them and value what they do; they know that they can provide healthcare in an accessible way. That is why, when in government, we introduced Pharmacy First, of which I am very proud. Pharmacists were enabled to provide medication for seven common conditions, including sinusitis, sore throats, ear infections and urinary tract infections. Obviously, that got off to a slower start than we would have liked, but it now has almost 100% take-up among pharmacies. When I last checked the stats, something like 7 million consultations had taken place and more than 5 million prescriptions had been supplied. High satisfaction in the service is growing by 30% to 40% year over year. It has continued the evolution of increasing trust in pharmacies and providing care closer to people in their communities.

I have three questions for the Minister about how to continue that journey and re-emphasise support for pharmacies. The first is about raising awareness and trust. In the last debate on pharmacies here, which I think the hon. Member for North Somerset secured, the Minister gave some stats about the high awareness of the Pharmacy First scheme. Anecdotally, that did not quite jibe with my personal experience. Is there something we can do collectively to raise awareness of Pharmacy First and, as was touched on, make sure that the healthcare system is on the same page, so that people get the same message from 111, their GP or the hospital about what is available at the pharmacy, and so they can trust their pharmacist to deliver that service?

Secondly, we should look at expanding Pharmacy First, which, in a welcome fashion, the Government have indicated they are minded to do. There are a couple of options for that: we could consider whether the existing restrictions for the seven services, which are limited in part by gender or age, can be expanded. We could also look across the border to Scotland to see what other conditions the service could be expanded to.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I agree that we need expanded services for our pharmacies, but does the right hon. Member agree that should come with adequate remuneration? At the moment, pharmacists are saying they are doing a lot more for a lot less.

[Rishi Sunak]

Of course. I am sure when the Minister looks at what services can be expanded, she will make sure they are funded properly and will look at where they will relieve strain elsewhere in the healthcare system. If we look at system costs, pharmacies can help save money. Some of the other conditions covered in Scotland include eye issues such as conjunctivitis, dermatological conditions such as acne, and chest infections.

Finally, the hon. Member for North Somerset touched on joined-up care. If we want a truly joined-up primary care service, we need single patient records. Examining whether pharmacies can be integrated into GP Connect is worth exploring.

I thank the Minister for being a champion for pharmacies inside the Government. Obviously, the issue is personal for me, but there is widespread support for pharmacies among colleagues and society. They deserve our gratitude and support, and I urge the Government to continue to back them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to get a wee glass of water. His comments are incredibly important, and he is right to say that those services are almost impossible to bring back once they are lost.

Local pharmacies are under ever-increasing pressure. My particular concern is for small, independent pharmacies in rural constituencies such as my own. These businesses are facing rising costs, increasing workloads and the real risk of insolvency, and that is not to mention the personal toll on local pharmacy owners. The impact on those individuals and their health is sometimes forgotten.

[Shockat Adam]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point about how much stress is put on pharmacists and small business owners. In the last year, there was a 2.3% increase in items reimbursed by the NHS, a 17% increase in service volumes, a 3% increase in inflation, and increases in operating costs such as national insurance and business rates. That all adds to the pressure when pharmacists should be concentrating on providing a vital service to the community.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is a Leicester City supporter, as I am; we do not have to seek our sorrows at this moment in time, but that is by the way. More importantly, his comments underline the issues for local independent pharmacy owners.

As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said very clearly, at the heart of this issue are the patients—sometimes we need to remember that. Pharmacy closures are leaving many people, and particularly those in rural areas, with greater difficulty accessing their medication. Those concerns are felt deeply in Northern Ireland. The chief executive of Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland has warned officials that medicine shortages are having a greater impact on Northern Ireland because of systemic funding pressures, with pharmacies being forced to use their own money to bridge the gap in funding. That is the reality for these people, who have consciences, feel compassion and want to care for their patients and customers. The impact is clear, because almost 90% of pharmacies in Northern Ireland were unable to pay their wholesaler bill in January. Think about what that means for a second: that is real pressure. Further demonstrating the pressures is the number of pharmacies operating in Northern Ireland, which at 506 is the lowest ever recorded.

I know that the Minister is a compassionate lady who understands these issues incredibly well, and she will be aware that those figures raise serious concerns about the financial sustainability of our pharmacies and the security of the medicine supply throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Our pharmacies need certainty about their funding arrangements. They need to know well in advance what support will be available to them, so that they can plan effectively, manage costs and pay their bills, and not be forced to close.

I have often highlighted the fact that pharmacies’ ability to provide first-line defence in the fight against minor injuries is not used enough. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) outlined some of the things that pharmacies do; they are frontline defence. These things are perhaps not seen by everyone, but they are seen by the patients and customers who come in. Every person who gets advice on treatment for warts, headlice, thrush or another ailment from the pharmacy rather than the GP is helping to ensure that GPs are not overwhelmed, and that A&Es are not overwhelmed by people who cannot see their GPs. We perhaps do not always see that, but it is very important.

Pharmacies are a vital cog in the health service, and we must fund them to do the job that they are able to do, yet are prevented from doing. I look to the Minister for that funding and for assurance. The Minister always tries to give us the reassurance we need and to answer the questions that we pose. These are hard times financially, but pharmacies are important for everyone. They produce savings for GPs and the NHS. Let us support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to her new role and congratulate her on her appointment.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing this most important debate. She spoke very powerfully about the pressures facing community pharmacies and I want to build on her speech by discussing what is happening both in my constituency and nationally.

In Farnham and Bordon, we have access to 15 community pharmacies, which collectively dispense around 142,000 prescriptions every month and deliver around 6,500 flu vaccinations. The Government’s 10-year plan wants more healthcare to be delivered in the community, which is an aim that I think we all support. At the same time, however, the Government appear to be making it harder for those very pharmacies to deliver such care and to remain sustainable.

The reality is that community pharmacies are being asked to do more while facing rising costs. We have seen higher national insurance contributions, increases in the national minimum wage, rising business rates and persistent inflationary pressures. At the same time, pharmacies are dealing with medicine shortages, higher procurement costs and disruption to international supply chains. The financial picture is impossible to ignore. Funding for community pharmacies in 2025-26 was actually £800 million less in real terms than it was in 2015-16. In the last year alone, the number of NHS-prescribed items dispensed by pharmacies and the service volumes increased by 2.3% and 17% respectively.

As the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) has already highlighted—he was echoed by a number of Members around the Chamber today—the Government’s own independent economic analysis in March 2025 identified a funding gap for pharmacies of £2 billion a year, and trade bodies that have spoken to me identify a structural funding problem. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome additional funding, but pharmacy is not made sustainable by giving with one hand and taking with the other. We need to ensure the long-term viability of community pharmacy and I am very sceptical that the Government’s approach will achieve that.

I turn now to Pharmacy First, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we make better use of the skills and expertise available within our NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is absolutely right to be proud of his Government’s record on this matter. Created and implemented by the last Government, Pharmacy First shows what NHS reform should look like—the right professional, with the right responsibility, delivering the right care in the right place. It should be a game changer and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for its introduction.

Pharmacy First recognises that patients with seven common conditions can be safely assessed and treated by qualified pharmacists without there always being a requirement for a GP appointment. However, the scheme is currently limited and not as expansive as it is in Scotland, where it covers up to 30 common conditions. I would like the Government to move rapidly to expand Pharmacy First elsewhere. We should be ambitious about the skills and clinical expertise of our pharmacists.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Member agree that another opportunity for Pharmacy First—indeed, a generational opportunity—is independent prescribing? That would really unlock the potential of pharmacies and help patients, but it requires both a vision and adequate funding.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can use pharmacists and pharmacies much more creatively and in a manner that would in no way put patient safety at risk. In fact, it would allow patients more choice, and free up GPs and other health professionals to do other parts of their job, so he is right.

Community Pharmacy England’s 2026 pharmacy pressures survey makes the scale of the challenge facing pharmacies clear. Drawing on responses from nearly 4,000 pharmacy owners and staff members, it found that 75% of pharmacies are currently losing money, while only 14% reported being profitable. There is little value in providing additional funding for services without recognising the wider cost and workforce pressures facing the sector: 30% of pharmacies have reduced their opening hours and 76% report an impact on patient care, including longer waits and delays in accessing medicine.

That brings me—briefly—to the issue of business rates and the wider cumulative costs facing pharmacies. A pharmacy might occupy a storefront on a high street, but it is not simply another retailer; it is part of the national health service and is an essential provision in our community. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined, pharmacies are also part of our national resilience. The Government want pharmacies to take on more responsibility, but they face rising costs that have been caused by the Government.

Pharmacies need to be properly considered within the system and not treated simply as another high street retailer. The same issue applies when we consider national insurance increases, and indeed the national living wage. These cumulative increases are having a real impact. Unlike a high street retailer, a pharmacy has contractual obligations to the NHS and a moral responsibility to its patients, so it cannot just increase prices or stop providing a service like other businesses could. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) rightly put it, the Government have to recognise the cumulative impact of these terrible decisions when considering future policy.

Summer Health and Resilience

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I can assure the hon. Member that the chief medical officer looks very seriously at all the broader issues around prevention. We deal with health inequalities, and we know that issues around housing, buildings and communities have a big impact on our health. Some areas have traditionally provided community centres for cold weather, so that there is somewhere for people to go—somewhere they can stay warm and see other people in the community—when the weather gets cold, if they are worried about heating their homes. Some areas have now started to do the same thing to ensure that there are cooler places for people to go. That is an example of communities coming together to respond to challenges, so it is actually local communities that we need to empower.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Analysis from Ordnance Survey has highlighted that my great city of Leicester is now projected to show the biggest rise in Britain’s heat vulnerability ranking, climbing from 10th to fourth. This is deeply concerning, considering the record-setting heatwave we have just had. In the absence of a full and speedy green transition, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give my Leicester South constituents that their health facilities will be able to cope with the inevitable increase in heat?

[Yvette Cooper]

I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the work we have set out, including the new planning processes for summer pressures. As part of the heat taskforce’s work, we are setting out the framework for local areas to do their resilience planning. Local NHS managers need to ensure that their systems are resilient to extreme heat, just as they do for winter pressures. Our NHS needs to be resilient at all times of year, and it is important that also happens in Leicester.

Health Bill

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley).

Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me about Palantir Technologies, telling me their concerns about the company’s involvement with Israel’s military and Trump’s ICE. Over 35 Members from across the House have signed my early-day motion calling on the Government to activate the break clause in the NHS federated data platform contract. The objection is not just about Palantir’s ethics, but about its operations under that contract. I share the concerns of many, including the National Data Guardian, about whether data identifiable to individual patients may be accessible by Palantir.

The potential success of the proposals on the single patient record and whether it manages to gain the confidence of the British public depends on the Government listening to these concerns, and making sure that issues around data access and limits, patient opt-outs and the data controller are resolved. I note that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has tabled a number of other amendments related to data safety, which I support.

I also wish to speak in support of amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on ICB financing. I am deeply concerned by the introduction of a duty under clause 48 for each of the constituent bodies of the ICB to achieve financial balance. In east London, we are currently fighting against massive, eight-figure cuts to the East London NHS foundation trust, where workers have been on strike amid cuts to jobs in much-needed mental health services, all of which are being justified by reference to new requirements for financial balance across the trust. Under the provisions of clause 48, matters will be made much worse and the ability to shift and adapt capacity across the system will be rendered impossible. One of the reasons that this is so regrettable, particularly in an area like east London, where the need for mental health services is acute and rising, is that cuts to these services will simply lead to greater costs arising elsewhere. For that reason, I also support amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, to place ICB spending on mental health services on a statutory footing.

I also support amendment 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because I am concerned, as others are, about provisions in the Bill for the reorganisation of ICBs. The changes are among many aspects of this Bill that regrettably point towards a revival of marketisation policies from prior decades—policies that have now been largely discredited. To tackle the biggest health challenges that we face, we require partnership working, joined-up decision making between the NHS, local authorities and expert voices—a dialogue between providers and commissioners. Removing the potential for this type of dialogue appears to be a significant misstep, particularly for integrated care.

Turning ICBs into purchasers alone appears to be being done for the benefit of reinforcing a purchaser-provider split—a split that experts have said time and again does not work, and does not deliver improved performance and outcomes, or even value for money. While I am relieved that the Government are tabling their own amendment 60 to reverse the scrapping of local authority ICB membership, I remain in full support of amendment 45 in order to ensure that NHS trusts, and foundation trusts too, retain their voice in commissioning and public health decisions.

To conclude, the fundamental problem in the Bill lies in its adherence to a logic of marketisation. It is deeply regrettable that the Government are returning to the harmful public-private partnership model for capital investment and a rehashing of the private finance initiative disaster, the negative effects of which are still being felt across my east London constituency.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practicing optometrist and an officer for the APPG for eye health and visual impairment.

Sight is precious and none of us would like to lose it—but, sadly, 2 million people in this country are living with some form of sight loss today. On the Department’s own projection, that figure will rise to 2.7 million by 2030. Every day, 250 people in the UK start to lose their sight—one person every six minutes. Left unaddressed, that number is set to more than double to over 4 million by 2050. We are witnessing a growing problem, which, sadly, the Bill does not treat with the urgency it deserves.

Tonight, I urge the Government to strengthen this legislation in some specific ways. On governance, clause 21 rightly ensures that ICBs reflect local political accountability, but it says absolutely nothing about clinical accountability. Optometrists have no guaranteed voice in the rooms where commissioning decisions affecting their patients are made. It would be unthinkable to build localised healthcare without GPs at the table. It would be equally unthinkable to do so without pharmacists. I say to the Government plainly: optometrists have the expertise, the infrastructure and the systems already in place to relieve pressure on our hospitals, yet this Bill says nothing about it.

I want to see eyecare—glaucoma monitoring in particular, along with the management of minor eye conditions—commissioned consistently by every ICB in England and not left to a postcode lottery. Optometry already has what I call the TAC effect: it is trusted, accessible and capable. Commissioning it properly would reduce unnecessary demand on emergency departments, freeing them to focus on genuinely specialist cases while improving patients’ access to specialist eyecare where they need it.

A recent report by the Association of Optometrists has found that right now, 780,000 people—the equivalent of the entire population of Greater Nottingham—attend A&E with eye problems annually, at an average cost of £145 to the NHS per A&E presentation. That is £113 million a year. At least seven out of 10 of those people with eye problems could be successfully managed in a community optometry setting with the right service commissioning. Those stats reflect a lived reality for many across our country. If the new Government want to make smarter decisions with public money, they must consider that.

Finally, I turn to the single patient record. Proposed new subsection (7) to clause 51 should be amended so that it explicitly includes optometry in the single patient record framework, ensuring that optometrists have appropriate access to relevant patient information.

This Bill takes real and welcome steps in many areas, but more than 2 million people have already lost their sight—a number that none of us wants to see double to more than 4 million by 2050. Fundamentally, seeing should be a right, not a privilege, so I ask the Government to look again.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I rise as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury to speak to amendments 103 and 104, new clause 160 and amendment 105 in my name. I thank the Minister for meeting me during the passage of the Bill and for her subsequent letter. I also thank the Spinal Injuries Association for its support for the APPG and, crucially, for people living with spinal cord injury. These amendments are not about preventing reform; they are about ensuring that when responsibility for highly specialised services changes, patients continue to receive safe, equitable and nationally consistent care.

Spinal cord injury is a relatively low volume but complex lifelong condition requiring specialist expertise, rehabilitation and long-term follow-up. National commissioning exists to prevent fragmented services and postcode variation. If commissioning moves to integrated care boards, we need confidence that specialist workforce capacity, national standards and the sustainability of specialist centres will be protected. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how those safeguards will work in practice, particularly around workforce, rehabilitation and geographical variation. I also seek clarity on whether spinal cord injury services will transfer to ICBs and what criteria will determine that decision.

Amendment 104 and new clause 160 would provide national assurance and parliamentary accountability for outcomes, access, workforce and geographical variation. Amendment 105 addresses the single patient record. Specialist charities provide vital practical and peer support after life-changing injury, even where they are not part of the clinical care. That is why this appeal is so resonant. If we can engage with those providers at that early stage, the outcomes will undoubtedly be improved. The amendment would allow referral, with patient consent, to approved condition-specific organisations sharing only necessary information.

I will not press these amendments to a vote today. I hope that the Minister will consider further safeguards and clarification during the Lords stages of the Bill. The care and access to support for patients dependent on specialist services should not depend on where those patients live.

Community Pharmacies

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate. She, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and all colleagues have dispensed some great ideas today. [Laughter.] Sorry, but it does not end there.

The Minister and Members may be aware—I might not have mentioned it enough—that I am one of the only practising optometrists to be a Member of Parliament, and optometrists share many of the concerns and challenges that our pharmacy colleagues face. I surpass the hon. Member for North Somerset in having been a community-based optometrist for nearly three decades.

I want to address many of the points that have been made. First, our GPs are facing real burnout. There is a lag in the number of GPs who are qualifying and taking up positions. In lower socioeconomic areas, of which there are many in my Leicester South constituency, there are 1,985 patients per GP. There are 300 more patients per GP in those areas and, as has been mentioned, pharmacists really do plug the gap, saving 38 million GP appointments and doing incredible work. The Government’s 10-year health plan is built on the bold premise of shifting care out of hospitals and into our communities. We all support that ambition—of course we do—but we cannot deliver care in the community if we are not allowing community infrastructure to thrive, and that is precisely what is happening to pharmacies at the moment.

Since 2017, England has lost more than 1,400 bricks-and-mortar pharmacies, which is a net loss of 15% of the entire network. In Leicester, five pharmacies have shut down in the last calendar year alone. There are now fewer than 10,000 pharmacies open in England, and nearly 64,000 opening hours a week have disappeared since 2022. Between 2021 and 2025, the sector lost 3,000 full-time equivalent pharmacists. Funding was cut in 2016 and held flat for eight years, and the sector has absorbed real-terms cuts of 30%. Pharmacies, unlike other businesses, cannot pass on their costs to their customers. They cannot manage demand by extending their waiting lists, and 90% to 95% of their income comes from the NHS. They are, in effect, trapped.

We all welcome the £340 million uplift announced for 2026-27 and the decision to begin integrating independent prescribing into Pharmacy First and the Pharmacy Contraception Service. Those are welcome steps, and everything of that nature is going in the right direction. However, NPA analysis shows that 8.9% is needed simply to allow pharmacy budgets to stand still—to absorb the national living wage, employers’ national insurance contributions, inflation and business rates. The settlement is just 1.3 percentage points above that threshold; it does not close the £2 billion funding gap that the NHS’s independent review identified a year ago. Much of the uplift will be swallowed by costs before a single patient sees any benefit.

I am not just here to outline the problems, as there are positives. Community pharmacies represent one of the greatest untapped opportunities in modern healthcare, and I say that as someone who has seen community-based clinical practice at work. Independent prescribing is, as the sector rightly calls it, a generational opportunity. Pharmacists already have the clinical skills. With the right framework and investment, they can manage long-term conditions, initiate and adjust medicines and take pressure directly off GPs—not as a stopgap, but as a genuine, permanent part of the primary care team.

Beyond prescribing, pharmacies are ideally placed to deliver integrated healthcare and lifestyle services, such as smoking cessation, weight management, hypertension case-finding and alcohol interventions. In my experience in community eye care, the closer we embed clinical services in high street settings, the better the uptake by patients who would never otherwise engage with the NHS. Pharmacies are trusted, accessible and visited regularly—far more than any GP surgery.

Medicine optimisation is another point. With an ageing population on complex polypharmacy regimes, pharmacists conducting structured medication reviews can reduce harm, cut millions of pounds in waste and improve outcomes. This is not aspirational; it is proven. We are simply failing to fund it at scale.

I have a repeat prescription for the Minister. First, publish a road map to close the pharmacy funding gap with above-inflation increases—not in one year, but as a sustained multi-year commitment. Pharmacies cannot plan, invest or recruit without it. Secondly, match investment in retained margins with real action on medicine pricing. The UK is an unattractive market for global suppliers, and medicine shortages flow directly from that. That is a patient safety issue. Thirdly, be genuinely ambitious on independent prescribing. The autumn roll-out into Pharmacy First is a start, but we need a shared vision of what full deployment looks like in this Parliament, with the funding to match. Finally, address the workforce crisis by setting out concrete steps to grow the pharmacy workforce in parallel with any expansion of services. New services on the backs of a depleted workforce will fail.

Health Bill

Shockat Adam Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

We all cherish the NHS, and all of us in this Chamber have a duty to ensure that anybody who does not believe in the basic principle that care should follow need, not wealth, must be nowhere near the jewel in our crown that is the NHS. I begin with primary care—or, indeed, the glaring inequality in primary care. Practices in the most deprived areas carry, on average, 300 more patients per fully qualified GP than those in the least deprived. That gap has grown by 50% since 2018. In Leicester—my constituency and my home—there are 1,985 patients per GP, which is significantly above the national average. The Bill introduces a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and, under clause 24, to produce neighbourhood health plans, but a plan without the workforce to deliver it is a plan in name only.

I must also declare my interest as a practising optometrist. Clause 14 gives integrated care boards new responsibilities over primary care services, and the Bill transfers commissioning of NHS sight tests from a national framework to individual ICBs. I completely understand the logic of localisation, but I have already seen what happens in practice. In Coventry and Warwickshire, a community urgent eye care service that was diverting more than 13,000 A&E attendances per year was withdrawn at the end of 2025. In Hampshire, community glaucoma schemes have been moved back into hospitals. This is the postcode lottery in action.

Glaucoma affects approximately 700,000 people in the UK, with about half of them walking around undiagnosed. It causes irreversible sight loss, it increases the risk of falls, and it carries serious long-term costs for both the NHS and social care, and we now have the technology to address it more efficiently than ever. The iStent inject device can be inserted during routine cataract surgery in a single procedure, treating both conditions simultaneously. This is exactly the kind of innovation that the 10-year health plan calls for, yet uptake is inconsistent because there is no national commissioning guidance. I urge the Government to ensure that the single patient record supports consistent clinical decision making across the glaucoma pathway, and that integrated care boards are required, not merely permitted, to commission those procedures.

The Bill also abolishes NHS England, and we have heard much about that. History gives us cause for concern, especially when it comes to private finance initiative arrangements, which have cost the NHS tens of billions of pounds over decades.

Let me end by saying something about the Palantir question. The creation of a single patient record is welcome, but the vessel matters as much as the vision. The £330 million NHS federated data platform contract, awarded by the last Government and inherited by this one, raises serious and unresolved questions, and it must be addressed.

NHS Federated Data Platform

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Let me be clear: as a practising optometrist, there is nothing more wonderful than touching a button and a patient’s data going to the right people, and I am sure that the Minister will agree. The patient can then be treated appropriately and on time. However, the Darzi and Sudlow reviews, which were published last year, confirmed that our health data system is broken and fragmented, which costs patients dearly.

The public overwhelmingly supports better data sharing and so do I. In my opinion, the question is not whether we need data sharing, but who is responsible for this modern-day oil? As has already been said, Palantir was named after the seeing stones from the book “The Lord of the Rings”, the palantíri. Those stones possessed enormous power. However, I want to be fair about them. The stones themselves were not good or evil; they were powerful instruments of vision. In the right hands, they brought clarity and wisdom. The problem, as Tolkien understood it, is never the stone itself; it is who is holding it. Let us have a look at who is holding these stones.

As has already been mentioned, Alex Karp said this year that Palantir wants

“to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”

The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, has written that he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible. He has said that the NHS is making people sick and that the British public’s love for the jewel in our crown—the national health service—is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Those are the stated beliefs of the men at the top of a company that we have handed £330 million to, and a £1.5 billion strategic partnership with the British state. And Palantir’s ambitions do not stop there. Its chief operating officer has spoken of a future where Palantir software is inside every missile and every drone. In Gaza, Amnesty International has named Palantir as a contributor to the war crimes and genocide being committed there.

In fact, when a protester confronted Palantir’s CEO about the killing of Palestinians—100,000 and counting—in Gaza, he replied that the dead were “mostly terrorists, that’s true.” Over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza and the CEO of the company that holds our NHS data calls them “mostly terrorists.”

It is not just the NHS that is affected. Palantir is the second largest AI supplier to the UK public sector by contract value. It has contracts with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, local authorities and local police services, including those in Leicester South.

The Palantir contract review comes in early 2027, so the window is still open. I want to share a scan with a specialist and get an answer before my patient leaves the room; every clinician in this country wants that and every patient deserves it. But the seeing stone is only as safe as the hands that hold it. Choose those hands carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, Shockat Adam.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Over the weekend, it was my pleasure to attend the Beat the Odds event in my constituency, which amalgamated 36 grassroots mental health organisations that support people from all backgrounds and of all ages and help those who have sadly fallen through the cracks. The message from those organisations was overwhelmingly clear: they need more financial support. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that grassroots organisations receive funding to deliver frontline services that save lives?

NHS Continuing Healthcare

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan]

I totally agree about the need for parity of service across the United Kingdom. That must be not only the right thing, but the only thing to do.

A recent report from the Nuffield Trust describes CHC as an “all or nothing” affair for applicants that creates a cliff edge between carers getting full NHS funding and paying out of pocket to care for loved ones. But although chance certainly plays a role in determining who gets funding and who does not, there is also a sinister practice at play—one that violates the very principles of our health service and inflicts unnecessary hardship on families across the country. That is the ever more common practice of revoking funding, and making vulnerable people appeal and fight for the right to retain the funding they should have had all along. We see the same pattern emerging with benefit claimants and home-to-school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities. In the vast majority of cases, after all the time and energy wasted by applicants and assessors, the decision is overturned.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that, during these very difficult times, families want to give their loved ones who are not well all their attention, but these situations are usually so adversarial, involving lengthy legal processes that cost local authorities hundreds of thousands of pounds, only for the decision to be overturned and the family to win in the end?

[Ayoub Khan]

I absolutely agree. There is an unnecessary burden on families to start off with, and when the appeal process can take months and it is difficult for families to secure representation—they may end up representing themselves—that causes them further anxiety. I agree that there needs to be a review of the whole system, because it is a further bottleneck in an already very stressful situation for families. I will come to an example of a family I am trying to assist in that regard.

In many cases, decisions are overturned and the status quo is restored. We must be honest about what is driving this. It is the same culture of cuts and austerity, sweeping across this Government and the previous one, that is to blame for the crisis. Independent analysis shows that CHC spending decreased by 42% in 2024 compared with previous years, even as need continued to grow. That is not because people are suddenly less ill, but because access is being constrained.

Investigations have also revealed that private companies are being contracted to review CHC eligibility and, in some cases, to reduce care packages, raising serious ethical concerns about profit being tied to cuts in vital care provision. A system where decisions are not always driven by clinical need but by cost containment will inevitably fail to protect and care for some of our most vulnerable individuals.

My constituent Daniel has experienced the injustice of the CHC process at first hand. He suffers from severe learning difficulties, autism, anxiety and behaviour of distress, and is cared for by his elderly parents, Linda and Dave. In order to receive the proper care, Daniel is supported every day by six personal assistants, all of whom are being paid thanks to CHC funding. After an annual review in January last year, it was confirmed that his condition had not changed and therefore his funding ought to continue, and yet, since a spontaneous and unwarranted review of the decision, Daniel’s eligibility has been under excessive and unreasonable scrutiny. The reassessment directly contravened the national framework for CHC, which states that a full reassessment must be arranged only if there is

“clear evidence of a change in needs to such an extent that it may impact on the individual’s eligibility”.

The saga was concluded two weeks ago when, despite providing no clinical rationale for the “significant change” in Daniel’s medical needs, the care board revoked his funding, leaving his parents to foot the bill for his care. For more than a year, Linda and Dave have carried on their fight against the care board’s impropriety, which has understandably come at a great financial, emotional and personal toll, all while continuing to care for Daniel. Unfortunately, Daniel’s story is neither exceptional nor surprising. It shows how many of those reliant on Government support are being stripped of it in the blink of an eye.

The stories of Daniel and so many others show exactly what is wrong with the system. Since 2017, despite an ageing population and increasing complexity of need, the number of people eligible for CHC has fallen by more than 9%. Over the same period, the proportion of people found eligible after a full assessment has dropped dramatically, from around 31% to just 18.6%. That means that more people are being assessed, but fewer are receiving support.

For families, that often means a gruelling process, characterised by a mire of lengthy assessments, appeals, delays and uncertainty, at the most difficult time of their lives. Confusion, exhaustion and distress are mainstays of that process. Even for those who are fortunate enough to be granted CHC funding, it can be withdrawn upon review, leaving families in a state of permanent anxiety that they could be plunged back into crisis at any moment.

Behind every statistic is a family caring for a loved one with dementia, a neurological condition or even a severe disability—a family forced to give up work, drain their savings or even sell their home, all while navigating a system that is rigged against them from the start.

Meningitis Outbreak

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can reassure him that, through partners in the NHS, we are ensuring that antibiotics are available to GPs to prevent students from necessarily having to return to Canterbury, especially if they have travelled a long distance to get home. There is obviously a widespread public awareness of the outbreak, so in all our NHS settings there will be a particular vigilance for these types of cases, which are rapidly reported. I am also reassured by the extent to which contact tracing with UKHSA is effective, and people are responding accordingly.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I, too, would like to express my condolences to the families and loved ones of the two young people who have passed away, and send my best wishes to those who are in hospital. As the father of a daughter at university, I cannot imagine what they must be going through.

Many students have expressed to newspapers such as The Guardian their concerns about returning home where they have vulnerable loved ones, citing a mother coming back from hospital or those who live with their grandparents. Does the Health Secretary have any advice for students returning home to loved ones on not spreading the disease to them?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. It is worth bearing in mind that the transmission of this particular disease is through close and prolonged personal contact. Therefore, the risk of transmission is much lower than other outbreaks of disease we have seen in this country in recent years, in particular respiratory diseases and some of the concerns people had around flu over the winter. We are actively contact tracing and making antibiotics available. It is for individuals to make their own judgments about their own risk of exposure, and what that means in terms of close personal contact. More generally, if students returning home from university are sat next to someone on a train, for example, that is not close prolonged personal contact. I hope that reassures people that, through contact tracing, the availability of antibiotics and the standing up of the targeted vaccination campaign, we are actively managing the risk of transmission, and that the risk to the general public is very low.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend. We are determined to have co-located UTCs; I know that that is a matter for the local commissioner, but I am happy to talk about it further.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Vista is a 160-year-old charity serving people in Leicester and Leicestershire who are suffering from visual disabilities. Last year alone, it served 21,000 people, but sadly, it faces imminent closure if it cannot raise £2 million by the end of March. If that happens, the devastating effect on the national health service and the social care service will be unimaginable, so will the Minister meet me and other local MPs, as well as representatives of University Hospitals of Leicester, to discuss what we can do to save Vista?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and pay tribute to Vista for the outstanding work it is doing. Improving IT connectivity is a vital part of what we are doing, and the single point of access project is of relevance in that context. I would be more than happy if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me so that we can look at the issue he has raised.