Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what evidence his Department has received on the potential over-diagnosis of mental health conditions and neurodivergence.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The most recent evidence about the prevalence of mental health conditions and neurodiversity comes from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2023/24, which provides data on the prevalence of both treated and untreated mental health disorders and neurodevelopmental conditions in the English adult population.

The survey found that common mental health conditions among adults, especially young adults, have become more widespread over time. There has also been a noticeable increase in the number of adults screening positive for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In contrast, the prevalence of autism in adults has remained steady over the years.

We are deeply concerned that many adults, young people, and children with mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism have been let down by services and are not receiving timely or appropriate support and treatment. That is why we have launched an independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism.

The review will examine the similarities and differences between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism, focusing on prevalence, prevention, treatment, and current challenges in clinical services. It will assess how diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment impact individual outcomes, including the risks and benefits of medicalisation, and will identify approaches to provide varied support models and pathways, both within and beyond the National Health Service, that promote prevention and early intervention alongside clinical care.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93696, what recent steps he has taken to implement the UK Rare Diseases Framework commitment to faster diagnosis; and how this is reflected in changes to the newborn screening programme.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government is committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases. Helping patients get a final diagnosis faster is one of the four priorities of the UK Rare Diseases Framework. We published the annual England action plan in February 2025, where we report on the steps we have taken to advance this priority. This year's plan updated on research we have commissioned to better understand what causes delays in diagnosis; the Generation Study to pilot whole genome sequencing of newborns in the National Health Service; and the work of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service.

The current NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme enables early identification, referral and treatment of babies with 10 rare but serious conditions. In the United Kingdom, new screening programmes and modifications to existing screening programmes are recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). The UK NSC recommended newborn screening for hereditary tyrosinaemia type 1 in June 2022. The NHS began to offer it routinely in October 2025. An in-service evaluation (ISE) of screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency was launched in 2021 and closed on 27 October 2025. At the June 2023 UK NSC meeting, the Committee supported the need for a new independent model for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and agreed to plan for the SMA ISE. Evidence was published in August 2025, and is available at the following link:

https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/08/07/uk-nsc-publishes-sma-screening-evidence-documents/

Planning and development work to shape the ISE of newborn screening for SMA is ongoing.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of changes in the diagnosis rates of mental health conditions and neurodivergence in England in the last five years.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

No assessment has been made. The independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism will examine the similarities and differences between these conditions, focusing on prevalence, prevention, treatment, and current challenges in clinical services.

It will assess how diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment impact individual outcomes, including the risks and benefits of medicalisation, and will identify approaches to provide varied support models and pathways, both within and beyond the National Health Service, that promote prevention and early intervention alongside clinical care.

The report will include recommendations for responding to rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the average ambulance response time for Category 2 calls was in rural parts of the East Midlands in each of the last 12 months; and how this compares with response times in urban areas in the region.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

We acknowledge that ambulance performance has not consistently met expectations in recent years, and we are taking serious steps to improve performance across the country, including rural and semi-urban areas. That is why we published our Urgent and Emergency Care Plan for 2025/26, backed by almost £450 million of capital investment, which commits to reducing ambulance response times for Category 2 incidents to 30 minutes on average this year.

The NHS Constitutional standards for ambulance response time metrics are measured with an average figure as well as a 90th centile standard which means that trusts are held to account for the response times they provide to all patients, improving the performance management of the ‘long tail’ of delayed ambulance responses that we know can particularly affect rural and semi-urban areas. In the East Midlands, the latest NHS England figures show a 22-minute improvement in the Category 2 90th centile response time compared with last year.

We have already seen improvements in ambulance response times for the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (EMAS). The latest National Health Service performance figures for EMAS show that Category 2 incidents were responded to in 46 minutes and 55 seconds on average, over 11 minutes faster than the same period last year.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of ambulance response times in rural areas of the East Midlands; and what steps are being taken to improve response times in those communities.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

We acknowledge that ambulance performance has not consistently met expectations in recent years, and we are taking serious steps to improve performance across the country, including rural and semi-urban areas. That is why we published our Urgent and Emergency Care Plan for 2025/26, backed by almost £450 million of capital investment, which commits to reducing ambulance response times for Category 2 incidents to 30 minutes on average this year.

The NHS Constitutional standards for ambulance response time metrics are measured with an average figure as well as a 90th centile standard which means that trusts are held to account for the response times they provide to all patients, improving the performance management of the ‘long tail’ of delayed ambulance responses that we know can particularly affect rural and semi-urban areas. In the East Midlands, the latest NHS England figures show a 22-minute improvement in the Category 2 90th centile response time compared with last year.

We have already seen improvements in ambulance response times for the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (EMAS). The latest National Health Service performance figures for EMAS show that Category 2 incidents were responded to in 46 minutes and 55 seconds on average, over 11 minutes faster than the same period last year.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to address regional and rural-urban disparities in ambulance response times, with reference to the performance of East Midlands Ambulance Service.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

We acknowledge that ambulance performance has not consistently met expectations in recent years, and we are taking serious steps to improve performance across the country, including rural and semi-urban areas. That is why we published our Urgent and Emergency Care Plan for 2025/26, backed by almost £450 million of capital investment, which commits to reducing ambulance response times for Category 2 incidents to 30 minutes on average this year.

The NHS Constitutional standards for ambulance response time metrics are measured with an average figure as well as a 90th centile standard which means that trusts are held to account for the response times they provide to all patients, improving the performance management of the ‘long tail’ of delayed ambulance responses that we know can particularly affect rural and semi-urban areas. In the East Midlands, the latest NHS England figures show a 22-minute improvement in the Category 2 90th centile response time compared with last year.

We have already seen improvements in ambulance response times for the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (EMAS). The latest National Health Service performance figures for EMAS show that Category 2 incidents were responded to in 46 minutes and 55 seconds on average, over 11 minutes faster than the same period last year.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he has made an assessment of the sustainability of prosthetics and orthotics apprenticeship provision in England; and what steps she is taking to support its continuation.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

The department works closely with the Department for Health and Social Care to support the availability of a diverse range of training routes into health and care careers. We have worked with the health and care sector to design the Level 6 prosthetics and orthotics and Level 6 therapeutic radiography standards. These are approved for delivery and information about these standards, including funding bands, is published here and here.

Apprenticeship providers are independent bodies responsible for making their own decisions about which courses they deliver.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he has made an assessment of the adequacy of therapeutic radiography apprenticeship provision; and what steps she is taking to support the long-term viability of those courses.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

The department works closely with the Department for Health and Social Care to support the availability of a diverse range of training routes into health and care careers. We have worked with the health and care sector to design the Level 6 prosthetics and orthotics and Level 6 therapeutic radiography standards. These are approved for delivery and information about these standards, including funding bands, is published here and here.

Apprenticeship providers are independent bodies responsible for making their own decisions about which courses they deliver.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent engagement his Department has had with the devolved Administrations in relation to the recommendations of The Hughes Report, published on 7 February 2024; and whether any Ministerial-level discussions are planned with the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

While health is predominantly devolved, the Department holds some reserved functions and working together across the United Kingdom on health and social care is ingrained in the values of our National Health Service and social care sector.

The Patient Safety Commissioner’s report covered England-only, however, any response by the Government to the recommendations of the Hughes Report in England will likely have implications for the devolved administrations and their constituents. Engagement between officials across the UK occurs regularly and during an Inter-Ministerial Group meeting on 11 December 2025, the Hughes report was discussed and ministers across the four nations agreed to meet in January 2026 for further engagement.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93697, what the average time taken was by the UK National Screening Committee to evaluate proposals for additions to the newborn screening programme; and what steps he is taking to reduce the time taken for decision-making on rare disease screening.

Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The process from a proposal to screen newborns for a condition, to a decision whether to roll out a national screening programme is multi staged, and the time taken will vary from one condition to the next. This includes procuring evidence products, securing funding, decision on whether to proceed to another evidence product, modelling if required, and evaluation in the National Health Service if needed.

The time for assessment depends entirely on the amount of evidence available and the ability of the screening team to commission and receive evidence reviews. A routine assessment for screening for a new bloodspot condition can take anything from a few months from an open call request to a published evidence map through to one to two years if there is evidence and modelling is required.

A recent example is the implementation of screening for tyrosinaemia in the NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme, where work began over five years ago. Another example is newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy where planning for an in-service evaluation is ongoing, and the first evidence review was over seven years ago.

The United Kingdom is not an outlier in terms of the time between first consideration of a proposal to roll out of a programme. France and The Netherlands are estimated to take approximately 10 years.

Reviewing the case for screening for rare conditions can be difficult due to a lack of good quality evidence. The UK National Screening Committee has started to use disease, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness modelling to estimate the effects of screening and inform its recommendations, including its recent recommendation to introduce newborn screening for tyrosinaemia.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93697, whether he has made an estimate of the differences in the number of conditions screened for in newborns between the UK and other countries such as Norway, Australia, Italy, Poland, and the Netherlands; and how those differences relate to the internationally recognised criteria used by the UK National Screening Committee.

Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Screening programmes in the United Kingdom have a more rigorous approach towards evaluating the benefits and harms of screening compared to many other countries such as the United States of America and Italy.

The independent UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), which is made up of leading medical and screening experts, advises Ministers in all four nations of the UK on the evidence on screening. Where the Committee is confident that screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme.

Some countries often cited as screening more conditions than the UK are not always running national programmes. Some countries or regions screen for a condition when it is only at the pilot or research stage. Some ‘screening programmes’ just test for a condition rather than being end-to-end quality-assured programmes that include diagnosis, treatment and care. And screening in some countries is delivered regionally, or even just by individual hospitals, rather than nationally. They are therefore not directly comparable to the national screening programmes offered in the UK.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93697, if he will meet with representatives of ArchAngel MLD Trust, the MPS Society, MLD Support UK, the LSD Collaborative, and Alex – The Leukodystrophy Charity before responding to the UK National Screening Committee’s forthcoming recommendation on Metachromatic Leukodystrophy.

Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

My rt. Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, will carefully consider a UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) recommendation on metachromatic leukodystrophy when it is presented to him, before making a decision. The Secretary of State will ask officials to meet with representatives of ArchAngel MLD Trust, the MPS Society, MLD Support UK, the LSD Collaborative, and Alex – The Leukodystrophy Charity.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2025 to Question 93697, whether he has made an estimate of the number of (a) preventable deaths and (b) cases of irreversible disability in children with Metachromatic Leukodystrophy over the last ten years; and how such outcomes are considered in UK National Screening Committee evaluations.

Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

When evaluating the evidence relating to a health condition such as metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD), the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) considers important issues relating to the condition, the test, the treatment and the effectiveness of a screening programme. Considerations of the condition include reviewing the evidence of its frequency and/or severity, prevalence and incidence.

My rt. Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is advised by the UK NSC on the evidence on screening. The Committee, which is independent and made up of leading medical and screening experts, advises Ministers in all four nations of the United Kingdom.  Where the Committee is confident that screening provides more good than harm, they recommend a screening programme.