Health and Social Care
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(4 days, 1 hour ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan
The Minister is probably about to draw his remarks to a close, but can I press him again on the mental health investment standard, which should ensure that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health goes up every year? In the last year for which we have numbers, it had gone up as a proportion of ICB spend, but had fallen as a proportion of overall NHS spend. Can the Minister commit that the Department will not be abandoning that standard, and that we will see mental health spending go up each year?
Dr Ahmed
I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending in real terms will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in real terms this year.
[Official Report, 26 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 239WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed):
Helen Maguire
The Minister is making an important point about the vital need for capital funding in the NHS. I and a number of colleagues are here in the Chamber because St Helier hospital is falling apart, and unfortunately patients are being affected, but the hospital build programme has been delayed another three years. There has been lots of goodwill in the debate, but we are looking for additional investment in the A&E. I hope the Minister will take that away, and that there might be something about it in a statement soon.
Disability Equipment Provision
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mr Betts, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate, as well as all Members who contributed.
We, of course, want disabled people to access and experience healthcare services on an equitable footing and to have a healthcare service that is responsive to their needs. That includes making sure that they have the right equipment at the right time to maintain independence for as long as possible, whether that means wheelchairs, mobility aids or other assistive technologies.
We recognise the profound impact that delays in receiving disability equipment have on people’s quality of life, and I will set out the action that the Government are taking. Before I do so, however, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the points raised by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), particularly the cases they raised. I will certainly ensure that I take a personal interest in the case described by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead and that the relevant DWP Minister also has an opportunity to address that particularly harrowing case.
The Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), asked for an update on the Design for Life statistics on recycling and reusing, and I will get my officials to get back to her on that.
We are committed to ensuring that disabled people have access to the services and support that they need. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), asked about our NHS reforms and whether that might be an opportunity to think about better end-to-end commissioning and strategising on the topic. I can assure him that those conversations are being had both in the context of disability and, with regard to special educational needs and disabilities, in the Department for Education. There are a number of topics that, if we are honest with ourselves, have been often neglected in the last couple of decades and have a material impact on the quality of life for disabled people, sometimes for want of very simple changes to practice and, potentially, legislation, so I am very happy to take that on board with the Bill team.
The reforms that we are taking forward in the health and social care space will hopefully help us to achieve what I have outlined. The 10-year health plan specifically identifies disabled people as a priority group for the development of neighbourhood healthcare, offering more holistic and ongoing support. We are making £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with ’25-26, to support the sector in making some of those improvements. In July ’25, the Government announced that they would develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. That of course aligns with every Department having a Minister responsible for disability. We meet regularly to discuss challenges, particularly some of the ones highlighted during this debate, which often do not fit neatly into one Department’s purview.
As hon. Members will be aware, health and social care are largely devolved across the UK. I will talk mainly about England, but of course I am the representative of a Scottish constituency, like the hon. Member who opened the debate, and he will understand if I just mention that we are committed, through the Barnett formula, to funding the NHS in Scotland, as we are doing in England; there is a £9.1 billion real-terms uplift in the Scottish budget over the period of the spending review.
In England, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services to meet the health needs of their local population, and responsibility for providing community equipment to disabled people typically falls at the moment, as has been outlined, to local authorities. They have a statutory duty to make arrangements for the provision of community equipment to disabled people in their area. That equipment can be free for the recipient if the person is assessed as having eligible needs. Types of support include equipment to enable people to live more independently, such as grab rails, walking aids and wheelchairs for short-term use. Responsibility for managing the market for these services rests with local authorities.
For people with long-term, complex mobility needs, support is provided by the national health service, based on assessed need. That may involve the provision of specialist equipment adapted to the specific needs of the individual, and can include both powered and manual wheelchairs.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As someone who, growing up, spent a long time on children’s wards at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital and relied on disability equipment, I know that often this service provision is very patchy. Whizz Kidz has described the system as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured” and I have also heard that from constituents in Beckenham and Penge. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the Government should look at how we can ensure that high standards are common right across the country on this?
Dr Ahmed
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He always channels personal experience in such a productive way and he is a credit to this House in the way he conducts himself. I remember his maiden speech with great fondness in that regard. I do agree, and I will come later in my speech to how we can maintain quality more persistently across the whole system.
Access to temporary wheelchair provision to support hospital discharge is also determined locally by ICBs. We recognise that elements of the NHS—despite it being on the road to recovery—are functioning below par and that many people are waiting too long to access equipment such as wheelchairs. During the pandemic, some wheelchair services experienced lower referral rates, which led to a surge in referrals post pandemic. Because of that, providers not only reduced their services but now, of course, face a backlog of referrals. That has meant unacceptable waiting times for both adults and—sadly—children, and those have fluctuated as services work to recover.
However, action is being taken to address waiting times in England. In October 2025, we published the NHS medium-term planning framework, requiring all ICBs and community health services to actively manage and reduce waits above 18 weeks and to develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting-time targets in 2026-27, and it currently monitors waiting times for children, young people and adults under
“Wheelchair, orthotics, prosthetics and equipment”.
These targets will guide the system to reduce the longest waits first.
Sir John Hayes
Have the Government made any assessment of the return and reuse of equipment? That is not always possible, as I said earlier, but it would be an incredibly powerful message to send to many of those people who have waited so long, and, I think, a very straightforward thing to do. If that assessment has not been made, will the Minister commit today to making such an assessment? That would be a positive outcome from this debate.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who raised this matter earlier in the debate. It does trouble me deeply that we have a situation in which equipment is going unused when there is that need in another part of the system. I actually feel that quite acutely. Hon. Members may know that I am a vascular surgeon; at times, unfortunately, some of my job involves having to amputate people’s limbs for end-stage vascular disease. I see for myself that transition from someone being able-bodied to needing assistance, and, where that assistance is not available, the impact that has, especially when people know there is this lack of productive exchange of equipment in the system highlighted by hon. Members today. I am therefore very happy to take the issue forward with my officials to see what can be done further to marry the demand and the supply together in the country.
Regarding wheelchair provision, NHS England has developed policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs to commission effective, efficient and personalised wheelchair services. I again nod to the remarks from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East on making sure we get better, more efficient and personalised service provision.
In April 2025, NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, developed in collaboration with the NHS England national wheelchair advisory group. The framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experience. NHS England introduced personal wheelchair budgets, including legal rights, in 2019, providing a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated. Those budgets give people greater choice over the wheelchairs that they are provided with. Additionally, the model service specification for wheelchairs sets out that wheelchair assessments should take place in the most suitable environment based on the needs of that individual.
NHS England is aware, as am I, that several complaints have been made about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. NHS England is working through the appropriate regional teams to gain intelligence from those ICBs on quality concerns and contracting arrangements, to fully understand the issues being raised.
Dr Ahmed
Well, I have not got time. I will write more fully regarding his correspondence. I am genuinely disappointed, if it is true, that he has not been responded to since September.
In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations. NHS England and the Department are developing those together to achieve better accountability. The Government are also taking wider action to support disabled people through the 10-year health plan. On neighbourhood health, the neighbourhood health service will support disabled people to have choice and control over their care. That includes increasing the uptake of personal health budgets, which provide individuals with that greater choice and control over how their health is assessed and their wellbeing needs are met.
One aim is to have a neighbourhood health centre in each community, bringing the NHS, local authority and voluntary sectors together to create a holistic offer that meets people’s needs in the place that they are. We expect these services to be designed in a way that reflects the specific needs of disabled people, with a focus on personalised, co-ordinated care. I particularly think that this is an opportunity, as we move care from hospital to the community, to address some of the concerns raised in the debate today.
On social care, the Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people. We are enabling people to have more choice and control over their care—through greater use of direct payments, for example. We are also expanding care options to boost independent living at home and have recently confirmed £723 million for the disabled facilities grant in 2026-27. The total DFG budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years. That represents an 11% increase and will support more disabled people to get the vital home adaptations that they might need.
The Better Care Fund, which took effect in April 2025, is a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better joined-up care. That can include the provision of assistive technology and equipment, such as wheelchairs. This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment, and we have introduced care technology standards to help them to choose the right support. In addition, as we move from hospital to community, commissioners can, if they wish, think about better co-commissioning, transcending traditional boundaries between local authorities, social care and the NHS.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this important debate and I want to respond to a question he asked. Whether we call it a strategy or a framework, there is a real opportunity at this time of change in the NHS—including the development of a national quality board at NHS England, which will come into the Department of Health and Social Care once NHS England is abolished —to genuinely think about how we define “quality” for disabled people and about the equipment and the spaces that they use. Again, I will be very happy to discuss that with my colleagues in charge of the quality board. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics that we can perhaps tease out after this debate today.
We recognise the life-changing impact that having timely access to suitable disability equipment can have on the lives of disabled people across the United Kingdom, in every nation. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that all disabled people have access to the services and support that they need to live a fulfilling life; the presence of disability Ministers in each Department is certainly progress in that regard. Our work to reform health and social care, alongside the new plan for disability, will also help us to achieve that.
Funeral Directors: Regulation
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this important debate and for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) highlighted, I was here at this Dispatch Box not so long ago responding to him on the same topic.
We all recognise the profound importance of ensuring dignity, safety and high quality standards of care for people during life and after they die. Bereaved families place immense trust in funeral directors to guide and support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times of our lives and to ensure that our loved ones are laid to rest with the utmost respect. They rightly expect that high standards, professional conduct and appropriate oversight are firmly in place. However, these deeply troubling cases, including the appalling events in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Gosport and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), demonstrate that his trust cannot always be assumed.
Although these cases are rare, they have revealed serious weaknesses in our system, as the hon. Member for Gosport has adumbrated this evening. Unacceptable and distressing incidents, such as bodies being stored or treated in ways that cause deep anguish, were able to occur. In some instances, the police lacked the powers they needed to act. In the case of Elkin and Bell, the two funeral directors in the hon. Lady’s constituency, charges included intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance, the common law offence of preventing the lawful and decent burial of a body, and carrying on a business with intent to defraud creditors or another fraudulent purpose.
The Ministry of Justice is actively exploring options to strengthen criminal law protections for the deceased, including the potential for new offences as outlined in the Law Commission’s 14th programme of work. This work will identify gaps in the current law and whether new offences are needed to address behaviours that fail to treat a deceased person with dignity and respect. I am pleased to say that we have already taken steps to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased.
My Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to phase 2 of the Fuller inquiry. In December 2025, the Government published our interim update, outlining the progress made against the 75 recommendations. Of those, 11 have been accepted in full, 43 are accepted in principle and 21 remain under consideration. The 11 recommendations accepted in full cover standards, data and operating procedures in the wider health sector. Highlights include the Human Tissue Authority’s publication of updated guidance on 1 December to ensure that adverse incidents in the anatomy sector are recorded, and NHS England’s agreement to introduce data collection on conveying deceased patients in ambulances for the first time in 2026-27.
Since I was last here at the Dispatch Box responding to the hon. Member for North Dorset, the Human Tissue Authority has also issued universal and generic best practice guidance for those responsible for the care and dignity of the deceased, including organisations not formally regulated by the HTA. That point is particularly pertinent in relation to the hon. Member for Gosport’s comments about the increasing number of direct cremations. In addition, the HTA has begun reviewing its codes of practice. That process will continue into 2026-27. The review may lead to changes to the current guidance in light of the Fuller inquiry recommendations, and it will help us to consider whether the codes could be applied and used by other settings.
Before turning to the discussion about the options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, I want to remind the House how we got here. Following the unspeakable crimes committed by David Fuller, the last Government established an independent inquiry, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care, to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such unlawful and abhorrent acts in hospital mortuaries, and how those actions went unnoticed. I must make it clear that crimes such as David Fuller’s are extremely rare. However, that will come as little consolation to the families involved. At this point I extend my deepest sympathies to those families, who continue to bear the weight of suffering, and for whom it must be particularly triggering when debates such as this are held in the Chamber.
Phase 1 of the inquiry focused on the crimes that Fuller committed in the mortuaries at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. The phase 1 report, published in November 2023, identified failures of management, governance and regulation, as well as a lack of curiosity, which enabled Fuller to continue his repeat offending. It set out 16 recommendations for the trust and one for local councils. In February 2024, the trust published an assurance statement on the implementation of the recommendations from the report. Kent and East Sussex county councils reviewed the position and confirmed that their contracts with the trust required compliance with licensing and regulatory standards to ensure that the deceased were treated with dignity and respect.
On 15 July 2025, the inquiry panel published its final phase 2 report, which dealt with the care of the deceased in both hospital and non-hospital settings. It acknowledged that arrangements for the care of deceased people are complex and often interconnected. It clearly identified multiple organisations, with different governance and operating models, spread across a large number of sectors. It focused on whether procedures and practices in hospital and non-hospital settings, including the funeral sector, were doing enough to safeguard the security of the deceased, and it considered the role of regulators.
The overall recommendation of the inquiry’s chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, was for the Government to introduce an independent statutory regulatory regime to protect the security and dignity of people after death in all settings where deceased individuals are cared for, regardless of the institution, including funeral directors. Eleven of the phase 2 recommendations relate to the introduction of statutory regulation, including regulation of the funeral sector. They remain under consideration. Through the Fuller inquiry recommendations programme board, established in July last year, work continues apace with the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess options for Government intervention to improve standards of care for the deceased in the funeral sector, and, as such, to respond to the recommendations.
Mark Sewards
Can the Minister tell me whether any meeting has taken place between those Departments, or whether one is going to take place, and if so, when?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading my speech. I can assure him that meetings had taken place before my appointment as the Minister responsible for the aspects of the regulations relating to the Department of Health and Social Care. I can also confirm that further meetings are taking place, at my instruction, with the relevant Departments—hosted by me in the Department of Health and Social Care—so that we can genuinely move forward. I know that there is consensus across the House that we must move forward, genuinely and expediently, not only in aligning lines of demarcation and responsibility across those Departments, but in genuinely working together and showing leadership on this issue. I shall be happy to keep the hon. Members who are interested updated on those meetings when they take place.
This is a complex and sensitive matter that requires careful and thoughtful consideration to safeguard the rights and dignity of those who have died, to support their bereaved families, and to ensure that any measures taken are proportionate, given that we are working with a number of small and medium-sized enterprises. To support this work, I am continuing to discuss progress and next steps with relevant Ministers across Government, as I said in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). The Government are continuing to consider all options to ensure that high standards are upheld consistently across the funeral sector, and that includes the possibility of introducing suitable and proportionate regulation for funeral directors.
As we discuss these options, we are clear about the need for the approach to maintain high standards, protect the dignity of the deceased and support bereaved families, recognising that any additional costs arising from regulation will ultimately fall on them. At the same time, we must consider the impact on the funeral sector itself.
The funeral sector comprises 6,500 private businesses across the UK, the vast majority of which serve their communities with compassion and integrity, as we have heard tonight. Some 85% are already members of trade bodies that provide guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection schemes. The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on businesses by 25%, and that will contribute to our approach to regulation in this area.
Simon Hoare
Is the Minister, and other Ministers who are involved in this area, fully seized of the fact that this is a very unusual situation, in that the professional bodies and the lion’s share of practitioners are calling for regulation? It is very unusual that they want to see regulation.
Dr Ahmed
I am very cognisant of that fact. We will discuss in our interministerial meetings how we can involve the profession early in that regard.
While the vast majority of funeral directors already operate with professionalism, the actions of a small minority have undermined public confidence. We are determined to ensure the security, dignity and care of the deceased across all settings. That is why we are committed to setting out the Government’s decision on regulation in our full response to the Fuller inquiry phase 2 report in summer 2026.
Question put and agreed to.
National Institute for Health and Care: Capital Investment for Research
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Today I am pleased to announce that DHSC, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, is awarding £47.8 million to fund equipment that will help the NHS to deliver high-quality commercial research. This investment includes funding from the voluntary branded medicines pricing, access and growth investment programme.
This funding is being awarded to 51 NHS trusts and 79 primary care organisations across England to pay for cutting-edge equipment, building refurbishments and modular buildings essential for delivering research within the NHS and primary care settings. This investment will allow the NHS to expand its capacity for commercial clinical trials, helping patients access new medicines through research and strengthening the UK's reputation as a global leader for delivering world-class clinical trials.
In this 2025 award, eligibility was expanded beyond NHS trusts to include primary care organisations, ensuring that providers across the NHS are equipped to deliver commercial research.
Funding has been allocated to organisations across England, from Cornwall to Cumbria, with the majority of awards going to organisations outside the greater south-east. The deployment of mobile research vans in Leicestershire, Essex and Norfolk will enhance access to research for patients in underserved areas. Refurbishment of existing, underutilised spaces in primary care organisation across Devon, South Yorkshire and the east midlands will improve clinical research capacity in the community. These investments support the NHS 10-year health plan’s goals of shifting care from hospitals into communities and improving equitable access to the latest health and care innovations, through research.
The awards will address current barriers to delivering commercial clinical trials, including limited access to equipment, support services such as imaging and pharmacies, and space constraints. Funding is being awarded for specialty pharmacy facilities, including in Norwich, Plymouth and London will enable the delivery of innovative treatments.
There is also funding for cutting-edge equipment and technology. Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust was successful in its application for equipment to deliver non-invasive ultrasound-based therapy to destroy tumours without surgery or radiation. Oxford health NHS foundation trust is receiving funding for imaging and diagnostic equipment for sleep, dementia and depression research. Primary care organisations in Dunstable, Wigan, and Birmingham were successful in their applications for essential monitoring equipment to support research in respiratory diseases. Funding for this specialist equipment enables development of novel treatments through innovative research and supports the UK’s position as an attractive place for innovative companies to invest in research.
While the equipment and increased capacity for clinical trials funded by this award is primarily for commercial research, when not in use in this way, equipment such as ultrasound and MRI scanners may be used for routine clinical care and to help cut waiting lists. This will ensure there is enhanced capacity in our NHS to perform more procedures and diagnostic tests, speeding up treatment times and ensuring the benefit from this funding award is felt across the board.
[HCWS1377]
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
In response to the covid-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 in autumn 2020 to enable the roll-out of the covid-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. Those amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and are due to lapse on 1 April 2026.
This instrument will retain several provisions within those regulations as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. It is designed to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as the wider lessons learned during the pandemic and in recent polio and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine catch-up programmes. It will support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider group of vaccines, helping the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future.
I will briefly set out what each of the regulations does. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A enable trained healthcare professionals, or staff under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals, to conduct the final stage of assembly and preparation of covid-19 vaccines, without additional marketing authorisations or a manufacturer’s licence being required. That enabled the bulk assembly of covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Given the more targeted approach of recent covid-19 vaccination campaigns, this instrument allows the provisions in paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A to lapse from 1 April this year.
Paragraphs (3) and (4) of regulation 3A permit holders of a wholesale dealer’s licence who do not hold a manufacturer’s licence to re-label covid-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease. That will enable a more efficient use of the capable vaccinator workforce, and will support further flexibilities in our supply chain.
Regulation 19 allows covid-19 and influenza vaccines to be moved between different NHS service providers at the end of the supply chain, without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease, with relevant safeguards to regulate its use. That will ensure that vaccines can be rapidly deployed in exceptional circumstances in response to public health needs.
Regulation 247A enables the use of an extended workforce who are legally and safely able to administer covid-19 or influenza vaccines without the input of a prescriber, using an approved protocol. This instrument allows regulation 247A to lapse from 1 April 2026, and introduces a new, permanent provision—regulation 235A —to continue the use of an extended vaccinator workforce through the introduction of a vaccine group direction. That will support the use of an extended workforce to administer any vaccine against any infectious disease where directed by a national body, and will ensure that the UK has the necessary agility and flexibility in its workforce to deliver those vaccinations.
Regulation 233 enables persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccination services off their registered premises, under a patient group direction. This instrument expands that provision to include any vaccine against an infectious disease. Additionally, to enable those services to continue after paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3 lapse from 1 April this year, this instrument amends regulation 3 to enable pharmacists to prepare or assemble medicines for a patient in the course of their treatment without a manufacturer’s licence. That will ensure that community pharmacies can deliver vaccination services off their registered premises, enabling them to deliver targeted outreach programmes.
Schedule 17 introduced a category of occupational health vaccinators, who are permitted under the written directions of a doctor to administer covid-19 and influenza vaccines as part of an NHS or local authority occupational health scheme. This instrument amends the list of professionals able to deliver OHS vaccinations, aligning it with the professionals able to supply medicines under a patient group direction. In addition, it expands the scope of schedule 17 to cover any vaccination or immunisation offered as part of an OHS. Those changes will improve access to vaccines for staff within and beyond the health and social care sector, protecting them in the vital roles that they do.
In developing this statutory instrument, from 5 September to 28 November 2025, the Government conducted a public consultation on our proposals, hosted by the Department of Health and Social Care for England, Wales and Scotland, and jointly with the Department of Health for Northern Ireland, as medicines regulation is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, and a reserved matter in Scotland and Wales. The consultation received 218 responses, from organisations and individuals sharing professional and personal views, the majority of which were supportive of the proposals.
We received many positive comments about how the flexibilities within the regulations have helped to increase access and efficiency across the system, while effectively utilising the workforce that came into place to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccinations following the covid-19 pandemic. The consultation posed 15 questions on the technical aspects of the regulations, and we saw broad agreement on each of those proposals. Given the technical nature of the questions and the limited time the Committee has to discuss this instrument, I will not provide an immediate analysis of each response here; however, the published Government response can be accessed on the gov.uk website.
This instrument builds on the successes of the large-scale vaccination programmes during the covid-19 pandemic to support patient safety, improve access to and availability of vaccines, and ensure that the vaccine system continues to innovate. The changes will implement improvements that will help to facilitate the shift from “sickness to prevention”, as described in the Government’s 10-year health plan, helping to restore trust in vaccinations and ultimately increasing vaccine uptake.
Regulations 3 and 8 will enable community pharmacies to play a bigger role in prevention by expanding their role in vaccine delivery and enabling targeted outreach in areas where health inequalities remain pervasive, and where evidence indicates that doing so is clinically appropriate and value for money. The changes will support the delivery of commitments on vaccination and immunisation frameworks in Scotland and Wales, and an instrument will be laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly in parallel to these regulations, to deliver changes to the vaccination system across the United Kingdom.
To conclude, the instrument makes changes that will permanently support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider range of vaccines, and the proposals were supported by the majority of respondents to our consultation. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee, and hope that hon. Members will support them.
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.
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
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing today’s debate and raising this important topic—as she always does. I also pay tribute to her for her long-standing advocacy on this topic and for all the work she does in the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. She is joined today by a number of hon. Members from across the House, who have made thoughtful contributions.
One hon. Member who is conspicuous by his absence—he has already been mentioned, and I informed him in advance that I would mention him too, Ms Vaz—is my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). He is my friend, and he is conspicuous because of the tireless work he does and the way he advocates for persons with eating disorders. I know that that is born out of personal interest and pain. We miss his presence here today and send him our good wishes from across the House.
It is important that we are having this debate today to note Eating Disorders Awareness Week. This year’s theme rightly places the focus on the power of community, which speaks to a simple but profound truth: no one should face an eating disorder alone. Recovery is not only about clinical treatment, vital though that is; it is also about the networks of support that surround that individual—not only health professionals, but mums, dads, grandparents, siblings, friends, teachers, colleagues and many others.
Wera Hobhouse
One of the most harrowing things that we hear again and again when taking evidence in the APPG is how families feel completely abandoned. People have to give up work, often over years, because they are meant to care for someone with a severe condition and they do not have the capacity to do so by themselves. It is only when that condition is finally so bad that the loved one is then readmitted to hospital. That revolving door must end. The human cost to that tragedy—apart from the cost to the NHS—must end. It is absolutely tragic and wrong.
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.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister is very generous with his time. I mentioned this issue in my speech and I see it across the board, not just with regard to eating disorders. The Online Safety Act provides that Ofcom can intervene, but only if the content is reported, so we are relying on often very vulnerable people to report something before Ofcom intervenes. That cannot be right. There has to be a stronger emphasis on the social media platforms actually taking down accounts very quickly and, as I have also said, ensuring that they do not just reappear under a different name.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Lady makes a really valid point. She will know, as I do, that the regulation of these platforms in relation to children’s access is a live issue at the heart of Government at the moment. She is right: the current provisions are not strong enough to be adequate safeguards. We do need more proactive intervention from our technology partners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology takes that very seriously and is pushing very hard on it in relation to not only harm in this space, but harm in general, for children online.
Ofcom ensures that services uphold these duties, including for smaller online sites. Its small but risky services taskforce has assessed 20 services relating to this harm, over half of which have been at high risk for eating disorder content. I am happy to write to my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on the back of this debate, to learn from them what further action specific to eating disorders is coming down the pipeline, and I can relay that information to hon. Members assembled in this Chamber today.
I also share the deep concern about reports of people with eating disorders being offered end-of-life care.
Dr Arthur
Before we move on to end-of-life care, I welcome the great offer that the Minister has given to reach out to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to better understand what they are doing on digital platforms. I expect that many of the people who are going to respond to the consultation around the banning of social media for under-16s will come from the healthcare profession, because of the connections between mental health and eating disorders and the use of these platforms. Will he be proactively asking for action to make sure that young people are protected? That would also mean more resources for people who have eating disorders, because hopefully fewer people would be coming forward.
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Being proactive and following the evidence should be our north star when we are formulating policy; I know that is true of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been explicit about eating disorders and end-of-life care. Anorexia nervosa is not a terminal illness in its own right. The college’s guidance on medical emergencies in eating disorders was developed precisely to ensure that preventable deaths become a thing of the past. NHS England is clear that no patient with an eating disorder should routinely be placed in palliative care. Our focus must always be on treatment and recovery, and underpinned by the hope of recovery.
We also share concerns about the accurate recordings of deaths where eating disorders may have been a contributing factor. The hon. Member for Bath outlined some of her frustrations regarding correspondence with the Ministry of Justice and I would be happy to take up that call on her behalf to make sure that she gets the correspondence that she is entitled to. The statutory medical examiner and coroner system provides a clear framework to ensure that deaths are properly investigated and recorded so that lessons are identified and patient safety is strengthened.
Although it is for the coroner to exercise independent judicial discretion to determine what is recorded as the medical cause of death, I can reassure hon. Members that the coroner’s office has been undergoing training to ensure that the recording of deaths associated with eating disorders is done more accurately and proactively. Accurate recording matters, and we will continue to work with our partners, including colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and clinicians, to ensure that not only are the statistics captured, but the learning underpinning those statistics is reflected in genuine improvements to care.
Eating disorders are serious and complex mental illnesses that can affect anyone at any age and in any community or family. They require timely treatment, skilled professionals and sustained support thereafter.
Helen Morgan
The Minister is probably about to draw his remarks to a close, but can I press him again on the mental health investment standard, which should ensure that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health goes up every year? In the last year for which we have numbers, it had gone up as a proportion of ICB spend, but had fallen as a proportion of overall NHS spend. Can the Minister commit that the Department will not be abandoning that standard, and that we will see mental health spending go up each year?
Dr Ahmed
I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending in real terms will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in real terms this year. The good nature of this debate permits me to push back only gently against the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who talked about spending in the NHS, but I do feel I need to push back a little: one of the reasons why that percentage in statistical terms is lower, but the spend in real terms is higher is because we had to spend so much more money—the record £26 billion that was afforded in additional spend by the Chancellor in the Budget—in other parts of the health service to compensate for the decay and decline in the NHS over the last 14 years. But the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has my commitment to the overall philosophy that mental health spending will increase year on year.
As I was saying, eating disorders are serious and complex; over and above skilled professionals, they also require compassion, understanding and collective responsibility. Through the 10-year health plan, we are shifting care closer to home; strengthening early intervention; expanding the workforce where necessary, such as with community mental health workers; improving standards and investing in the community services that make recovery possible. We are also equipping staff with the right training, protecting young people online—while continuing to improve and explore the mechanisms through which we can do that—and working with experts and those with lived experience to ensure that the reform we are choosing to pursue delivers real and lasting change.
We know that the policy framework alone is never enough. Change also depends on the voices of campaigners, including many who join us here today, clinicians, families and those who have shared their lived experience. I can assure everyone that their advocacy continues to shape this Government’s approach, and it will continue to do so.
To those living with an eating disorder, and to the families supporting them, I want to say this: “You are not invisible. You are not alone.” This Government are committed to building a system that responds with urgency, expertise and compassion. Our task—across this House and beyond it—is to ensure that when someone reaches out for help, the system we create is ready to respond with urgency, expertise and, crucially, hope. I once again thank hon. Members for contributing to this debate and I look forward to continuing this work with colleagues from across the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mental health issues affect all ages, and the support is not always there. We are determined to change that. We have hired almost 8,000 extra mental health workers since we came into office and increased investment in mental health by an additional £688 million this year. We are also transforming services through community-based 24/7 mental health centres, providing open access to treatment and support for adults with severe mental health needs, expanding NHS talking therapies, and rolling out mental health support teams in more schools.
Dame Meg Hillier
The NHS’s work on this is vital, but I also draw the Minister’s attention to Mind in Hackney, which is pioneering a new approach to make sure that people get two sessions of mental health support within two weeks. They can get more later on, but that is what they get, rather than waiting in a queue for six months for long-term support. For many people, that, along with a long-term treatment plan, is enough. May I urge the Minister to come and visit? It is only half an hour up the road from Westminster; he could fit it in before Prime Minister’s questions.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation. She is right: we need to think of innovative ways of attacking the mental health issues that face our country, and particularly our young people. Those include digital and face-to-face therapies, both of which we are expanding at a rapid pace. I am delighted to pass on her invitation to the Minister for Mental Health.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Has the Minister had any opportunity to form conclusions about whether excessive involvement with social media and other online potential harms has contributed to an apparent significant increase in the levels of mental health disorders?
Dr Ahmed
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this very live issue. As a doctor, a parent and a Minister, it is live in my mind, as it is in the minds of hon. Members across the House. It is important that we follow the evidence, and act safely and proportionately in response to that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman will know this Government’s ambition, and the direction that we want to set to ensure that young people are kept safe online.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Analysis by Rethink Mental Illness of the latest NHS waiting time statistics shows that people are eight times more likely to wait over 18 months for mental health treatment than physical health treatment. Does the Minister agree that waiting 18 months for such treatment is totally unacceptable? What steps will the Government take to cut adult mental health waiting times?
Dr Ahmed
Absolutely; it is unacceptable that there is still a disparity between mental and physical health when it comes to investigation, diagnosis and treatment. That is why this Government are proud to put record amounts of funding for mental health into the NHS. We are also making available £473 million of capital funding for encouraging and establishing 24/7 mental health centres, alongside other capital priorities, so that people can get the right support at the right time, closer to home.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
After my young constituent was left in limbo between child and adolescent mental health services, health services and neurodevelopment pathways, with nobody claiming responsibility for her healthcare needs, her mum called 111 to get some advice. The advice she was given was, “If you’re not happy with the service, contact your MP.” With all mental health and emergency services stretched to breaking point, what tangible action are this Government taking to address the mental health crisis in our neurodiverse population, so that nobody else in my constituency is failed like this young lady?
Dr Ahmed
I think we are all distressed to hear stories like that. It is what motivates us to keep going and ensure that the NHS becomes a match-fit service for the 21st century. To reassure the hon. Lady, in addition to the investments I have already highlighted, we are also investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs, such as those she has described.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Every child with a disability should have the opportunity to reap the health and wellbeing benefits of being active. We are working across health, education and sports to break down barriers to physical activity, including for children with Down’s syndrome. That includes ensuring that they have access to inclusive, sensory-rich activities that they can enjoy with friends, families and carers.
Dr Pinkerton
I recently had a meeting with British Gymnastics, the charity Stepping Stones, and Prime Acrobatics, a wonderful and inclusive gymnastics centre in my Surrey Heath constituency. They told me that young people with Down’s syndrome are routinely prevented from taking part in physical activity and sport because of concerns about neck stability. Might the Minister be willing to take this case on, work with GPs, the NHS and other relevant bodies to review guidance in that area, and remove the barriers that can all too often prevent young people from engaging with the physical and sporting activities that are so vital to their physical and mental wellbeing?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is not the first colleague to raise that issue. Clearly, the safety of patients and children is paramount, but it must be proportionate and led by evidence. I would be very happy to explore this further with him.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work on raising the profile of this underserved area. It is simply unacceptable that disabled women are at higher risk of neonatal and perinatal mortality and stillbirth, and that they continue to experience adverse outcomes relative to the general population. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has launched an independent maternity investigation, which will help us to understand the systemic issues behind why so many families, including disabled women, experience unacceptable care.
Dr Tidball
Too often, disabled women’s bodies are deemed not to count. In the last year, I have met two incredible disabled women: Carly, a Paralympian, and Sarah, an occupational therapist. Neither found out that they were pregnant until their second and third trimesters respectively because none of their clinicians considered that they might be pregnant. But we are making babies, we are having babies—against the odds; we have a 44% higher likelihood of stillbirth—and we are being brilliant mothers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ensuring that inclusive maternity care for disabled women is at the heart of our women’s health strategy so that our womanhood is no longer invisible?
Dr Ahmed
We are so lucky to have my hon. Friend in this place, challenging us to be better—and we can be better. We need to be bolder, and we need to take decisive action to close the gap on inequalities to ensure that all women receive safe, personalised and compassionate care. We know how important inclusive maternity care is for disabled women. I note that my hon. Friend has previously had meetings with the Minister for maternity, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to meet her.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A matter of weeks ago, a power cut plunged parts of Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, into darkness and forced our maternity unit to temporarily close, particularly affecting disabled women. People had to use their iPhone torches to see. Despite that power infrastructure failure, we are way at the back of the queue for new hospital funding. Will the Minister commit to accelerating the unlocking of that cash, so that women can have the services they deserve—
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Seven months ago, the NHS 10-year plan promised a maternity taskforce. May I ask the Minister how many times it has met?
Dr Ahmed
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it has not met yet, but we are establishing it and it will be meeting soon.
Gregory Stafford
The fact that the taskforce has not even met, seven months later, tells us everything we need to know about how urgent and important the Government consider this issue. In Leeds, families are losing faith in the failing maternity services. The Secretary of State said that he takes the matter “extremely seriously”, yet Donna Ockenden—who exposed the failings in Nottingham, has the support of families, and has said that she is ready and willing to lead the inquiry—has not been appointed. If the Minister and the Secretary of State take this issue extremely seriously, why have they not appointed a chair yet?
Dr Ahmed
I see that the brass neck of the hon. Gentlemen’s predecessor has been transplanted to him. He talks about seven months, but what about the last 14 years, through which the Conservatives presided over the decay and decline of our NHS? They failed our patients and the clinicians who serve them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with maternity families and, like me, he takes the matter extremely seriously. He will report to this House on the outcome of his deliberations on a regular basis.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
This UK Labour Government, at least, are spending billions of pounds upgrading the digital architecture of the NHS in England. That means that over 90% of GPs now offer appointments online, and by 2029 we will have a single patient record for patients and their clinicians to access all their information. That is in contrast with the digital desert that exists in Scotland, which is why it is time for Analogue John to move over and make way for Anas Sarwar as First Minster to save Scotland’s NHS.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
Glasgow is a great place to get medical care—I can attest to that—but people should not have to travel 200 miles to get medical care. My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions on this topic, and I am very glad to continue those discussions. She knows that treatment along the border is subject to service-level agreements in both English trusts and Scottish health boards, but it should be much more porous and accommodating than it is. I am happy to take these discussions with her further later.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Catherine from Redbourn has shared that she has to wait weeks for a GP appointment, yet her village faces an increase in residents of up to 70%, which means thousands of new patients. Some of that is through speculative developments. Does the Minister agree that councils should have the powers to ensure that planning approvals are dependent on first securing healthcare to serve those new residents? Will he commit to ensuring that NHS planning cycles are aligned with housing developments to ensure that communities do not have to wait for weeks, months or years?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
Mental health support teams provide innovative early support for children and young people in schools and colleges, and I am pleased that these are working well in Bracknell Forest, too. Up to 900,000 additional pupils will have access to that support by the spring, and we are accelerating the roll-out to reach full national coverage by 2029.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Several weeks ago, I received a jaw-dropping email from a local Bromsgrove GP, who told me that a 10-month-old child nearly died after ambulance delays. Worse, the same day, another patient—a 66-year-old driving instructor—suffered a cardiac arrest during a driving lesson and died while being driven to the hospital by his wife. My constituents demand a better service and better response times. What are the Government going to do about this, and will the Secretary of State meet me and the concerned GP who wrote to me to address this issue?
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, Darlington Memorial hospital is part of the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust, which has recently been marred by the scandal of over-operation in breast services. We know that many women came to harm as a result of those failures, but we are yet to find out how many and the full extent of the harm because the trust has not completed the comprehensive look-back. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that our trust has all the resources it needs to learn the lessons necessary to ensure that no women—whether in my area or across the country—have invasive and painful clinical procedures that they do not need?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend and I have had discussions regarding this matter before. Patient safety is of paramount importance, especially when it comes to surgery, including breast surgery. I am happy to meet her to discuss this further at a ministerial surgery.
Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the withholding of Pharmacy First payments to pharmacies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to take the traditional Department of Health and Social Care urgent question before recess—I would not miss it for the world.
Since coming into office, we have reversed the decade of cuts to community pharmacy with the biggest uplift for the sector in years and frozen prescription charges to help our constituents with the cost of living, and women can now get the morning-after pill free of charge across the country. Earlier this week, I spoke to the National Pharmacy Association’s winter reception to pay tribute to its members for their work and to assure them that I have their back, as does the Minister for Care.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises the important issue of payments made via Pharmacy First. As he knows, pharmacy contractors receive a monthly fixed payment if they meet certain requirements. We agreed to reduce the claim window, in conjunction with Community Pharmacy England, as part of our deal for 2025-26 to introduce a new Pharmacy First fixed first payment of £500. That has supported a broader range of pharmacies and has meant that more pharmacies have become eligible for payments. We are in discussions with Community Pharmacy England to consider where improvements to the claiming process can be made, address concerns raised by contractors and aim for a more consistent approach to remuneration. We will also consult with Community Pharmacy England shortly on the contractual framework for next year.
There are issues relating to contractors being suspended from providing Pharmacy First that are for separate consideration. When concerns are raised, NHS England can suspend individual contractors from providing the service pending a full investigation. There are a number of reasons why that might be necessary, but the measures are there, first and foremost, as the House will appreciate, to protect patient safety. I am a clinician, as is the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, and I am sure that he will agree that patient safety should be at the forefront of everything we do.
Finally, funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework has been increased to over £3 billion—the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the last two years. As part of this year’s contractual framework, we have agreed to keep the current cost control mechanism linked to Pharmacy First that we inherited from the previous Government to ensure that the money is spent within that envelope. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
Dr Evans
It is a regret that I have had to summon the Minister here to answer questions, and surprise, surprise—
Dr Evans
I of course withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for summoning the Minister on my behalf. It seems to have had the desired effect, because the outstanding parliamentary questions have, strangely enough, been answered this morning. I hope to get some clarity as this is really important.
The issue has been explained simply by the chair of the National Pharmacy Association:
“The work was done. Patients were treated. The NHS benefited. Yet payments are being withheld on a technicality.”
What makes that worse is that many pharmacies do not even realise that some of the money is missing. He goes on:
“Statements appear ‘successful’, yet Pharmacy First payments are absent. Contractors are only discovering the issue long after the window has closed, when it’s already too late.”
Will the Minister tell the House how many pharmacies the Government think are impacted? What is the total value of the outstanding payments? What steps are the Government taking to rectify this, and would they consider a late payment mechanism to help solve the issue?
There is a wider concern. Payments are administered by the NHS Business Services Authority. The chair of the NPA labelled the behaviour of NHSBSA “outrageous”. That already follows repeat concerns about NHSBSA’s performance, including multiple serious delays in NHS pension processing and several urgent questions on the Floor of the House. Does the Minister still retain confidence in NHSBSA? Given the ongoing concerns from multiple fields, will he commission a review of the operational performance of the entire NHSBSA?
Community pharmacies are already under intense pressure from this Government, with tax rises on employment and business rates and with increases in costs, and now they appear not to be being paid for work already done. I hope the Minister will act quickly to put this right.
Dr Ahmed
As the hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—the current remuneration method was agreed in conjunction with the sector. The adjustment was agreed with the sector’s representative body, Community Pharmacy England. Advance notice of the change was provided to those contractors by letter and in an article published by the NHS Business Services Authority in May 2025. In addition, Community Pharmacy England knows that, should this be a priority issue for it to negotiate in the next contract, we will take that on board and use it as an option.
There are of course always extenuating circumstances, such as IT not working. Officials have reassured me that, following discussions with Community Pharmacy England, we have introduced specific provisions in the drug tariff that will allow pharmacy contractors to receive payment for claims that were delayed due to IT issues outside of its control.
I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman wants to expand the remit of the urgent question across primary care—well, let me tell him. I know he had neck surgery recently; I did not realise they put a brass neck in him as well when they did it. He knows what kind of NHS decline and decay over which he and his Government presided over the past 15 years: primary care where people are left wandering around asking for GPs, and the Conservatives left GPs on the scrapheap, unemployed. This Government ensured, when they came into office, that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, one of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to be me. Please can we have a little bit more calm? You have come in as the supporting Minister to the Secretary of State. I want you to set the example and not be the naughty one.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to learn the rules between us, Minister. Dr Luke Evans, I have granted you this urgent question. Quite rightly, I wanted your question to be heard by the Minister; I did not want any interruption. I expect you to listen to the answer without interruption.
Dr Ahmed
This Government take our responsibilities seriously in providing an effective 21st-century primary-care NHS, free at the point of care. That is why when we came into power we ensured that the pharmacy sector had the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the past two years—£3.1 billion. To support primary care further, we ensured that GPs who could not find employment found it under this Labour Government. It is only this Government that can modernise the NHS, make it free at the point of care and ensure that it is a high-quality service going forward.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My constituent Raj Matharu runs the brilliant Westchem pharmacy in West Wickham, is CEO of Community Pharmacy South East London, and last year was shortlisted for community pharmacist of the year. I have heard from residents across West Wickham how his pharmacy provides trusted and frictionless access to healthcare and advice across a range of issues. Pharmacy First can both provide a quicker, easier service for patients and relieve pressure on primary care. What support have the Government put in place for community pharmacies, especially in relation to funding?
Dr Ahmed
As I have stated, we have given pharmacies a record £3.1 billion settlement. We absolutely endorse the need for pharmacies to do more in our communities. We are enabling pharmacists up and down the country to expand their repertoire, and we are ensuring that Pharmacy First remuneration is a dynamic process, month on month, that reflects the activity that each pharmacy is doing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Pharmacists play a crucial role in supporting the health service by reducing the pressure on overcrowded hospitals and GP surgeries. They also play a crucial role in local communities by providing access to treatment when appointments remain hard to come by elsewhere. But pressure on pharmacists is severe and has been getting worse, as shown by closures in my constituency and across the country. Those closures hit hardest in rural and coastal areas and in the most deprived areas, where they are most needed. This vital service needs to be supported and not undermined so that our constituents can rely on being able to access the medicines and treatment they need.
Has the Minister considered a new late payment mechanism to ensure that if contractors miss the deadline, they can still receive compensation for the work they have undertaken, especially in the interim as pharmacists adapt to the changes that have been introduced? What discussions has he had with NHSBSA to resolve the technical difficulties being experienced?
Dr Ahmed
I can assure the hon. Lady of our commitment to an effective primary care system up and down the country, in both rural and coastal communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care, whose portfolio includes pharmacy, takes his responsibilities seriously and is exploring all avenues to ensure equity of access and funding, including through the Carr-Hill formula.
The hon. Lady asks what mitigations can be employed to ensure that payments are made in extraordinary circumstances. I can assure her that I have had those discussions with my officials this morning, and they reassured me that there will be a degree of flexibility, particularly in circumstances outwith the control of individual pharmacies.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the fact that this urgent question was granted, because pharmacies have been in touch with me about their concerns. I must put another thing on the Minister’s to-do list: independent prescribing. Evans Pharmacy in my constituency has been part of the independent prescribing pathfinder programme, and only 5% of patients seen by the prescribers subsequently require GP prescribing. However, no clear funding or arrangement will be in place after March this year. Will he provide Evans Pharmacy and similar prescribers with clarity about what will happen next?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Independent prescribers are a key and expanding part of our workforce, providing a sustainable primary care service. I am very happy for the Minister for Care to write to him with the exact funding plans for the next financial year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
In the past year, I have spent time visiting pharmacies across my constituency, undertaken work experience at Riverside pharmacy in Rickmansworth, and communicated regularly with Community Pharmacy Hertfordshire. It is clear that our pharmacies are under unsustainable pressure from rising costs, especially following the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions. Pharmacy First was a great Conservative initiative to reduce pressure on our GPs. Why are this Government hurting pharmacies and patients by delaying payments?
Dr Ahmed
Pharmacy First is indeed a great initiative. It is not the first in this country; it has been developed in other parts of the country. When we came into office, we worked with the sector and stakeholders, and agreements on remuneration and pricing were reached in conjunction with the sector. What is more, we are addressing the pricing structures and payment mechanisms that are not working and need improvement with a dynamism that was lacking under the previous Government.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Trio Pharmacy in Shepperton told me that there are two problems with Pharmacy First. The first is that pharmacies are simply not getting the referrals that they should from GPs. The second is that remuneration for their services does not take into account the amount of time needed for examination, diagnosis and prescription. The Nebel Pharmacy in Sunbury, near where I live, says that the work needs to be looked at as a vocation, because it simply makes no money. That is not sustainable, is it?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need to unblock the referral pathways. The neighbourhood health service is all about ensuring that the process between general practitioner and pharmacist feels seamless. On payments, we are cognisant of the fact that as demographics change, population needs in different parts of the country vary, so different payment mechanisms must apply. We are closely working with colleagues and stakeholders in the sector to ensure that we get that right.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Residents of West Byfleet are frustrated that a new pharmacy that wants to open in their area is not allowed to do so. Be it that unreasonable restriction, the increase in NICs or a lack of funding, this Government’s every action seems to undermine the pharmacy sector. Will the Minister explain why the Government are withholding funding from pharmacies that have signed up in good faith to Pharmacy First, and why they have not introduced a late-payment mechanism?
Dr Ahmed
I am reminded that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers always welcome funding for the NHS, but can never explain where the money should come from. I have already mentioned the record funding that we are putting into pharmacy. I have reiterated that there is ministerial engagement with the pharmacy sector—not just through the Minister with responsibility for pharmacy, but through me, as Minister with responsibility for health innovation. Our relationship with the pharmacy sector is in a good place, and we continue to develop it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Pharmacy First was undoubtedly game changing. When I visit pharmacies around my constituency, many of them are keen to expand Pharmacy First and to offer more lines. However, I can give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) gave. The people at Wendover Pharmacy took me through their books, and on many of the services that they offer, they either barely make any money or make a loss. The Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) that pricing was set with the sector, so clearly something is going wrong, because the experience of Wendover Pharmacy is quite different.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is right that under the Pharmacy First programme, contractors receive a monthly fixed payment upon delivering a minimum number of consultations, as per the 2025-26 agreement. That can go up and down month to month, in a dynamic process, depending on how many patients are seen in pharmacies. I completely take his point that we are evolving our care system, and ensuring a move from hospital to community, but are not quite there yet; however, I think we are on the road. Through our neighbourhood health programme, we are solidifying the relationships between general practice, pharmacies, opticians and other allied health professionals in primary care.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Not only are community pharmacies in my constituency facing problems with Pharmacy First payments, but pharmacies like Abbotswood Pharmacy tell me that they are not seeing the referrals that GPs are supposedly making. Pharmacies can take pressure off the NHS. Does the Minister agree that this combination of referral failures and payment delays is forcing patients to wait longer for care, and what steps will he take to ensure that both referrals and payments are successfully made?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to unblock some of the referral pipelines between GPs and pharmacies. We are absolutely clear in our instructions to the system that pharmacies are an integral and growing component of primary care provision, and that premise underlies all our discussions with pharmacies and GPs.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Allied Pharmacies has taken over a couple of failing Jhoots Pharmacy branches in my area since Pharmacy First was introduced, which is very welcome. The chief executive said this week that the outlook for elderly people and those without a car in rural areas was stark. Between 2015 and 2025, community pharmacies have seen a real-terms funding cut of about 30%—that is £1 billion less in real terms—and rural Devon and Cornwall have seen a reduction of 90,000 hours of pharmacy time in two years. In that context, will the Minister ensure that full compensation is given to dispensing doctors in rural areas for the cost of medicines?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adumbrating how 14 years of Tory Government have led to significant decay in the provision of primary care services in some of our communities. He is right to mention dispensing doctors, who are a vital part of the mixture in hard-to-reach and coastal communities. I had many meetings with them prior to my appointment, and my colleague the Minister for Care will continue to meet them to ensure that they continue to be part of the mix of care provision in those communities.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Last year, I visited a pharmacy in Benson in my constituency, where Vik Patel described to me how the pharmacy’s being rural disadvantages it in the Pharmacy First scheme. His pharmacy never meets the threshold to qualify for payment, and that threshold has gone up over and over again, from five patients a month in April last year to 30 in March 2025, so the pharmacy is effectively delivering a service for free. Vik is a lovely chap, and he is happy to do that, but it is not a sustainable business model. What will the Minister do to help rural pharmacies like mine in Benson?
Dr Ahmed
I can reassure the hon. Member that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is looking at funding and primary care provision in the round in coastal and poorer communities, and I would be delighted to take back his representations about Pharmacy First in rural settings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I want to give a helpful suggestion from a Northern Ireland perspective. He will agree that a rural pharmacy will find it more difficult to meet the ever increasing threshold, and that the point of these payments is to take pressure off GPs, not to provide a back-door way of underpaying earned compensation. In Northern Ireland, we have a slightly different system that involves payment per consultation, which I ask the Minister to consider. Perhaps that would be more appropriate, and would give pharmacies, GPs and their patients what they are looking for.
Dr Ahmed
I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s wise counsel. He will know that I have regular meetings with my counterparts in the devolved nations. I am well aware of some of the remuneration schemes in Northern Ireland, and I am following them with interest.
Brain Tumour Survival Rates
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for supporting this important debate. I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the contributions of all hon. Members across this House—from personal experience, I know how hard it is to talk about these issues when people close to your family are lost to brain tumours. They include my aunt, who was instrumental in my pursuing a career in medicine. She passed away in 1997, only four months after a diagnosis of glioblastoma.
The hon. Member for Witney asked about consent in relation to tumour tissue research, which is a really important and pertinent topic. I am very happy to go away and consult with the Human Tissue Authority regarding the facility we have at the moment, which is quite sizeable, for securing consent to research on tissue from living persons and deceased persons. As a transplant surgeon, I am relatively au fait with some of the consent issues that can arise in using tissue from deceased persons, and I am always very happy to encourage consideration of those issues wherever possible. The hon. Member rightly challenged us to improve our architecture for digital consent. We continue to do so through our “analogue to digital” platform, on which the 10-year health plan is based, not only for care but for research.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for their thought-provoking contributions to this debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked so passionately about these issues. I thank him once again for bringing forward his private Member’s Bill, which will do so much to move the dial on research, not only on brain tumours but on rare cancers more generally. He had a specific ask about visa costs for talent coming from elsewhere in the world, and I assure him that we are looking seriously into these issues. Only today, I was chairing a session of the Life Sciences Council, where we talked about the global talent fund. That is pertinent to the discussions that my hon. Friend is having, and I am happy to put the council in touch with him to further those discussions regarding how we attract the brightest and the best to our country to advance the cause of life sciences generally, as well as the cause of researching rare cancers.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked more specifically about referral targets. I can reassure him that we are totally committed as a Government to hitting those national standards on 62-day waits. He challenged us to go to 100%. I caution him that although 85% is possible, 100% is not, usually for clinical reasons. There may be genuine clinical reasons why patients cannot access treatment within 62 days in terms of planning and specialist access.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about diagnostics. That issue is close to my heart, and I reassure him that through the continued opening of community diagnostic centres up and down the country and £2 billion of funding, I am determined to ensure that diagnostics is improved and available closer to home wherever possible.
The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) talked about her friend being diagnosed with a brain tumour in A&E. As someone who was a young casualty officer many years ago, that resonated strongly with me. The A&E department is the last place where any tumour should be diagnosed, but I remember it happening far too frequently as a young casualty officer. One litmus test of the success of our cancer plan will be that much fewer of those diagnoses will be undertaken in an unplanned fashion in A&Es up and down our country.
I am always grateful for the learned remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I always feel like I learn so much from him. In fact, I learned so much tonight that I might add his contribution to my portfolio of continuing professional development when I submit myself back to the General Medical Council to extend my licence.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always raises thought-provoking issues about four-nation working. I assure him that I continually and frequently discuss many matters pertaining to the health of our four nations with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. I can also reassure him of our UK-wide commitment to the life sciences sector plan and life sciences project. On that note, it was my great pleasure to meet academics from Queen’s University Belfast in this place only a few months ago, where I reaffirmed my commitment as life sciences Minister to the life sciences sector plan being a true four-nation project. That of course includes Northern Ireland, and I know from my own academic interests that much expertise resides in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about benign tumours not being forgotten, and she is absolutely right. Those of us from a medical background know that it is a spectrum between benign and malignant tumours. Many benign tumours can evolve into malignant tumours, and they must be captured by plans such as the national cancer plan. She challenged me about publishing regular outcomes from the national cancer plan, and I can certainly commit to that. Those can be scrutinised in the normal way by the Health and Social Care Committee.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about screening. She will know, as I do, that screening is important when it is evidence-based and where the benefits outweigh the harms. Screening is never harm-free, so it is important to ensure we are calculating these things based on expert evidence. Neither she nor I are experts in screening, so we always defer to the UK National Screening Committee and its deliberations and opinions on these matters.
The shadow Minister asked me about the workforce plan. I can assure her that that is in play and will be published shortly, in the spring or very early summer. She asked how that might interact with diagnostic capacity, and I can assure her that we are working at great speed to ramp up diagnostic capacity through the funding envelope that I mentioned. She will know that it is important, when we plan both for workforce and diagnostic capacity, to take account of AI moving at a rapid pace. We have already been able to eliminate one radiologist from breast cancer diagnoses, and it is entirely possible that we will be able to have a similar impact with technology on the rates of other cancers and, for example, lung cancer diagnostics. It is important that, as we work through the workforce plan, we take account of what the future will look like in that context.
When we came to the topic of the potential association between traumatic brain injury and brain tumours and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket intervened on the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the medical man in me could not help himself. I looked at PubMed quickly to check whether there was indeed an association, and I picked out a paper that may be of interest to the medical people in this place. Following 24 years’ worth of data from Mass General Brigham hospital, with 75,000 patients on each arm looked at retrospectively, there would seem to be a mild association between severe traumatic brain injury and the diagnosis of malignant brain tumours.
Sir John Hayes
As the Minister is now referring to my specialist subject, I thought that I had better intervene. Although I defer, of course, to the immense experience of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) in these matters, I think that this is associated with lesions and scarring, and that is why, as the Minister said, there is a mild association. As the hon. Member said, there is a much more profound association with other neurological conditions, particularly dementia.
While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister to address the issue of research? The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is right: diagnostics are terribly difficult, but 1% of the expenditure on cancer research currently goes towards brain tumour research. Can we increase that?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his remarks. At the risk of turning this into some sort of medical journal club—I will move on quite swiftly, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me point out that the association is based on retrospective data, and we all know that we have to be a little bit cautious with retrospective data. As for the question of research, I can assure the right hon. Member that we are committed to spending more of the £2 billion NIHR budget on rare cancer research, some of which is ringfenced.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about rural areas. In the workforce plan, we are committed to ensuring—
Sarah Owen
May I take up the point about funding? I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but I want to pay tribute to my two incredible constituents Khuram and Yasmin. Their daughter Amani was diagnosed with glioblastoma, and tragically passed away in February 2022 at just 23 years old. Amani’s parents devoted themselves to taking care of her 24/7 as the cancer progressed, but they had to fundraise £100,000. Does the Minister not agree that parents and others should be spending their time with their loved ones, not spending their time fundraising for experimental drugs?
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for all her advocacy on behalf of all her constituents, but particularly Amani’s family. This is a story with which I am very familiar, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am committed to ensuring that medical research is properly funded so that, indeed, it is not the duty of bereaved parents or parents to raise the money.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
We all know that, while money is important, if the institutions that are given money do not spend it, we are all left frustrated and wondering what will happen. I have met cancer Ministers in both the last Conservative Government and this Government, all of whom have been well-intentioned and meaning to bring progress, but it requires intervention with those organisations to ensure that the money that is made available is spent.
Dr Ahmed
I am hearing my hon. Friend’s call to action loud and clear. I can report to her that—this is in addition to the other ongoing clinical trials in the area of brain tumour and glioma research—in October 2025, RECURRENT-GB opened for recruitment. This is a new UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial, supported by nearly £2 million of NIHR funding, which will explore, for instance, whether surgery can improve the quality of life for patients with glioblastoma when the glioblastoma comes back after treatment. I know that my hon. Friend will hold our feet to the fire when it comes to recruitment and the money being used appropriately, and I am delighted to continue working with her in that regard.
Since this Government took office, over 213,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more people are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite these vital signs of recovery, we know that our NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families, as Members from across the House have highlighted this evening. We know that brain tumours remain one of the hardest cancers to treat, and it remains a challenging and underserved area of research.
Last week, the Government published our national cancer plan. We now have a blueprint to shift the dial on rare and challenging cancers, underpinned by three key targets. First, we aim to save 330,000 more lives by 2035 by ensuring that three in every four people diagnosed in 2035 will be cancer-free or living well with cancer five years after diagnosis. Secondly, we will achieve the three cancer performance targets, which I mentioned earlier, by the end of March 2029. Finally, we will improve the quality of life for people living with cancer.
Rare and less common cancers are a priority for the Government, and this is the first ever cancer plan with a whole chapter dedicated to rare cancers. We aim to be in the top quartile of European countries for 14 rare cancers, including brain tumours, where we currently rank 22nd out of 24. We will pull every lever available to drive improvements for these cancer types. We know that one of the most effective ways to improve survival from cancer, including brain cancer, is to catch it and treat it early, so we have committed to reducing the number of rare cancers diagnosed in emergency settings, including brain tumours, which cannot be staged like other cancers and have therefore not been previously captured by early diagnosis measures.
Dr Arthur
This is about equality. There is a fantastic charity called The Eve Appeal, which is focused on gynaecological cancers. It makes the point that a disproportionate number of people with these cancers end up being diagnosed in A&E, by which time it is too late. Through a meeting I had with Blood Cancer UK, I know that ethnic minorities are much more likely to face a diagnosis in A&E than in a doctor’s surgery. This is something that we should do, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it is a matter of equality.
Dr Ahmed
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and that is why NIHR funding has been specifically allocated. One of the tests for a grant is the diversity of the population it will serve.
We recognise the challenges presented by brain tumours. By publishing regular performance data at a more granular level and adding diagnosis in emergency settings to our basket of early diagnosis metrics, we are committed to moving the dial on these issues. For all patients diagnosed with rare cancers, we will prioritise access to specialist treatment and multidisciplinary teams to ensure that they benefit from the best of evidence-based care. We will work with charities to support rare cancer patients, and to ensure that they have access to the right information to manage their cancer care. We wish to be held accountable on these commitments and to drive forward progress for rare cancer patients, and we will therefore appoint a national clinical lead for rare cancers, who will provide independent arbitration.
The actions I have listed make up just a small part of our plan. It will turn cancer, which is one of the country’s biggest killers, into a treatable chronic condition. We have developed our plans with patients, charities, families and clinicians, and have heard from many Members today. We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers and brain tumours.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
The chapter on rare cancers says that a named individual at NIHR will be responsible for progress in rare cancers. If there is no progress, will they get the sack?
Dr Ahmed
Sacking people is above my pay grade, so I will revert to the Secretary of State’s opinion on that, but my hon. Friend can certainly be reassured that we will hold them accountable, just as she will hold me accountable. She might give me the sack at this rate, so I had better be careful.
We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers. We look forward to working further with partners to deliver improvements in outcomes for brain cancer patients, and we know that the improvements promised through this plan rely on good research.
That research has already begun, with over £25 million invested in the NIHR brain tumour research consortium, which aims to transform outcomes for adults and children —and their families—who are living with brain tumours, ultimately reducing the number of lives lost to cancer. Furthermore, we are partnering with Cancer Research UK to provide £3 million to co-fund the CRUK brain tumour centres of excellence. This will ensure that we accelerate the move from foundational research to delivering innovative treatments for patients. These investments have the potential to shift the dial and the UK’s position as a leading location for brain tumour treatment research.
As reaffirmed in the national cancer plan, this Government are proud to support the Rare Cancers Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which passed its Second Reading in the other place last month. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and other hon. Members for their support and their moving contributions to the debates on the Bill. This important legislation will make it easier for researchers to connect with patients living with rare cancers, including brain tumours; streamline recruitment into clinical trials; and ensure that our regulatory system delivers for patients. As set out in our 10-year health plan, we will ensure that the UK is a global leader in clinical research. This Bill will accelerate the clinical trials needed to deliver the most effective cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care for patients facing a rare cancer diagnosis. I look forward to seeing it progress towards Royal Assent.
I once again thank hon. Members for giving me the chance to set out our plans on rare cancers. I hope I have reassured them that we are determined to improve survival rates for patients, and ensuring that everyone has access to the highest-quality care and the highest-quality research. The national cancer plan embodies these ambitions and sets out how we will achieve them. Through our significant research investments and our support of the private Member’s Bill on rare cancers, in 2026 we will begin to shift the dial on outcomes for brain tumour patients.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh to wind up.
Pandemic Agreement: Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System
Zubir Ahmed Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I would like to update the House regarding the follow-up negotiations to the pandemic agreement to develop and agree a new pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) system in the form of an annex to the agreement.
The PABS system will be a new, voluntary system for life sciences companies to sign up to in order to gain faster access, with less red tape, to the pathogens they need to create new vaccines, treatments and diagnostics (VTDs) for in the event of a pandemic. These negotiations are currently ongoing via the World Health Organisation’s member state-led intergovernmental working group (IGWG), which was established to facilitate this process.
Since my last update to the House on 22 October 2025, the IGWG has convened in from 3 to 7 November and from 1 to 5 December and held a resumed session from 20 to 22 January. So far, technical discussions have centred around the scope of pathogen materials and sequence information covered by the PABS system; how they will be shared through laboratory networks and databases to ensure timely access; benefit sharing provisions for manufacturers who sign up to the system; the links between PABS and other international access and benefit sharing frameworks; the links between domestic access and benefit sharing legislation and the PABS system; and provisions regarding traceability and open access to data.
The most recent round of negotiations saw some progress made on issues including the use of terms for the PABS system, but differences remain on a range of issues. The UK Government remain committed to continuing work with other member states to find consensus and to deliver an effective, implementable, and equitable PABS system.
Member states have agreed to report on the outcome of negotiations by the next World Health Assembly in May 2026. Only once the negotiations on the PABS annex have concluded, and the annex has been adopted by the WHA, will the pandemic agreement, including the PABS annex, be open for signature and ratification by member states.
Two further negotiating weeks are scheduled for 9-13 February and 23-27 March and I will update the House further as negotiations continue.
[HCWS1296]