Health and Social Care

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the Westminster Hall debate on the NHS Federated Data Platform on 16 April 2026.

[Dr Ahmed]

… The FDP is fundamentally an NHS construct. It consists of multiple contracts awarded to a number of consortia, including Palantir, Accenture, PwC, Carnall Farrar and the North of England Care System Support.

[Official Report, 16 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 486WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed):

[Dr Ahmed]

… The FDP is fundamentally an NHS construct. It consists of multiple contracts awarded to a consortium, including Palantir, Accenture, PwC, Carnall Farrar and the North of England Care System Support.

[Dr Ahmed]

… The FDP is part of an infrastructure—it is not the infrastructure or the only infrastructure—to resolve that gap. It is improving efficiency and generating savings across the health service worth up to £2.4 billion, according to independent estimates. Those independent estimates are being further bolstered by a commissioned study by Imperial College that will look at the economic impact of the FDP. 

[Official Report, 16 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 487WH.]

[Dr Ahmed]

… The FDP is part of an infrastructure—it is not the infrastructure or the only infrastructure—to resolve that gap. It is improving efficiency and generating savings across the health service worth up to £2.4 billion, according to our estimates. Those estimates are being further bolstered by a commissioned study by Imperial College that will look at the economic impact of the FDP.

Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate and also on challenging us, born of his lived experience, to make the lives of disabled people better and better lived across our country. We are grateful for his presence in this House and this place, every single day. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to champion this interest more generally in his capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.

In recent months wheelchair services have received considerable attention, both within Parliament and more widely. As has been highlighted, last month I participated in a debate on the provision of disability equipment, brought forward by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). I have been struck by the compelling testimonies shared during those discussions and the ones today, highlighting the profound impact that timely access to appropriate disability equipment can have on people’s lives.

This is a matter clearly deserving of much more attention. Since the previous debate on this topic, I have written to the national quality board to request that disabled people and the equipment they use are considered as part of the board’s ongoing work to improve quality and reduce inequality across health and care services. I am pleased to update that the board has confirmed it will take this forward.

This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that disabled people can access the services and support they need. Through our reforms to health and social care, we are dedicated to delivering meaningful change that will make that vision a reality. Integrated care boards, as has been highlighted, are responsible for commissioning local wheelchair services. Responsibility for providing disability equipment lies with local authorities or the NHS, depending on the person’s needs.

For adults and children with long-term complex needs, services are typically provided by NHS wheelchair services. There is a range of NHS wheelchair providers across England, as we have heard. I acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises about NRS. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I will be having discussions about that, and it would be appropriate to write the hon. Member an urgent letter to update him, as I know that he is genuinely concerned about the topic. ICBs are expected to monitor service provision and effectively manage contracts with their commissioned providers.

Although the latest data from NHS England shows a reduction in wheelchair waiting times for adults, I recognise that far too many people of all ages, as we have heard today, experience unacceptable delays for appropriate equipment. The covid pandemic had a significant impact on wheelchair services, from which we are still suffering in terms of supply chain disruption. That has meant that waiting times for both adults and children have fluctuated unnecessarily—well, unacceptably—as services have worked to recover. Those with more complex needs can also experience delays due to the lead-in time for supply of more bespoke equipment.

I understand that there have been complaints about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. Some of these are being dealt with on an individual basis by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, following escalation by individual patients. As part of its oversight of ICBs, NHS England is also gathering intelligence through regional teams to understand fully the issues being raised.

It is important that local commissioners have the discretion to decide how best to meet the needs of their local population, and we are giving systems control and flexibility over how that is done. None the less, the Government are taking action to support local systems in delivering effective wheelchair services. Although there are no plans at the moment to establish a national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, the medium-term planning framework, published in October, requires that from this year all ICBs and community health services should actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The framework also states that in 2026-27, ICBs are required to

“increase community health service capacity”—

including wheelchair services—

“to meet growth in demand, expected to be approximately 3% nationally per year”.

[Dr Evans]

Can the Minister just clarify who he sees as responsible for the framework?

[Dr Ahmed]

Ultimately, ICBs are responsible for delivering the framework. The Government are held accountable in the manner being seen today, and I have no doubt that in the new structures that we propose there will be further accountability, because in many ways the middleman will be removed and we will have more direct oversight as to what is going on with wheelchair services and other services up and down the country.

I take the hon. Member’s point on data as well. I am the Minister responsible for data, health innovation and innovation in general, and I think this moment of restructuring, whether in relation to wheelchair services or other parts of the system, is a moment for us to really get into the 21st century with our capabilities for monitoring data for operational and capacity planning. I am very happy to share with him some of my thoughts about that over a cup of tea later, if he is interested.

The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting time targets in 2026-27. Those targets will guide systems to reduce the longest waits. In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations, and NHSE and the Department of Health and Social Care are developing plans to achieve that.

NHS England has developed policy, guidance and legislation to support ICBs to reduce delays and unacceptable regional variation in the quality and provision of wheelchair services. In April 2025 NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, in collaboration with the wheelchair advisory group, which I understand includes the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz, both of which were recognised by hon. Members in the debate today.

That framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experiences. The framework sets out quality standards relevant to all suppliers and aligns with the Care Quality Commission assessment framework that applies to providers, local authorities and integrated care systems. Those quality standards should be used to develop local service specifications and to benchmark current commissioning and provision.

Other measures taken by NHS England include the establishment of a national dataset on wheelchair waiting times to increase transparency and to enable targeted action if improvement is required, and the introduction of the legal right to a personal wheelchair budget in 2019. Personal wheelchair budgets provide a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated with other aspects of care.

[Dr Gardner]

I acknowledge the personal wheelchair budget, but constituents have raised with me that it does not fit the cost of wheelchairs nowadays. It does not quite match, so they sometimes have to use their own funds to get the wheelchair they need, which is not good enough.

[Dr Ahmed]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is partly a reflection of the underfunding of aspects of the NHS over the past decade and a half. As she well knows, our party supports the NHS, and we have funded it with £26 billion of additional funding. That will clearly take time to filter through to the services that require the most.

The Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people through our wider reforms to health and social care. The recently published neighbourhood health framework aims to improve health and care outcomes, and reduce inequalities through more convenient, personalised and joined-up care. It includes a focus on improving the diagnosis and treatment of people with long-term conditions, so that they feel more in control of their care.

In July 2025, the Government announced that we will develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. We are making more than £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26, to support the sector and make the improvements that we all crave. We have also established the better care fund, a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better, joined-up holistic care.

This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment such as wheelchairs. We also continue to invest in support for home adaptations to enable independent living, with £723 million confirmed for the disabled facilities grant this year. The disabled facilities grant budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years, representing an 11% increase that exceeds inflation. The independent commission into adult social care, chaired by Baroness Louise Casey, is building consensus on the medium and long-term reforms required to create a social care system that is fit for the future, with the phase 1 report due this year.

I recognise the profound impact that delays in wheelchair provision are having on the quality of life of hon. Members’ constituents, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for highlighting that today. He had a number of asks of me, to which I hope I have responded. I am cognisant of the work he has done and the personal attention he gives to these matters, and I offer him a meeting with Department officials in my office to go through them in greater detail. My officials will be in touch to arrange that.

I hope that the work, reforms and modernisation I have set out address the questions he has raised. I assure hon. Members that we take this issue extremely seriously, and remain committed to improving the lives of disabled people up and down our country.

NHS Federated Data Platform

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his and other hon. Members’ contributions to it. Of course, we should also welcome the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to his place in his first debate on the Front Bench.

We have heard a lot about concerns and insights and interpretations about the NHS’s technological architecture. Some would have us think that the FDP is synonymous with just one company. It is not. The FDP is fundamentally an NHS construct. It consists of multiple contracts awarded to a number of consortia, including Palantir, Accenture, PwC, Carnall Farrar and the North of England Care System Support. Each of those have different responsibilities to make sure that there is training, health expertise and security in the FDP.

Ultimately, the FDP is a federation of local trusts and ICBs within NHS England, each with their own version of the FDP and their own abilities to decide which information they put there on the basis of their own service needs and governance arrangements. Although there should be scrutiny of Palantir and of any contract, we should also provide clarity about what the FDP is delivering for the NHS. It is my duty to make sure that the FDP is improving patient and clinical experience and improving patient outcomes.

Making the best use of data generated by the NHS and social care is essential to transforming services, improving outcomes for patients and making sure that we use resources in the best manner possible. Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the NHS found that, despite huge volumes of data, fundamentally:

“The last decade was a missed opportunity to prepare the NHS”

to use the latest technologies.

The FDP is part of an infrastructure—it is not the infrastructure or the only infrastructure—resolve that gap. It is improving efficiency and generating savings across the health service worth up to £2.4 billion, according to independent estimates. Those independent estimates are being further bolstered by a commissioned study by Imperial College that will look at the economic impact of the FDP. It is an important tool for us being able to make the NHS fit for the future on clinical efficiency, transparency of data and outcomes for patients up and down the country.

Before I go into more detail about what the FDP does, it is important that I say what it does not do. For instance, it is not synonymous with the single patient record, the NHS app or—necessarily—with linking primary care data with secondary care data.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

I am going to carry on for a bit longer.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) tempts me with his speech, and he knows that I cannot resist his temptation. He spoke about Scotland and he will know that I am an NHS surgeon in Scotland. I hope he thinks that I can speak with some authority about the NHS in Scotland, so let me tell him a few things about the digital architecture in the NHS there.

The NHS app has been running successfully in England for over eight years. Three out of four people in the NHS in England have that app. To clarify, the app is not Palantir; it has been devised organically on the ground by NHS England—by clinicians and by technologists. It now serves millions of patients to book test results, screenings and appointments—including GP appointments —to end the 8 am rush.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East spoke about the MyCare app in Scotland. That remains a far-fetched dream rather than a reality. The limit of the ambition of that app seems to be, as I understand it, a dermatology service in one part of Scotland called Lanarkshire, for those who are not familiar with Scotland. It is a million miles away from what has been developed down here in England.

[Seamus Logan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

I will not; I am going to carry on—and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something further. The NHS in England was quite happy to use the expertise of technologists up and down the country, including in Scotland—including, in my own constituency of Glasgow South West, a company called Cohesion Medical. His Government in Scotland, who have been in government for over 20 years, refused that offer. That is why my patients and constituents in Scotland are unable to access simple digital services. It is why my patients and my constituents under NHS Scotland are 30 times more likely to wait over two years for treatment. It is why my patients and my constituents in Scotland are unable to access optimal stroke therapy and lung cancer screening.

The NHS federated data platform in England connects health information held in different systems, helping to manage activity to improve productivity and outcomes. By connecting critical data streams, it can accelerate diagnosis pathways, streamline discharge processes and ensure faster, more co-ordinated care that reduces waiting times for all patients.

I will briefly describe a couple of examples. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust uses an FDP product called OPTICA to map the patient’s journey from being admitted to going home. It used to be done with spreadsheets, which were not always updated. Because of that, discharges were delayed, medicines were not sorted on time—in some cases time-critical medicines, causing real patient harm—and patients were therefore impacted. OPTICA lets the trust see all that information in one place in real time. It has reduced the number of long stays by a third, and despite a 7% increase in admissions over that time, we are improving services overall.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. May I just say that the hon. Member had very generous time allocated to him during this debate? If the Minister does not want to take an intervention, he does not need to.

[Dr Ahmed]

At the Mersey and West Lancashire teaching hospitals NHS trust, they are using the FDP to better manage the lists for planned surgery. That allows surgeons like me to operate on more people each day, and it is cutting waiting lists. This has been achieved through better use of data. It is a timely reminder that in England we are improving productivity in the national health service, getting more operations done per list and getting closer to pre-covid levels of activity. The same cannot be said for Scotland under the SNP Government.

[Seamus Logan]

Rather than giving so much of his speech to cheap political points about Scotland, can the Minister answer the question that was put to him several times by several Members: are the Government considering a review of the break clause next year?

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman had read the details of any contract that the Government have negotiated, whether it is this one or the previous one, he would know that the break clause is there for a reason. Of course we evaluate value for money at those times. He used the word “cheap”, but let me tell him something: it is not cheap to have to wait over two years for NHS treatment in Scotland, which is 30 times more likely to happen than in England. That is why on 7 May the NHS in Scotland can get an upgrade with Anas Sarwar as First Minister and Jackie Baillie as Health Secretary.

The FDP is helping people get the care they need more quickly and more efficiently. As a programme, it is a success. The FDP has exceeded every single target since its go-live date in March 2024, and 137 NHS trusts are actively utilising the platform and have reported benefits. The programme is significantly exceeding its benefits forecast, with external independent experts validating these results.

NHS England publishes data on how the FDP has benefited patients and the NHS. The data collected up to the end of March will be published in May. I can share the figures with Members now. Since the go-live date in March 2024, more than 100,000 additional patients have been supported to undergo procedures in theatres, partly due to increasing theatre utilisation. Nearly 94,000 people have been supported on their cancer journey, with 7% seeing a reduction in the time taken to diagnose their cancer. There has also been a 14% decrease in delays to discharging patients staying in hospital for more than seven days, freeing up hospital beds for those who need them most.

The last Government awarded the Palantir contract on the basis of a successful bid that was deemed to be significantly better, and by a significant order of magnitude, than those of its competitors. It was judged the most economically advantageous and likely to deliver the best-quality outcome for patients. The contract was awarded with an overall value of up to £330 million over a maximum of the seven-year term. So far, £210 million has been invested, as we scale up. The benefits of the FDP are exceeding those we forecast, as I have already outlined, but—

[Luke Taylor]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I think I will answer his point shortly; in the interests of time, we have to be careful about interventions.

We live in a fast-paced technological world, and that means that we always look to the next possible provider to provide value for money, so it is right that there are break clauses in the contract to allow evaluations to take place. I can reassure all hon. Members that, as a clinician and a Minister, my north star is always patient safety and quality, and of course value for money. If, at the point of the break clause, we evaluate and find that there are other providers that can do the job better, then of course that needs to be looked at and reflected upon. More generally, as the Minister for Health Innovation, Patient Safety and Life Sciences, I would not be doing my job properly if I did not try to champion British business at every opportunity or to champion British small and medium-sized enterprises to become British plcs. I hope hon. Members will take that as read.

The contract has extension provisions and will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes. We will decide later this year whether to extend it. NHS England will be transparent about the process and the evidence used, as we have been throughout our regular performance reviews for this contract and the FDP.

On digital sovereignty, our priority is to give patients the care they need. As Members will no doubt understand, for some essential IT services, it is simply not possible to develop in-house solutions, as we seek the best from the market. I reflect on my own practice in Glasgow, in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East seems to think has found a panacea of publicly delivered technology. I can tell him that when I walk into that hospital, I login through Microsoft Windows. Then I open a programme built by a North American tech company to order test results. Then I open another programme built by a North American tech company to look at the results of those tests. Finally, if I want to check X-rays, I open a fourth programme built by a North American technology company to evaluate CT scans, MRI scans and X-rays.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

In the interests of time, I will continue. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

In the future, our goal is to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, which would give the NHS more choices and help to improve standards. Of course, I would be unashamedly pro-British about my ambitions for that mix, because that is the way that we not only serve our NHS but also support economic growth. At the moment, what matters is who controls the data and how that is governed. I appreciate the sensitivities around that, I really do. Rightly for the FDP, this is a matter for the NHS and UK regulators.

I have also been asked about vendor lock-in and whether it is possible to remove companies like Palantir from the NHS. The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible. Of course, it would take time and planning to safely transition from one supplier to another, as it always does in the NHS, when patient safety is the primary concern. At the moment, there are unfortunately only a small number of companies that can do what we genuinely need them to do at the scale that we need them to do it, but the contract has multiple measures built in to allow greater freedom of choice. That includes making sure that the NHS owns the intellectual property for all products and that it is possible to migrate them to other providers.

Data security is also at the heart of our health innovation programme. Protecting personal data is at the heart of the FDP and the health innovation strategy. Most importantly, we have separated church and state, in terms of service provision and data security. A separate company, IQVIA, provides the highest standard of privacy-enhancing technology for that data in the FDP, which means that we can remove personal identifiers from the data where they are not required, ensuring that privacy is maintained throughout. NHS England and NHS organisations retain full control as data controllers, including over decisions about how data is used, who can access it and which products are deployed. Palantir does not own the data, the products or the intellectual property, nor can it use the NHS data for its own purposes.

The FDP is a secure data environment. Security is built into its design and operation, and it has been through national, technical and cyber-assurance, with external oversight. It should also be understood that the FDP is only for health and care purposes; it cannot be legally used for non-health purposes such as immigration enforcement, as has been promulgated.

As Members will expect, my position on the owners and executives of Palantir is very much the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we are no fan of their politics. However, the FDP, and the principles that underpin it, are critical to the future of the NHS. Palantir operates strictly within a UK-regulated contract where the NHS controls all data, access is tightly governed and information can be used only for agreed purposes that benefit patients. I would expect any member of staff who did not in all conscience feel that they could work with Palantir to raise that with their employer.

[Rachael Maskell]

I raised the issue of patient trust. We know that over 50% of the public do not have confidence in this system, so they might not share vital health information with their clinicians. As a result, will the Minister include that point in the consultation? He has only 10 months until this first period ends, so can he say more about the public perspective on the Government consultation?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend will know that no NHS system or pathway can ever work without the confidence of the public, and that needs to be reflected in any evaluations that take place. I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns loud and clear, as well as those of Members across the House. It is right that we look to maintain the highest standards for our NHS. It is also true that the FDP has a role to play in delivering for the NHS and helping people get the care they need more quickly and efficiently. Those are real outcomes that will improve people’s lives, all through the better use of data.

Members on both sides of the House often rightly challenge me to go further, faster on rare diseases, rare tumours and rare cancers. None of that is possible in modern medicine without data, and the analysis of data. Just as I have a responsibility to ensure that we get value for money out of all contracts in the national health service, and that we evaluate them regularly, Members also have a responsibility to be careful not to aggregate different components of the NHS and present them as a monolithic technological solution.

The FDP is, and will continue to be, an important component of delivering patient care in the NHS in England. Of course, who contracts with the FDP will be open to question as we go forward and think about future contractual arrangements. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the FDP is somehow the only technological solution or database in the NHS; there are many others that do good work—whether that is the single patient record, the health data research service, the NHS app or clinical systems for NHS primary care providers. We must be careful not to conflate one technology with the next, and in doing so, alarm citizens and patients about what is happening with their data.

I can assure Members across the House that in my ministerial service—just as in my 20 years of clinical service—my north star is transparency, patient safety, quality and providing the best care to all patients up and down the country.

Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 General Committees

[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 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury—TDDI—is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. The change will be for TDDI provided in sports grounds and gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.

Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000. The subsequent Manchester Arena inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that those shortcomings may have been present in other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has outlined initial concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations where unregulated provision has resulted in harm. The Government are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important to consider the impacts carefully, and I am pleased that they have now been laid.

This statutory instrument brings TDDI at events into line with hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes, where it is already regulated. That means that a provider delivering TDDI at an event must register with the CQC and comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in our healthcare system. Some of these providers will already be registered to provide TDDI in other settings, and the process will be quicker for them.

There has been some confusion about what TDDI actually is. It includes a wide range of treatments from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear to Members that TDDI does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.

To support providers to make this transition, they will have significant time to prepare. I can assure everyone involved that there will be a 15-month period in which providers can register and the CQC can process registrations before regulation becomes enforceable. The CQC will consult on guidance and produce supporting materials to help determine whether registration is required. The provision to allow registration will come into force on 7 September 2026. It will not become an offence to provide TDDI as an unregulated provider until 6 December 2027. In developing this policy, the Government have considered a range of options carefully, guided by the Manchester Arena inquiry findings. We concluded that partial removal would risk fragmenting provision, and a threshold based on event size would not reflect risk.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Chair and I represent the great city of Manchester, and one of its darkest moments was Salman Abedi’s arena attack in 2017. These provisions are long overdue, and I thank the Minister and the Government for taking this action.

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly, as all hon. Members in and around the Manchester area have, since the unconscionable events of the Manchester Arena bombing. Regulation such as this could not have come into force without their representations in addition to the inquiry’s findings, so I am grateful to him and other colleagues.

That is why we are taking forward a coherent package, developing non-statutory guidance for providers and organisers alongside the change to secondary legislation to remove the two exemptions and bring TDDI at events within CQC regulatory scope. Stakeholders were concerned that smaller events could be targeted by substandard and unregulated providers. Size does not always correlate with risk, and the Government are determined not to leave those smaller events exposed to inadequate care.

I have heard concerns from stakeholders about the impact on those providing TDDI, such as clinicians who often do so voluntarily, and the potential impact that a requirement to pay to register with the CQC could have on them and the wider event sector. The CQC will therefore commence a consultation in May, which will provide opportunities for further consideration of the appropriate implementation of the regulations for sectors such as individual volunteer clinicians and mountain rescue services.

Some stakeholders have asked whether the CQC is the right body to regulate TDDI. Does it have the capability to do so, given the issues identified by Dr Penny Dash in her review? First, the CQC is the statutory independent regulator for health and social care in England, and it already regulates TDDI in a number of other settings. Extending that regulation to the additional settings outlined will bring more consistency for patient safety and quality of provision.

Moreover, this is an essential amendment to the regulations. The Manchester Arena inquiry recommended action to address gaps in the standard of healthcare provision at events, and it pointed specifically to statutory regulation and enforcement by a regulator. The Government have accepted those recommendations, and this policy reflects our intention to implement them.

Secondly, I will address the CQC’s capability to act as a regulator. It is right to acknowledge the findings of Dr Penny Dash in her 2024 review. Those critiques, I am glad to say, have been catalysts for change. The CQC has accepted the high-level recommendations and is taking forward targeted reforms, including stabilising its regulatory platform and improving the registration experience for providers.

The CQC has set out further steps to improve its inspection framework and strengthen transparency on ratings, characteristics and how judgments are made. This addresses the concerns highlighted by Dr Dash’s review and will help ensure timely, risk-based assessments—exactly what event healthcare providers will need as they register.

Extending CQC regulation to event healthcare is the safest and most straightforward route. It leverages an existing regulatory system, answers the inquiry’s call to action, is being implemented alongside reforms strengthening the regulator’s performance, and closes this long-standing gap in public safety.

By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true their commitments, fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and its drive to improve patient and citizen safety. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

Thank you again for chairing the Committee, Mr Stringer. The shadow Minister is very knowledgeable about these matters. Like her, I have been an attending doctor at events, and I am very sensitive to the representations she made, as well those made by other colleagues over the last few weeks and months. Much of what she talked about relates to the definition of “quality”, but defining that is not for the Government but for experts, clinicians and regulatory bodies, which is why it is so important that we give the CQC the power to do this.

I do not want small events and village fêtes to be overregulated; that is not the intention of this legislation. Nor do I want individual doctors, clinicians and other volunteers to be over-burdened with financial registration fees, and we will look into this with the CQC. Given the changes that have been made to the CQC governance architecture, I believe that it is absolutely the right body to do this work, which is basically an extension of what it already does in hospitals, care homes and GP surgeries up and down the land.

The tragic events in Manchester highlighted the care gap, and this Government intend to ensure that it is closed for the benefit of our citizens attending events up and down the county. By amending the CQC’s regulation, event organisers and those attending events can be reassured that the medical cover provided is adequate and of a suitable quality. Regardless of the size and type of event, a basal level of quality must be assured.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister may be about to answer exactly what constitutes first aid, but I have been looking up the definition of TDDI on the CQC site, which seems to cover mental health. Thinking particularly about festivals, where health incidents arising from drug misuse may lead to associated psychotic episodes and suicidal ideation, would the legislation cover volunteer organisations helping people on that side of things?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point; I am very happy for the CQC to take that away and answer her specific question. On the issue of what constitutes first aid or more complex medical care, all of us who have been medical cover at events have sometimes come across the incongruous situation where being a medically qualified doctor is sometimes not enough to provide first aid. Those incongruities have existed for as long as I have been in practice, and I do not think the regulations particularly change that. It is often down to individuals’ interpretation of first aid, as well as their insurance cover, and I am sure that we do not want to overly complicate this matter.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

The hon. Lady knows that I often indulge her interventions, but not today. These regulations are a response to a public inquiry and are designed to ensure that the CQC has the scope and oversight of events and arenas. It is for the CQC over the next 15 months to provide some of these definitions and clarity, and they are absolutely the right people to do it. On that basis, I ask colleagues to support this very necessary measure to protect those the people we were elected to serve.

Question put.

National Suicide Prevention Standard

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate on a topic that is especially close to her heart and for her work more generally to promote action on suicide prevention. I am also grateful to hon. Members across the Chamber for their interventions.

Every suicide is nothing short of a tragedy. It has lasting and devastating impacts on families, friends and communities. Ensuring that the right care and support are available to someone who may be struggling when and where they need it can make all the difference in saving a life. That is why reducing the numbers of lives lost to suicide is a key priority for this Government, and we are committed to taking forward the suicide prevention strategy for England. The strategy focuses on harnessing efforts across civil society to help identify and support people at risk.

Standards such as the one produced by the British Standards Institution play an important role in raising the profile of suicide prevention in England and in supporting employers to play their part. I take this opportunity to congratulate the BSI on 125 years of tireless work, ensuring quality not only in British society, but across the world. The British Standards Institution is the UK’s national standards body—an independent organisation that develops standards that shape and encourage best practice across myriad professional sectors. The Government’s relationship with the BSI is through a memorandum of understanding, primarily to support the UK standards system, rather than to direct or enforce implementation of standards by businesses.

Decisions on adoption and implementation remain with individual organisations, although the Government may play a role in encouraging awareness of those standards to support best practice. In November last year, as we heard, the BSI launched a new voluntary standard entitled “Suicide and the Workplace”. That standard was particularly notable, given that it was not just the UK’s but the world’s first national standard supporting suicide prevention efforts in the workplace—a truly commendable achievement. My ministerial counterpart, the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health, Baroness Gillian Merron, was particularly pleased to speak at the launch of that standard.

As with other BSI standards, this voluntary British standard is published as guidance; it is designed to support organisations of any size and across all sectors in strengthening their approach to suicide prevention, intervention and bereavement support in the workplace.

On uptake, I was pleased to hear that the standard has been well received so far, with more than 11,000 downloads since its publication in November. It is overwhelming to hear that businesses across the country are putting the standard into practice, including Heathrow airport and Inclusion Education, which have publicly adopted it.

The standard is advisory and is intended to be integrated into existing organisational policies and health, safety and wellbeing arrangements, and therefore to be flexible. In terms of supporting its implementation, decisions on how to use it rest with individual organisations, but the Government recognise that some employers may choose to use it as a reference point or benchmark alongside their existing workplace mental health and wellbeing policies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett knows I am not a Department for Business and Trade Minister, but I am committed to making sure that she is linked in with the appropriate Minister in that Department, particularly around her asks on how smaller and medium-sized enterprises can access and implement the standard and overcome the regulatory and financial hurdles to doing so, and I would be delighted to try to organise that meeting for her.

[Rachael Maskell]

In 2003, the last Labour Government introduced a programme called Dignity at Work. It looked at bullying in the workplace, which we know is significant, and there are a lot of parallels we can draw on. A partnership was formed between trade unions, Government, businesses and public sector bodies to implement a programme of work to address bullying in the workplace, and it was incredibly successful. Will the Minister look at the Government being more interventionist on this standard and perhaps adopting a similar programme of work?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend is always knowledgeable about these matters and she tempts me to egress across the confines of my departmental portfolio. I am happy to cite her recommendations in my correspondence with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade when I try and set up a meeting for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett.

The role of employers generally cannot be understated. As the suicide prevention strategy clearly sets out, by improving support practices and conversations employers can and do save lives from suicide. Almost three quarters of people who take their own lives are not in contact with NHS mental health services. That points to the importance of public and private sector organisations—well beyond the confines of what we see as the traditional NHS—that are well placed to reach those vulnerable people most at risk. Workplaces provide the perfect opportunity to signpost people to the support they need. Employers should support practices and conversations that help to prevent suicides—for example, by having employment assistance programmes, line manager training and support networks in place for employees. Every employee should feel supported, and every employer should ensure that support is known of and available to their staff.

As has been highlighted, we know that some sectors are disproportionately affected by suicide. For example, suicide rates in construction are four times higher than in other business sectors. The Construction Leadership Council’s mental health project has focused, through the lens of prevention, on identifying the primary root mental health causes impacting construction workers. The project, in partnership with Mates in Mind and the University of Warwick, held a series of regional focus groups with on-the-ground workers and identified those causes as including late payments, a lack of stable work, and workers having to travel and stay far away from family and loved ones. The Department for Business and Trade consulted on those issues and received around 3,000 responses. An action plan, together with a joint code of practice setting out how employers across the sector can provide a more supportive environment to address and prevent those issues specifically, will be published this summer.

With suicide prevention, we often talk about the importance of meeting people where they are. Ensuring that people are supported by their workplaces is one valuable way of doing that, and the Government are committed to finding more opportunities to ensure that every person requiring support can access it readily. For example, my counterpart Baroness Merron, alongside co-chairs Money and Mental Health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services to discuss the role they could play in supporting people at risk—both their customers and their employees. I understand there was a great appetite in the room to take further action on this matter, and Baroness Merron is working closely with officials to progress this work at pace.

I encourage all workplaces and employers to familiarise themselves, and align their work practices, with the Government’s suicide prevention strategy and to consider how they can best support their staff. I would also encourage them to consider drawing on the BSI standards as an exemplar tool to help embed suicide prevention in working practices.

Finally, as the BSI standard highlights, the importance of community, both inside and outside the workplace, cannot be overstated. That is why so many of the Government’s ambitions surrounding suicide prevention, and indeed wider prevention, hold community at their core. With our 10-year health plan, we are shifting care and support from traditional institutions into the community, and our focus is more firmly on prevention. Through the new community-based mental health centres that are being piloted, people and families can receive care and treatment when they need it, in their community, 24 hours a day, and in a much calmer environment than one finds in traditional A&E departments.

[Liz Twist]

Can I tempt the Minister to go a little further? I specifically requested a roundtable to encourage take up of the standard. Is something that he can look at and mention to the other parties I discussed?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend is trying to steal the conclusion of my speech, so I will bring it forward. I am always delighted to meet her, and she knows I am happy to contribute to any roundtable that she feels needs my attendance. I can charge my officials with the task of getting that organised.

Those community-based mental health centres are co-delivered with primary care specialist services that can be drawn on as required. People can receive psychological therapies, medication and other interventions, while also having access to expertise that can help with wider issues that may be impacting on their wellbeing and recovery, such as issues with housing, employment and peer support.

Our suicide prevention support pathfinder programme for middle-aged men will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men within their communities and will create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems.

Today’s discussion has without doubt highlighted that suicide prevention truly is everybody’s business. Every person, organisation and service has a role to play. We can all do more to ensure that we are equipped with the skills that can and will save lives. Our suicide prevention strategy sets out a comprehensive, evidence-driven plan to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide across our country. It highlights the important role that employers and organisations can and should play in supporting their staff to get the support they need. Guidance such as the BSI’s “Suicide and the Workplace” standard brings welcome visibility to just how important that role is. I extend my thanks to everyone who contributed to and was involved in the development of the standard.

In conclusion, I know how personally painful debates such as this can be, but all hon. Members will know that the impact of these discussions goes well beyond the four walls of our Parliament and into the streets. That awareness is so important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett for securing this debate. I would be delighted to meet her and to organise the meetings I outlined.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the mental health investment standard on access to mental health services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

Mental health funding will rise by £140 million in real terms this year, reaching a record £16.1 billion. That is on top of capital investment of £473 million over four years to deliver new models of care and digital transformation. However, improving mental health services is about more than money because, despite the money from the last Government, they presided over a dramatic increase in mental health distress and waiting lists spiralling out of control. This Government will combine investment with reform to reduce waiting times, improve the quality of care, and strengthen prevention and early intervention.

[Calum Miller]

In my constituency, too many families face long and distressing waits for mental health support for children and young people. When I raised this with the Secretary of State some 15 months ago, he said that the Government were determined to ensure that mental health waits receive the same focus as the elective backlog. Yet a constituent recently wrote to me to explain that her son is waiting 10 months just for an assessment for his mental health needs. She asked me:

“How can we as parents and carers be expected to watch our young people suffer for a whole year before they get any help?”

I am worried that the revised mental health investment standard will not help this problem sufficiently. Can the Minister tell my constituents when child and adolescent mental health waiting lists will start to fall?

[Dr Ahmed]

The case that the hon. Gentleman highlights is indicative of the fact that much work has been done and much more needs to be done. We are providing early intervention for children’s mental health and wellbeing by rolling out mental health support teams, which will happen in every school by 2029. We are investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs. We are ensuring that, as we are digitally transforming, children and adults can access talking therapies where required. A lot has been done and there is a lot more to do, and we will carry on doing it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve access to NHS dental services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

We all recognise the devastating impact that eating disorders have on people’s lives, so this Government are committed to going further. Increases in mental health spending, which reaches a record £16.1 billion this year, include funding for eating disorder care. We have also commissioned an independent review to better understand rising prevalence, and the interim report of that review highlights the worrying rise in the prevalence of eating disorders. We look forward to the final report, which will set out recommendations on improving support.

[Mrs Blundell]

Too many people affected by eating disorders are not receiving the help they need—help often comes too late, with serious physical symptoms overlooked or misattributed. It is clear that those on the frontline must have the training they need to identify early warning signs. What further steps are being taken to ensure that people are supported before they reach crisis point, especially in areas such as mine, which were on the receiving end of significant cuts to public services under the Conservative party?

[Dr Ahmed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting those cuts and the devastating impact they had, particularly on mental health and eating disorder services. She is absolutely right that we have to do a lot more on the pathways, including harmonising some of the data and clinical coding to make sure that we are catching people early in the process. As I said, the prevalence review will now focus on eating disorders as well—that is a welcome intervention—and of course, children become adults, so we must end the cliff edge at the age of 18 and make sure that care continues in a holistic fashion. We are getting on with that.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Young girls are particularly vulnerable to eating disorders, which are a parent’s worst nightmare. We are seeing social media companies push content on to young girls that encourages eating disorders. What is the Minister doing with Cabinet colleagues to take on this problem?

[Dr Ahmed]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government are conducting a consultation to examine the most effective ways that we can go further to ensure that children have healthy online experiences. The three-month consultation, which is evidence-led and has input from independent experts, will include determining the right minimum age for children to access social media, and it will report in the summer.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to support the treatment of cancer patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Increasing the uptake of bowel cancer screening improves rates of early diagnosis and saves lives, but about a third of people eligible for a FIT test—a faecal immunochemical test—do not complete one. That figure rises in the most deprived areas of Scotland, where up to half of people are not completing the test. What collaborative work are the Government undertaking to improve participation rates and reduce such health inequalities across the United Kingdom?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

My hon. Friend may know that in Scotland there is no NHS app. In England, where there is one, we can facilitate bowel cancer screening through the app, increase uptake, and save more lives. In Scotland, all the SNP has managed to provide in 20 years is, possibly, some dermatology services in Lanarkshire. When we came into power—

[Mr Speaker]

I think we have got the message; don’t worry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Cerys was just 22 when she took her life while an in-patient at Park House in Greater Manchester. The coroner described the unit as “a shambles”. Cerys’s was just one of a number of deaths at the unit. There is a national pattern of mental health trusts failing to learn and act when tragedy occurs. Although reports on preventing future deaths are issued, there is no mechanism to ensure that their recommendations are acted on. How can accountability be strengthened?

[Dr Ahmed]

Anyone receiving mental health treatment, in particular acute mental health treatment, deserves dignity and high-quality care. Where care falls short, this Government’s approach is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why we are absolutely committed to learning, and to taking action to protect patients and improve in-patient mental health care up and down the country. I am deeply distressed to hear about this case and about other cases, including at St Andrew’s. NHS England and the Care Quality Commission are acting to keep patients safe. I am happy to take forward any further discussions with the hon. Lady, as necessary.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Patients in Chickerell often struggle to access GP services in their area, and instead must travel long distances. Some years ago, it was confirmed that a new surgery should be built in Chickerell. However, significant delays mean that we are still waiting for that surgery. Will the Minister work with me and the NHS locally to finally deliver a new GP surgery in Chickerell?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The infected blood inquiry recommended action to protect the safety of haemophilia care, but there is mounting concern among clinicians and patients alike that recommendation 9 is not being implemented. Will the Minister meet me and members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss these real concerns?

[Dr Ahmed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making these points about haemophilia care. We are committed to implementing all recommendations of the review, and good progress has been made, including on non-plasma-derived treatments and the revision of the national service provision. NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care will continue to provide updates on the Government response. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is welcome news that NHS England has reduced the faecal immunochemical test threshold from 120 micrograms to 80 micrograms, bringing England into line with Scotland and Wales. We now need investment in endoscopy and other related treatments to ensure that people suffering from bowel cancer are spotted early and given the ultimate chance of survival. Could Ministers look at further investment here to increase survival rates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

I commend the community groups in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He will know that there are record amounts of funding going into mental health provision under this Government. We are committed to ensuring that that funding is disseminated into the community, by moving more services from hospitals into the community.

Health and Social Care

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Written Corrections

[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):

[Dr Ahmed]

I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in cash terms this year.

NHS Capital Spending

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on NHS Capital Spending on 4 March 2026.

[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

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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 Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

In the interest of time, I will not, but I think I know where the hon. Gentleman wants to go with this, with the NRS. I will be happy to write more fully—

[Dr Evans]

It was a different point.

[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

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Written Statements

[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]