(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this morning’s debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, alongside Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson; as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment; and as the parent of a wheelchair user.
Through the APPG’s work, we have heard directly from stakeholders and service users about the unacceptable delays that wheelchair users face in accessing suitable equipment, often with reduced health outcomes as a result. Too often we also hear that service users are confined to using completely inappropriate wheelchairs as that is, frankly, their only option. The issues I will discuss today in patients accessing disability equipment are also all too evident to me as chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment. I pay tribute to the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz for their dedication in their advocacy for wheelchair users across the UK and for their support in preparing for today’s debate. I am grateful to have secured the debate and, as Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have lived and breathed the issues that so many wheelchair users face in accessing wheelchair provision.
The wheelchair quality framework, published in April 2025, outlines that wheelchairs provide
“a significant gateway to independence, wellbeing and quality of life for thousands of adults and children. They play a substantial role in facilitating social inclusion and improving life chances through work, education and activities that many people who do not need wheelchairs take for granted.”
While I welcome the framework for introducing some minimum standards and expectations, in my experience—and I will come to that later—it is the case that the user deals with the contractor, not the integrated care board. The ICB appears to have little or no idea, quite often, what the actual experience for users is when dealing with the contractor.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. I know this is a subject on which he has much knowledge, experience and passion. ShopMobility, a group of volunteers who provide mobility aids at the shopping centre to get people out and about in the town centre, have recently reported to me that many of their customers are coming to them waiting for wheelchair provision from the contractor, sometimes for more than six months. I have also had young people with cerebral palsy and other conditions unable to get basic repairs to their existing equipment. Does he agree with me that these are simply unacceptable levels of services for what is vital equipment, not optional extras? Is that not exactly why, as he says, we need an independent review body to scrutinise the poor performance of the contractors and commissioners?
Daniel Francis
Absolutely; I completely agree. I will refer later to the position that we now know of, how ombudsman complaints have risen exponentially in recent years, and to the experience of many people, including that of my own daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, in the kind of delays that my hon. Friend has outlined.
In the 2024-25 financial year, there were 630,000 wheelchair users registered in England, with 70,600 of them under 18 according to NHS data. However, that figure does not include those who have purchased their wheelchairs privately, or those unable to obtain the right equipment through the NHS. In 2018-19, the Wheelchair Alliance estimated there were a total of 780,000 users. That was an estimate due to lack of robust evidence to back those assumptions. There is no set location on NHS health records to identify whether someone is a wheelchair user. With many users purchasing their wheelchairs privately, or being provided a wheelchair through a charity, NHS data does not provide an accurate picture and we remain in the dark about the true number of wheelchair users in England. Unfortunately across the country we are seeing countless examples of wheelchair users being systematically failed by their service providers, and I am sure we will continue to hear horror stories throughout this debate. Wheelchair users face long waiting times, poor fitting and unsuitable equipment, and complex and fragmented access pathways, with reports of a postcode lottery in accessing wheelchair provision.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Alongside the postcode lottery my hon. Friend outlines, the impact on young people accessing education has huge implications. Not being able to view that data also impacts our understanding of why children might not be attending school. Does he agree that that is why data is so important for under-18s?
Daniel Francis
My hon. Friend is completely right. Last year I helped launch a report commissioned by Whizz Kidz about children who are wheelchair users accessing education, which highlights the issues my hon. Friend has brought to our attention.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has received a significant increase in complaints about wheelchair services, from four in 2018 to 76 in 2025, mainly about long delays in receiving equipment and poor communication. I would like to highlight the Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, which I will refer to throughout the debate. The report highlighted three areas of concern: wheelchair services in England do not consistently work for service users; NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subjected to more rigorous and mandated regulation; and the true scale of demand is not known.
Despite that report being published three and a half years ago, the findings are still relevant. Wheelchair users’ experiences have, if anything, deteriorated further. The report concluded that wheelchair users may be exploited due to a lack of clear regulation, independent review body or information about who to approach regarding repairs, complaints or suggestions for service improvements.
I am grateful to the Chamber engagement team for its support in preparing for today’s debate and for sharing the experiences of the 653 people who contributed to its survey on disability equipment. One respondent said:
“My husband has a basic wheelchair that is the wrong size and broken. It causes pain and pressure sores. He can’t self-propel more than 50 metres in it, making any kind of independence impossible. He is exhausted and in severe pain all the time.”
Another said:
“I had to put off starting university for a year because I couldn’t access a wheelchair in time. I spent a year at home unable to go out and see friends or access education or to even just go to the shop on my own.”
Wheelchair users already face everyday accessibility issues, from transport to housing and work. Having an unsuitable wheelchair adds not just an extra complication but often a debilitating and painful experience, and needs to be resolved. The current system is not working. Wheelchair providers need to work in cohesion rather than compete for contracts and undercut other providers.
National leadership and accountability of the service is necessary to ensure that service providers are held to account. Funding reform is needed to give wheelchair users the right piece of equipment, rather than the cheapest. The better, more appropriate yet expensive piece of equipment can often be the cheapest later down the line, with savings in health care and users better able to contribute economically. I will refer to that later in my personal experience.
Better and more conclusive data is needed. We are still not sure exactly how many adult and child wheelchair users there are in this country. We cannot, therefore, accurately access the current need or where gaps lie. To improve services, we need wheelchair users to be involved from the start in co-production, service design and commissioning. To get the service right and address the individual needs of wheelchair users, we need to hear directly from them. Ultimately, a national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is required to ensure that the service provided is of a good standard. As a result, wheelchair users will receive better quality care and outcomes.
I have five asks from recommendations to put to the Minister. First, it is clear that national leadership and accountability are needed. Service providers need to be held to account, as we have heard and will surely hear more during the debate. There are far too many examples of the service failing wheelchair users, leading to poor health outcomes. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, highlighted that NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subject to more rigorous and mandated regulation. Addressing the current inconsistent and fragmented service will improve outcomes for users, as forms of provision are held to account effectively.
The report suggests that mandatory regulation of wheelchair services could, for instance, be the responsibility of the Care Quality Commission, to address the gaps in accountability, guarantee a minimum standard of quality and, therefore, reduce the current postcode lottery in support. That could also cover private sector providers and additional regulations for private retailers, to give wheelchair users greater confidence and more oversight of the services they receive. Across the country, 45% of wheelchair services are not run directly by NHS trusts and are often commissioned to private companies. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Department has considered appointing a national lead or regulator to oversee the provision of wheelchair services to hold providers to account and ensure that wheelchair users in England are no longer at the mercy of a postcode lottery determining the quality of the service that they receive.
The second issue is budget. Increasing baseline funding in line with current needs and inflation would not only be beneficial for wheelchair users but would likely result in future long-term savings for the NHS. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 23 December report, “The Value of a Wheelchair”, showed that a £22 million per year increase in equipment spending to the average level among ICBs that currently report average levels of per patient spending would represent an estimated 14% increase in the current total annual NHS spending on wheelchair services. That would make a meaningful difference to the total equipment budgets in half of ICBs—and a big difference to wheelchair users. The research shows that this could reap £60 million—along with £315 million in wider societal and economic benefits—in NHS savings.
Budget should also be flexible and innovative, including in individual personalised wheelchair budgets, where users have found gaps in the funding, including not covering additional costs such as shipping or repair and maintenance, resulting in a need for users to self-fund for elements of care. The 2023 report outlines that some users felt the availability of support and funding was inflexible and not always optimally allocated. Whizz Kidz’ research has found that 22% of wheelchair users were offered a wheelchair budget as an option. Many more individuals had to fundraise and source charity support to allow them to get the right wheelchair. Reports from Frontier Economics show that, on average, the NHS spends £125 per wheelchair user per year, covering all types of equipment, staff, service, insurance and maintenance. Establishing an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision would help show where the gaps lie in the current funding and provide more efficient budget management, and where this can be improved. Could the Minister therefore outline whether steps have been taken to review current funding and whether consideration has been made of the benefits of introducing baseline funding in line with other complex and individual needs of wheelchair users?
The third recommendation was about data and transparency. To further improve wheelchair services, data collection needs to be vastly improved. As I have touched on, we do not know the number of wheelchair users in the country and while there is the national wheelchair data collection quarterly publication, it is essential that the available data also includes outsourced providers to ensure that they have a full picture of service provision across the UK. An independent national review body with oversight of all wheelchair services, including the NHS as well as private providers, would help to provide a greater understanding of the current provision, along with more accurate data to help identify gaps—whether in funding or in a postcode lottery of service users having different experiences based on where they live.
Wheelchair users and patients should also have a role. Their feedback and suggestions would illustrate the reality of the current provision and the impact that it is having on their lives. Currently, there are limited avenues for users to provide feedback on the quality of service received, resulting in reduced mechanisms for providers of care and ICBs to identify gaps in the service provided. The Wheelchair Alliance has found communication issues across multiple aspects of wheelchair provision, with users not being provided with an explanation for delays and a lack of communication between providers of care, resulting in users undergoing multiple unnecessary assessments. Giving users the opportunity to report those experiences to one body with national oversight would allow for greater improvements sector wide. Without an accurate national dataset and consistent reporting, unmet need and poor performance are not being addressed and continue to remain prevalent. Will the Minister therefore commit to improving the current collection of data on wheelchair users and their experience in accessing wheelchair provision and services?
The fourth ask regards procurement and value. Currently, many wheelchair users find that they are not given the most suitable wheelchair and are instead given the most cost-effective option. For example, in evidence provided to the APPG for wheelchair users by Charlie Fairhurst—and I declare an interest in that he is my daughter’s consultant at the Evelina—in his role as a consultant for 20 years and as the national lead for children’s neuroscience for the past eight, he outlined that in his experience, poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores and increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector. Hip dislocation rates—which is a big issue for people, particularly children, with cerebral palsy—are increasing in both adult and child wheelchair users due to the wrong equipment being provided. My own daughter had to have her hip broken as a result and may need to have that done again because of those posture issues. Charlie described clearly to our APPG the issues for wheelchair users if they do not have the right equipment: they have to continue having the same operations to put their posture right again.
Another issue users encounter is the wheelchair they require not being suitable for their housing. One respondent to the survey said that the
“wheelchair I was offered weighed nearly 20kg and stopped me from moving around my very small home. Due to the size and weight of the chair, I spent almost four months not leaving the house.”
The NHS would experience cost savings as a result of improved provision, including providing patients with suitable wheelchairs from the beginning. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on those issues.
The fifth recommendation relates to children. Currently, children aged three to five often miss out on receiving an appropriate wheelchair. The strict eligibility and issuing criteria that the NHS uses mean that young children are often deemed ineligible, despite their need not necessarily being any less than that of an adult or young person.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the issue of children getting access to wheelchairs, does he agree that sometimes the provision itself is fine, but parents subsequently establish that the wheelchair is not suitable and there can be difficulties in getting the best and most appropriate wheelchair for the child as they develop and age?
Daniel Francis
I absolutely agree. The hon. Member will hear my own personal horror story on that very matter in a moment. It is a big issue. Children grow, and the delays often mean that when the wheelchair finally arrives, the child is a very different size from when they were measured for it.
Instead of a wheelchair, younger children are offered a standard buggy, which often does not meet their clinical or social needs. It also impacts their social integration at a crucial age and limits their independence and participation at home, in school and at playtime. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister considered extending NHS wheelchair provision to children aged three to five so that they can get the right equipment.
The situation does not necessarily get any better for older children. In 2024, the national wheelchair data collection outlined that 80.9% of children under 18 received their wheelchair within the 18-week timescale, meaning that nearly one in five children are waiting over 18 weeks to receive their wheelchair. That figure unfortunately increases for children with more complex needs. In 2023-24, 29% of children assessed as having a specialist need waited over 18 weeks, and the figures for October to December 2025 showed that 1,563 children waited more than 18 weeks after a referral to NHS wheelchair services. A further 1,685 children were assessed with no equipment provided. That is despite the NHS England model service specification requiring services to have developed improvement plans by 2019 to ensure that all children who require a wheelchair receive one within 18 weeks.
My family and I have direct experience of that with our contractor in the London borough of Bexley. Back in October 2021, when my daughter—who, as I said, has quadriplegic cerebral palsy—was eight years old, it was agreed that she required a new wheelchair. The appointment to measure her for it was held three months later in January 2022, and the wheelchair arrived six months later in July 2022—nine months after the referral. Despite recommendations on the postural support that she required given that she has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a standard wheelchair had been ordered, which then had to be repaired or have adjustments made to it on five occasions in the next four months. Despite those adaptations, it was still not fit for purpose.
After my wife and I got the ICB involved—how many parents out there know what the ICB is and how to get it involved?—a new fit-for-purpose wheelchair was ordered in January 2023. It arrived in April 2023, but no one advised us that it had arrived. I really believe our contractor rations appointments to manage its workload. When we chased the position in June 2023, we were advised that the wheelchair had been in stock for two months. An appointment was made in July 2023. Twenty-one months after the initial referral, my daughter received a wheelchair that was fit for her needs. That meant that the contractor had missed its 18-week deadline twice in an 18-month period in one patient’s case.
Importantly, as I have said, children grow and delays like that cause more work, given that the child will clearly be taller than they were when the referral was made. At such a crucial time in a child’s life, their mobility and independence matter. It is critical that children are given the necessary equipment to engage with their peers and participate in school. Having an independent national review body would help to give children and their families a voice and more ownership over their care and, in doing so, drive down waiting lists and improve patient outcomes. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues, and the Minister’s comments on the points I have made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. A special thanks to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for the opportunity to support him in this debate on a subject of which he has personal knowledge, and for his opening speech. If I recall right, we had a 30-minute debate on the issue some time ago, and now we have a more substantive debate on this important subject, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the need for improvements for many of our constituents. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I will give our perspective to support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and those who will speak after me. It is nice to see the Minister in his place; he is becoming a bit of a regular in Westminster Hall.
Jim Shannon
He is trying to catch up. I look forward to his response and that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). I tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Luke, you’re back again!” It is a real pleasure.
When Members use phrases such as “postcode lottery”, it brings a smile to my face, but not in a humorous way; due to our legislation, my constituents do not have the ability to participate in the postcode lottery and benefit for their street, and yet when it comes to provision for disabled people, we seem to be right in the heart of that painful reality. Whether someone is in Newtownards or Newcastle, their ability to live an independent life should not depend on which trust’s boundaries they live within. I concur with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the current situation is not acceptable, and the changes we seek from the Minister must be transformative.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Recently, I was listening to the radio and heard the story of Phil Eaglesham, a former Royal Marine who served in Afghanistan and, as a result, needed a wheelchair. He founded a company, Conquering Horizons, which designs all-terrain wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get beyond the basic needs and look towards the real-life needs of those who need wheelchairs? Does he agree that it would be beneficial for the Minister to meet Phil, hear his story, and hear how he is transforming the lives of those who need wheelchairs?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she underlines the point. I was going to give the example of a young fella from Newtownards. He lives in Dundonald, but he is more seen in Newtownards. He has severe, complex mobility needs, but he is the brightest wee boy you ever met in all your life, and he always encourages and lifts me when I meet him. He is a Chelsea supporter, so he needs some help at the minute, because they are not doing too good. I am a Leicester City supporter, and we are not doing too good either, so we have something in common.
There was just no way in the world that the NHS could give him the wheelchair that he needed for his special needs—similarly to the example that my hon. Friend mentioned in respect of those who have served in the forces. The only way that wee boy could obtain the wheelchair that he needed was through fundraising. Dessie Coffey in Newtownards has been fantastic. He raises money for all charities, but he did so especially for this wee boy. Over a period of time, we raised about £6,000 to help him with his wheelchair, and today that wee boy has some independence.
I wrote to one of the Manchester United stars—my mind just went blank and I cannot remember who it was, but he no longer plays for them—and he sent me a signed autograph, so I gave it to the wee boy and he sold it for £100. Again, if it was not for individual fundraisers, he just would not have had the money. I very much believe that we need an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, and I support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in his call for one.
Some might ask why we need another body in an already complex system. The answer is quite simple: because the current system is failing the very people it was built to serve. Northern Ireland has the longest health waiting lists in the United Kingdom. People are waiting years for orthopaedic surgery, and while they wait, their mobility needs change, often without the system keeping pace. Just last year, we saw the collapse of NRS Healthcare, which was the main provider of repairs for our regional service. The Business Services Organisation stepped in to steady the ship, but that moment of crisis exposed the fundamental truth that out wheelchair services are fragile.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The NRS case is so important. I am keen to understand how the Government are ensuring the ongoing provision and servicing of wheelchairs, given that NRS has gone bust. I have been contacted by constituents who worked at high levels in NRS, and who are concerned that those contracts will not be followed up. Is the hon. Member concerned about that, too?
Jim Shannon
I certainly am. The shadow Minister always speaks with great knowledge on such matters, and I look forward to his speech. Hopefully, the Minister will respond positively to his point. Although waiting lists do not fall under the Minister’s responsibility, the fact is that they are of such length all over the country that mobility is declining, and support is needed more than ever.
One of the greatest merits of having an independent review body would be the death of the data desert. Currently, we do not have a full, transparent picture of the true demand for wheelchairs in the United Kingdom. An independent body would mandate high-quality, comparable data, forcing the Department of Health to confront the true scale of the backlog. The issue of data comes up during almost every debate we have on health. How can we know how to respond if we do not have the data and information? Perhaps the Minister could tell us how we can quantify the demand through data, which clearly needs to be collected.
We also need accountability that has teeth. Currently, when things go wrong, users are often left to navigate a complaints maze with their trust. An independent body would act as an impartial watchdog, ensuring that the wheelchair equality framework is not just a document on a shelf in Belfast or elsewhere, but a standard to which every service user can hold their trust. I gave the example of the wee boy—his name is Reuben Walls—and how fundraising got him what he wanted, but we need a system to help those who cannot fundraise and do not have the finances.
Every day that a child waits for a wheelchair or an adult sits in an ill-fitting seat that causes pressure sores, the cost to the health and social care system grows. Research shows that the right wheelchair can deliver a societal return worth triple its cost. Having an independent body would ensure that we treat wheelchair provision not as an optional extra, but as a vital investment in our economy and health. We need a national body that listens to the Wheelchair Collective, champions the user voice and ensures that the promise of
“the right chair, at the right time, right now”
is kept for every citizen in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister and the Government to ensure and provide that, and I think all of us here today wish to see the same thing.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate, and on his excellent speech, which drew on his lived experience.
I contribute to this debate on behalf of the many constituents in Scarborough and Whitby who have been profoundly failed by NHS-contracted wheelchair services. One such constituent is a woman in her early 80s, who became reliant on an electric wheelchair to leave the house following a traumatic road accident. Her family and friends reached out to me after failing to be told when a wheelchair might be provided and not being offered any interim support. At that point, all the necessary adaptations to accommodate the wheelchair had already been made to the outside of her home. AJM Healthcare, which is contracted by NHS wheelchair services, was contacted for an urgent update but was completely unable to provide a specific timeframe for the progress of her application.
Two years ago, AJM Healthcare was investigated by the parliamentary ombudsman following a surge in complaints. As we have heard, those involved people not receiving new wheelchairs or the correct parts, delays to receiving equipment and poor communication. Two years on, sadly, it seems that nothing has changed. Other constituents have also come up against significant delays to wheelchair repairs, leading them to become prisoners in their own homes. One resident requested my help after being housebound for three months while waiting for the supplier simply to send on the correct replacement parts. Another constituent endured three months of delays over a routine maintenance issue, only to discover after countless unanswered calls that the repairs company had gone into liquidation.
It is clear that the current system is not working. Wheelchair providers are failing to meet even the most basic standards, leaving people isolated, housebound and ignored. What is worse, they are getting away with it. Despite repeated complaints and investigations, failing providers are still contracted and continue to offer an appalling service to people such as my constituents. My constituents deserve better. Waiting months for a wheelchair or essential repairs is unacceptable, and it is high time that wheelchair service providers were held to account by an independent national regulator. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan finally to put an end to this catalogue of failure.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for all the work he has done not only to secure this debate, but to champion wheelchair users in his constituency and all of ours. We are lucky to have him on the green Benches.
As we talk about the provision of wheelchairs across the country, I want to share the story of one of my constituents. Dozens of constituents have written to me, but I want to draw this story out because it is a particularly jarring case of how the system is failing people. My constituent Lisa has a severe condition that affects her nerves. She cannot stand, feed herself or use the bathroom unaided, and she has a tracheotomy to help her breathe. In July 2024 she was referred to AJM, the company contracted to the NHS in Staffordshire at that point to provide wheelchairs. It took almost a year, and Lisa’s family contacting me for help, to even get her measured for an appointment by AJM. She was then told that it would be at least another year before she got the wheelchair that she needs. Without that, she can leave her house only for hospital appointments, because the chair that she had was impacting her breathing and putting her life at risk.
AJM did finally provide a better wheelchair in January 2025. It took 18 months—not 18 weeks, but 18 months—and Lisa still did not get the wheelchair she needed. She got a better wheelchair—a less bad wheelchair—but it still did not meet her needs. We are unsure of the timeline for when she will get the wheelchair that she needs to be able to live her life.
Lisa’s is not an isolated case. It does not surprise me that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who we have just heard from, has also had problems with AJM. We know that it is a national issue and that AJM is failing the people of Staffordshire. Indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will raise a similar point shortly.
Since 2023, complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about that firm have shot up. To refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it is very clear from looking at that data that there are systemic, nationwide failings. The ombudsman asked AJM to investigate but, from what we are hearing today and have heard previously in this place, sufficient action has not been taken across the country.
In Staffordshire, the local NHS commissioners issued AJM with a performance notice last August and have now retendered the contract, but until October the contract remains with AJM and, unless massive changes are made, it will continue to fail my constituents and those around the country. AJM has clearly lost the trust of people in our area. The long waits have had a really serious impact not just on the physical health of wheelchair users, but on their mental health and dignity, and on their friends, their families and the community that support them. We can never look at one person in isolation—it takes a family to raise a child and it takes a community for us all to be part of, and these effects have really serious impacts on entire communities as well as on wheelchair users themselves.
This is really not good enough. Staffordshire ICB has finally stood up and made the decision to retender the contract and award it elsewhere. However, my major concern is that this contract was not working, it was clear that it was not working and none of the interventions made it work. That is a real problem. It appears that, if everything works fine, everything works fine—but if things start to go wrong, what is the mechanism to fix them? How do we make sure that things are fixed?
The suggestion that there should be a national body to oversee wheelchair provision is one that would give my constituents and indeed all our constituents confidence that somebody will examine this issue, and that failings will not continue to be brushed under the carpet and ignored. They simply cannot be ignored. Wheelchairs are far too important to far too many people, and I place on the record my absolute support for the proposal.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this very important parliamentary debate.
NHS wheelchair services across England and Wales face serious challenges, affecting hundreds of thousands of disabled people and demanding urgent attention. Access to an NHS wheelchair begins with a referral and assessment by a GP, physiotherapist or social worker. Eligibility is based on clinical need and a wheelchair must be required for at least six months.
Yet problems arise even at that first stage. Many first-time or inexperienced wheelchair users are expected to know exactly what they need, despite having little or no prior experience. They are often presented with a very limited choice of NHS-approved models, frequently without receiving the guidance necessary to make an informed decision.
I want to highlight the experience of Jonathan, a 22-year-old constituent of mine from Bassetlaw. At 18, Jonathan attended his first wheelchair assessment, having never used a wheelchair before. After only a very brief trial, he was asked to choose between two models, with no meaningful discussion about how his needs might evolve. He selected a chair that felt slightly easier to manoeuvre on the day. That single decision had long-term consequences. The wheelchair proved far too heavy for him to manage independently. Everyday tasks such as getting into a car required multiple steps and the help of others. In bad weather, he watched friends and family struggle to lift his wheelchair, an experience that he has described as being both frustrating and deeply uncomfortable. What should have supported his independence instead reinforced reliance on others.
Once that decision about a wheelchair had been made, Jonathan was effectively locked into it. Like many wheelchair users, he could not access a reassessment because his condition, although progressive, did not meet the narrow eligibility criteria for a reassessment. That experience reflects a wider, indeed systemic, problem. Without proper guidance or trial periods, people can make choices that they later regret but may have to live with for years.
Such issues are made worse by long waiting times. Although NHS targets aim for 92% of users to receive a wheelchair within 18 months of referral, the reality is far less favourable. For many people, the delays they experience are far longer—and they are not minor inconveniences: they can lead to secondary health complications, avoidable hospital admissions and barriers to education, employment and participation. Those consequences are entirely preventable. Even once a wheelchair has been delivered, further challenges arise. Jonathan’s wheelchair repeatedly developed faults, from deflating tyres to loose bolts, which at times made it unusable.
Repairs, which should be straightforward, became another obstacle. When engineers did attend to carry out a repair, they sometimes arrived with incorrect parts or relied on Jonathan himself to diagnose the problem. That is an unreasonable expectation to make of any wheelchair user.
When a wheelchair fails, users are not simply inconvenienced; they are immobilised. There is also a significant inconsistency across integrated care boards. Eligibility criteria and equipment provision vary widely, creating a postcode lottery where access depends on location, not need.
There are clear and achievable solutions. First, inexperienced users should receive structured guidance and meaningful trial periods. Secondly, waiting times must be reduced through expanded capacity and better processes. Thirdly, the repair system must be reformed, with stronger accountability and reliability. Finally, eligibility and reassessment criteria must be standardised nationally, so that people with progressive conditions are not left for years with unsuitable equipment.
Sadly, Jonathan’s experience is not unique. Many wheelchair users simply endure these failures quietly, but quiet endurance should not be mistaken for a system that works. With better guidance, timely access, reliable repairs and fair reassessment, we can build a service that supports independence, dignity and opportunity. I believe we have the commitment to do so; what is required now is the will. I end by thanking Jonathan, who helped me with this speech in great detail.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate, and on his excellent work across the board on wheelchair services through the APPG that he leads.
As vice-chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, this debate is incredibly close to my heart. The reason I became part of the APPG is that so many of my constituents were contacting me in desperate need of a new wheelchair or vital wheelchair repairs. One young lad, Noah, had long outgrown his moulded wheelchair to the point that it was becoming unsafe and causing him harm. When he went into hospital for spinal surgery, despite being well enough to be discharged, he could not leave for weeks because he did not have a safe wheelchair to go home with.
Disabled people, including children, with life-limiting conditions have been left waiting for up to two years to receive a new wheelchair. In the young life of a child such as Noah, that is unacceptable. They are left in pain in unsuitable chairs, and some of my constituents are unable to leave the house altogether because their chair has broken down. The long waits have affected my constituents’ physical and mental health, and have placed great strain on their carers.
Preston, the 19-year-old son of my constituent, Kelly Williams, was left with a collapsing wheelchair for six months before vital repairs were made, and it was a further four months before his wheelchair was eventually replaced. Preston lives with a progressive brain disease. He cannot walk or bear weight, and for almost an entire year he was forced to sit in an uncomfortable chair that was not fit for purpose. That is completely unacceptable.
When many of my constituents contacted AJM, the previous provider, there was a complete lack of communication and an all-round failure to consider their needs. I will name one more constituent among the many: an ex-Paralympic medallist, Ian Marsden, runs the risk of being bedridden because, if his broken wheelchair is not fixed, he is stuck. Having raised the issue with the ICB, I was pleased to see that it issued a performance notice against the provider in August last year, but the fact that enforcement action had to be taken raises serious concerns about contract oversight, risk escalation and safeguarding of disabled service users. The service went out to retender; a new provider has been appointed and is due to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) outlined. The contract was awarded on 24 February 2026.
I trust that lessons are learned, but a new contract means that wheelchair users in Stoke-on-Trent South will once again have to get used to a new system and possibly a service in a new location. I strongly encourage the ICB to be diligent in monitoring and reviewing the performance of the new contractor. Playing the blame game with previous providers, as AJM did, will not wash this time.
At this point, I will slightly veer off track to express the significant concerns regarding the changes to car mobility schemes, which were raised by my constituent Ryan. With those changes in mind, it is even more vital that we get wheelchair services right. Given the history and legacy of these issues, I strongly support an independent review body to oversee wheelchair provision and ensure that wheelchair users receive an outstanding service. The time is now, and I ask the Minister to act and fix this situation—it is bad in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, but it is a national issue.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate and setting out so clearly and in such detail why this matters.
Access to a wheelchair is essential for many disabled people’s quality of life. It enables independence, supports physical health and allows people to participate in daily activities, work and their community. This debate is about whether the current system is capable of delivering that access consistently, fairly and effectively, or whether there is merit in establishing an independent national review body to help achieve that goal.
As we have heard this morning, when access to a wheelchair is delayed or when equipment is unsuitable the consequences are serious. People can become housebound or bedbound and their health can deteriorate, leading to preventable complications, and in some cases avoidable hospital admissions.
Across England, wheelchair services remain inconsistent. Too often, access depends on where someone lives. Long waiting times are widely reported, with some individuals waiting months and, as we have heard, in some cases over a year for appropriate equipment. For something so fundamental to mobility and dignity, that level of delay is unjustifiable.
The impact extends beyond the individual who needs the wheelchair. Family carers provide vital support to their loved ones. Without a suitable wheelchair, carers may need to help with lifting and movement, increasing the risk of physical injury to themselves. There are also clear effects on mental health and wellbeing, both for carers and for the user of the wheelchair, and those are linked to the loss of independence and reduced privacy resulting from unsuitable equipment.
These issues point to broader structural challenges. The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should be able to live independently and with dignity; yet the current state of wheelchair provision reflects wider pressures within the health and social care system—pressures that contribute to inconsistency, delays and gaps in accountability.
There have been efforts to improve services, including the NHS’s wheelchair quality framework, which sets out important principles and standards. However, it is reasonable to question whether guidance alone is enough to drive meaningful change, particularly in a system facing financial strain and ongoing reorganisation. Frameworks can outline expectations, but they do not ensure delivery.
Wheelchair services are frequently delivered by private contractors on behalf of the NHS. In some cases performance has fallen short, as we have heard this morning, with long waiting times, poor communication and limited flexibility for patients. Where oversight is weak or fragmented it becomes harder to ensure the consistent high-quality provision that people deserve. This is where the question at the heart of today’s debate becomes especially relevant. There is a strong case for a more co-ordinated national approach that ensures clear accountability, consistent standards and better use of data to monitor performance and outcomes.
An independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision could offer solutions. It could provide clear accountability at a national level, helping to ensure that responsibility for performance does not become diffused across multiple organisations. It could support more consistent data collection, addressing current gaps in understanding around demand, waiting times and user experience. It could also strengthen the oversight of providers, including private contractors, ensuring that poor performance is identified and addressed more effectively. Importantly, it could help to ensure that best practice is shared and implemented more uniformly across the country, reducing the postcode lottery that currently affects so many people.
Establishing a new body is not a solution in itself. The body’s effectiveness would depend on its powers, its independence and how it integrates with existing structures. However, given the persistent challenges in wheelchair provision, it is entirely reasonable to assess whether such an approach could deliver improvements that existing mechanisms have struggled to achieve.
The issue is closely connected to wider policy challenges affecting disabled people, which extend beyond the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, the Access for All scheme of the Department for Transport will make railway stations more accessible but I know from my Mid Sussex constituency that the promise of step-free access at Wivelsfield station, made under the last Conservative Government, was not funded and the upgrade has been cut by this Labour Government. The Access to Work scheme of the Department for Work and Pensions can help people with physical and mental disabilities get or stay in work but, as I previously set out to the Minister in this Chamber back in March, the wheelchair that one of my constituents needs has been delayed by years due to the DWP’s bureaucracy and “computer says no” attitude. All such schemes should work together to enable disabled people to live fulfilling lives. By extension, where the schemes are working properly, timely access to support would reduce pressure on other parts of the NHS, as we know is desperately needed. At present, provision is too variable and too slow.
In considering the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body, the key question is not whether change is needed, because it clearly is, but how best to deliver it. A national body could provide the focus, oversight and accountability that are currently lacking. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I urge the Government to look into the arguments voiced in this debate and assess whether an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is the best way to achieve the improvements that are so clearly needed. Those improvements are achievable but require sustained attention at a national level. For the many people whose independence depends on something as fundamental as a wheelchair, that change cannot come soon enough.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He is becoming a regular in these Westminster Hall debates, rivalled only by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It seems that there is a competition to be the one who makes the most representations.
On a serious note, last month in the debate on disability equipment provision the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke passionately and movingly about his personal experiences. We should treasure so much, in this House, people bringing their experience to try to make things better for their constituents, their family and the nation. The hon. Member deserves a lot of credit and I thank him for securing this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users for its work to ensure that wheelchair users are heard, and I thank the Wheelchair Alliance and others who continue to hold this House, Ministers and the Opposition to account on these issues.
There is little disagreement in the debate about the nature of the problem. The Government themselves acknowledged last month, in the debate on disability equipment provision, that too many wheelchair users wait too long for the equipment they need, with knock-on consequences for their independence, health and ability to participate fully in daily life. That admission is welcome, but recognition alone is not enough. The question before us is how responsibility, accountability and improvement are to be delivered in practice. On that point, the picture is far less clear. Ministers have been explicit that they do not intend to publish a national strategy for wheelchair services. At the same time, the Government are embarking on a major restructure of the NHS in England. Understandably, that combination raises concerns about where national oversight will sit in the future, how consistency will be ensured and who will ultimately be accountable when services fall short.
During last month’s debate on disability equipment, the Minister acknowledged the uncertainty created by the changes, noting that seemingly small gaps in practice or responsibility can have disproportionate impacts on the quality of life of disabled people. That is precisely why clarity matters. As the NHS is reshaped, wheelchair users and their families need to know who is responsible for setting expectations nationally, who is responsible for commissioning locally and who steps in when the system is not working. Without that clarity, there is real risk that the responsibility becomes fragmented and that unacceptable variation goes unchecked. Ministers often rightly point to the role of integrated care boards in commissioning wheelchair services for their local populations, but ICBs are being asked to do a great deal at once—to meet 18-week standards for community services, adopt the best practices set out in the wheelchair quality framework, and now to do so while operating with up to 50% reductions in headcounts and constrained budgets. So it is fair to ask whether those competing pressures risk pushing wheelchair provision further down the list of priorities rather than elevating it to where it should be. Going forward, who will be responsible for overseeing the wheelchair quality framework itself, and how are the Government assessing whether that is genuinely improving outcomes on the ground rather than simply setting aspirations?
There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), previously undertook to look at the reuse and return of disability equipment, which could have real benefits for patients and for public value. Many will be keen to hear what progress has been made on that work and whether it will form part of a more coherent approach in provision.
Finally, I raise the issue of innovation. In my constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, local businesses have shown how responsive, user-focused solutions can make a real, tangible difference. I mentioned Mounts and More as a primary example last time. As the national structure evolves, innovation like that must be supported rather than stifled.
As the Minister responds this morning, wheelchair users and their families are listening carefully. They will want assurances that, amid the structural change, accountability will not be diluted, responsibility will not pass around the system, and there will be clear leadership to ensure faster, fairer access to the equipment that is so fundamental to independent living. I have three questions to the Minister on that basis.
First, as NHS England is abolished through an NHS service modernisation Bill, can the Minister set out clearly which body will hold national responsibility for wheelchair service standards and oversight, and how Ministers will be held accountable when or should services for wheelchair users fail across different parts of the country? Secondly, who will be responsible going forward for overseeing and enforcing the wheelchair quality framework? What assessment have the Government made to date as to whether that is making a difference, and how we can have improvements?
Thirdly—I touched on this in my intervention—many wheelchair users will have had provision from NRS Healthcare. Given the size and scale of the impact of NRS collapsing, there is real concern about servicing their contracts and making sure their wheelchairs are maintained. What have the Government done and what do they have to say on that topic?
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 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.
Daniel Francis
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It was a great honour, though deeply disturbing, to hear of people’s lived experience as wheelchair users. To be brief, we heard good examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) of mobility providers, and from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) of the growing needs of users. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) about access to school. I urge all hon. Members to look at the Whizz Kidz report on that issue.
There was an interesting comment from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on all-terrain wheelchairs, which is something we looked at in a recent event across the road. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is always here for these debates. It is good to hear about the position in Northern Ireland and, in particular, about veterans’ use of wheelchairs, which also featured at that event.
We heard about AJM Healthcare from my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I accept that it is the largest provider in the market—it was the provider I was referring to in my comments—but clearly there have been issues with delays across the country. I will come back to those, and to individual ICBs’ awareness of what was going on.
I was really sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) about the suitability and parts issues experienced by her constituent. I know those issues at first hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about discharge delays. I would say that they are sad but, quite frankly, they are just disgraceful. I welcome the pressure to improve standards from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who also rightly brought up the point about NRS. I have met with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care in recent months on that and the overall framework for where the responsibility lies.
To my good friend the Minister, I will say that I will continue this pressure, as will other hon. Members. I accept that what happened during covid was very difficult. I was attending wheelchair appointments during that period and it was difficult—of course, delays were caused—but we have ended up in a position where there are far more ombudsman complaints now than before covid. I will not prejudge matters, but I think the ombudsman may have something to say about this later this year. Lots of wheelchair users have ended up having to go to the ombudsman because it is a complex system. That goes back to the framework and what I said earlier. How many people out there know what their ICB is and how to go to their ICB?
The wheelchair contract where I live is about to be tendered across three London boroughs: Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich. At the moment, those three boroughs have individual providers. It looks like they will have one provider going forward. When the consultation meetings were held around the new framework and the new contract, the provider, AJM Healthcare, was asked to advertise them. Did it tell any of the users? No, it did not, because if it had, they would have come to the meetings and told their horror stories.
I found out by accident because I am the Member of Parliament, and guess what? I was the only person who attended the meeting because none of the users had been informed that it was happening. That is my concern about ICBs monitoring those contracts and being able to say what is happening. It appeared to me in that meeting that, from my experience as a parent and from talking to other parents, I knew more about the problems in the system than the people commissioning the contract within my ICB. That is why we need continued monitoring and some kind of framework.
I absolutely welcome the Minister’s comments. There has been movement, but I will continue the pressure, along with other Members, in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.