Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
This Government want to ensure that every person with multiple sclerosis receives high-quality healthcare.
Today, during MS Awareness Week (28 April to 4 May), I would like to update the House on the work under way to support service improvement and ensure better care for patients with MS in England.
The Government have set out an ambitious programme of reform for the NHS. The health mission has set the clear goals of achieving an NHS that is there when people need it and a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer. Our plan for change will rebuild the health service and deliver better care for everyone.
NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time neurology programme supports improvements to MS care by identifying and addressing variations in care, sharing best practices, and promoting efficiency through a clinically-led approach, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes and reduced costs.
NHS England’s neuroscience transformation programme is also improving MS care by focusing on faster diagnoses, better co-ordinated care, and improved access to specialist services.
While the transformation programme provides the overarching framework for improving neurology care, products such as the RightCare progressive neurological conditions toolkit offer practical guidance and support to improve MS care by promoting a joined-up, high-quality approach, ensuring that patients have access to specialist care and resources, and facilitating better co-ordination of care across different services.
NHS England is also updating its specialised neurology service specification, which includes MS. Service specifications define the standards of care expected from organisations funded by NHS England to provide specialised care.
The Government have also recently established the Neuro Forum, a UK-wide Government-led forum focusing on services and support for people affected by neurological conditions. It is the first of its kind and brings together the Department, NHS England, devolved Governments and health services, and neurological alliances across the UK to address gaps in treatment and care, and to drive improvements in neurological health across the four UK nations.
In March, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published technology appraisal guidance on cladribine (Mavenclad), expanding its recommended use to include people with relapsing-remitting MS who have active disease; previously only recommended for highly active RRMS, NICE has now expanded its availability to a much wider group of patients, with the NHS becoming the first healthcare system in Europe to roll it out widely to patients with active disease. It is estimated that about 2,000 patients could be offered the treatment over the first three years.
NICE’S approval of ublituximab (Briumvi) for active relapsing-remitting MS, in December 2024, has further expanded the range of drugs available to people in the NHS, ensuring that more people can find the treatment that is best for them.
Research is advancing our understanding of MS. The Department delivers research into neurological conditions via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In 2023-24, the NIHR spent £72.9 million on research into neurological conditions across research projects, programmes and infrastructure.
Through the NHS 10-year health plan, we will aim to improve care for people with long-term conditions such as MS.
The plan will set out bold ambitions to provide more care in the community, make greater use of technology and build a more preventive health service. This will include how the NHS will provide high-quality care for people living with long-term conditions such as MS.
[HCWS614]
Parkinson’s Awareness Month
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for raising this important issue, and I congratulate him on leading the first substantive debate on Parkinson’s in the House. I also thank all Back Benchers for their insightful contributions, which raised various issues. Although the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), my hon. Friends the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all raised various issues, it is fair to say that everybody who has spoken today, including those who made contributions from the Opposition Front Benches, have raised the importance of the voluntary and community sector and shared some powerful and important stories from their constituents.
April was Parkinson’s Awareness Month and I pay tribute to the fantastic charities that make it a success: Parkinson’s UK, Cure Parkinson’s and The Brain Charity, to name but a few. In particular, I was moved to see how many people had contributed to the “Knit it Blue” campaign, sending in more than 500 beautiful knitted tulips. I also pay tribute to the Movers and Shakers, whose podcast is doing a fantastic job of raising awareness and advocating for better care and treatment for those living with Parkinson’s.
Awareness campaigns really deliver results. We just need to look at the “Get It On Time” campaign, which has led to more than 100 NHS organisations pledging to improve the delivery of time-critical medication—raised a number of times in this debate—and is backed by resources and training materials commissioned by NHS England. We also now have the Parky charter, which is galvanising public and professional awareness of the needs of the Parkinson’s community to ensure timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people with Parkinson’s.
We recognise the challenges of living with Parkinson’s and hear the calls from the Parkinson’s community for more research, shorter waiting times for neurology appointments and more Parkinson’s nurses and multi- disciplinary teams to deliver Parkinson’s care. The Parkinson’s UK website has given a voice to many patients living across the country, and I want to echo the comments made by Andrew in the west midlands that our Parkinson’s nurses are
“worth their weight in gold.”
Neurology is particularly challenging, and we need more neurologists and specialist nurses. There are initiatives nationally that support service improvement and better care for Parkinson’s patients. NHS England’s Getting it Right First Time neurology programme supports improvements to Parkinson’s care by promoting data-driven approaches, sharing best practices and fair access to services. It focuses on improving patient experiences, shining a spotlight on disparities in care and calling for well-integrated processes, such as people getting their meds on time.
The NHS constitution handbook sets out that patients should start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks from referral. NHSE published a new elective reform plan in January, setting out the steps towards meeting this target by the end of this Parliament, and we achieved our pledge to deliver an additional 2 million elective appointments between July and November 2024, compared with the same period in 2023, seven months ahead of schedule. That is a first step to delivering our commitment that 92% of patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment by March 2029.
The Department for Work and Pensions offers personal independence payments to individuals with health conditions or disabilities. However, there is currently no automatic entitlement to PIP in relation to any specific health condition except in cases of people nearing end of life. The Government recently brought forward a Green Paper on the health and disability benefits system and the support we offer entitled “Pathways to Work”. In that, we consider how to improve the system for those with very severe health conditions and disabilities, which includes exploring ways to reduce the need for some people with severe health conditions to undergo a full PIP functional assessment. I am due to meet the DWP Minister next week. I will raise the issues that have been raised today with her, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, the hon. Member for Strangford and others.
The primary focus of the Department for Transport’s blue badge scheme is to help those with the greatest mobility needs and it is not condition-specific. The blue badge eligibility criteria in England were extended in 2019 to include more people with non-visible disabilities, in order to ensure that people with the greatest needs, whatever their disability or condition, have access to a badge. There are several automatic qualifying criteria for a blue badge, such as being in receipt of certain benefits. People who do not automatically qualify due to receiving certain benefits may still be eligible, and local authorities will assess applications based on the information provided.
There are currently no plans to add to the list of conditions that give entitlement for free prescriptions. However, approximately 89% of prescription items are currently dispensed free of charge, and a wide range of exemptions are already in place. People with Parkinson’s who are over 60 years old are entitled to free prescriptions, and for those who do need to pay, the cost can be capped by purchasing a prepayment certificate. In addition, the NHS low-income scheme can provide help with health costs on an income-related basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked me to meet several stakeholder organisations, and I am more than happy to meet them to discuss the Parky charter. I understand that Parkinson’s Connect is being piloted with six healthcare teams in England and Scotland, with more planned in 2025. I would be pleased to discuss how the pilots are providing comprehensive support to people with Parkinson’s on how they are progressing and on next steps.
NHS England’s neuroscience transformation programme improves Parkinson’s care by focusing on faster diagnosis, better co-ordinated care and improved access to specialist services. For example, it contributes to shifting our NHS from hospital to community and from analogue to digital through the home-based care pathway. That focuses on providing comprehensive support and care for individuals in their own homes, integrating remote monitoring through wrist-worn sensors, and providing symptom management advice and access to healthcare professionals. Empowering patients to manage their condition at home means we can improve their quality of life and, crucially, maintain their dignity and independence.
Last November, we established the Neuro Forum—a UK-wide, Government-led forum focusing on services and support for people affected by neurological conditions. It is the first of its kind and brings together the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, devolved Governments and health services, and neurological alliances across the UK to address gaps in treatment and care and to drive improvements in neurological health across the four nations. The forum will focus on practical things, such as a better understanding of neurological workforce challenges and help to address them; teaching other staff to provide better care for people living with one or more of over 600 neurological conditions including Parkinson’s; sharing innovative solutions, such as new therapies; and, crucially, ensuring that patients’ voices are heard.
Research has been touched on by many speakers. It advances our understanding of Parkinson’s as we develop new treatments, technologies and management strategies. Today these things help people to live well with Parkinson’s; tomorrow they could deliver a cure. The Government are strongly committed to supporting research into Parkinson’s disease. We continue to encourage research through targeted funding, infrastructure support, policy initiatives, and collaboration and partnerships. For example, the UK Dementia Research Institute, which is primarily funded by Government, is partnering with Parkinson’s UK to establish a new £10 million research centre dedicated to better understanding the causes of Parkinson’s and finding new treatments. The centre, supported by five of the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s biomedical research centres, has discovered that eye scans can detect Parkinson’s disease up to seven years before symptoms appear, enabling people to receive treatment and make any appropriate lifestyle changes earlier. I reassure the House that changes to the structure of NHS England and the Department will seek to eliminate duplication and improve efficiencies to ensure that work on Parkinson’s continues to develop.
Research is, of course, crucial for discovering new drugs and underpins the entire drug discovery and development process. Produodopa is a groundbreaking new treatment for Parkinson’s disease, particularly for patients with advanced disease and severe motor fluctuations. It is revolutionary because it provides a continuous 24-hour infusion of medication via a small pump, providing more consistent symptom control. The NHS rolled it out in February last year. It has been shown to improve motor function and has proved its worth by significantly improving the quality of life of those with advanced Parkinson’s. I briefly remind colleagues that the NHS in England is legally required to make funding available for treatments recommended by technology appraisal guidance published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
We all want to see people with Parkinson’s live as well as possible for as long as possible. That is why it is not good enough that we still see inequalities in access to Parkinson’s services. Neurology services have been facing real challenges, including in the workforce, delays to treatment and care, and a lack of information and support for patients. Through the forthcoming NHS 10-year health plan, we will improve care for people with long-term conditions like Parkinson’s. In response to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, I can confirm that the plan will drive our ambition towards greater use of technology and data in the NHS.
A core part of the 10-year health plan will be our workforce and how we ensure that we train and provide the staff the NHS needs to make it more accessible, proactive and tailored for patients. The refreshed NHS workforce plan will set out the numbers of doctors, nurses and other professionals that will be needed in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. It will reflect the fact that our NHS is caring for patients with increasingly complex needs.
However, we are already making progress on the workforce to support those with Parkinson’s, including by having over 900 full-time equivalent consultants—over 30 more than in 2023. There are 27 specialised neurology centres across England. As of January, over 7,700 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists are employed in NHS trusts—an increase of over 300 compared to last year. There are over 17,900 full-time equivalent occupational therapists—an increase of over 600. As of January, there are almost 25,300 full-time equivalent physiotherapists—over 900 more than last year.
We have also had a record increase in the carer’s allowance. I do not have an update on the social care talks, but I will ensure that the Minister for Care hears that the matter has been raised in the debate.
I once again extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar for securing the debate and to all Members who have spoken. I look forward to working with them all to ensure that people living with Parkinson’s have the dignity they deserve. I began by talking about Parkinson’s Awareness Month. One thing that struck me from hearing so many people share their stories, and from the stories shared in the debate, was the number who felt uncomfortable sharing their status, sometimes even with their close friends and family. This past month has been about smashing the stigma, and I know that this debate will play its part in that too.
Black Maternal Health Awareness Week
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Before I begin, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for securing this important debate during Black Maternal Health Awareness Week. It is so important that we raise awareness of the disproportionate challenges faced by black mothers during pregnancy and after childbirth; debates in weeks such as this are critical to that.
I want to pay tribute to the charities that do so much vital work in this space: the Motherhood Group, Five X More, Black Mums Upfront, which is part of Bliss, and Ebony Bonds, to name just a few. I am taking this debate on behalf of the Minister for women’s health and patient safety, Baroness Merron. I also want to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I will seek to pick up and answer all their queries, but if they feel I have not done so by the end of the debate, I ask them to please get in touch and I can ensure we respond.
I want to thank the charity Sands for shining a spotlight on some of the most heartbreaking cases of baby loss in the UK, and for giving a voice to so many black and Asian women who have gone through the nightmare of losing a child. One such case was Amber Lincoln from Woolwich in south-east London. She was miscategorised as low risk when she was pregnant, and nearly died from undetected complications after her delivery. A series of individual and systemic failings led to cancellations and delays, and her twins, Anaya and Mael, were born and died at 22 weeks in November 2022, before she could access the care she needed. Amber said:
“If the NHS just listened to me. And just put my appointment through when I was constantly asking. If they had the notes there properly I wouldn't have been treated that way.”
She said the fact she was mixed race led midwives to focus on diabetes and high blood pressure rather than other high-risk indicators. I wish I could stand here and say that Amber was an isolated case, but her story will sound familiar to black women up and down the country, and it shows in the figures. The latest data from MBRRACE-UK shows maternal mortality rates for women from black ethnic backgrounds are more than double those for white women. Black women and their babies are also at higher risk of stillbirth, neonatal death and miscarriage. That should shame us in modern Britain.
Tackling inequalities and racism in maternity services is an absolute priority for this Government. Our manifesto committed to setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gaps. That commitment has not wavered—we are working hard not only to set a target but to set the actions that will help deliver it. It is crucial we set the right targets and ensure the system is supported to achieve them, which is why the Government are currently considering the action needed that would drive change on the ground, ensuring that targets set are evidence-based, and women and baby-centred.
Our ambition is not just to improve maternal outcomes; we want to improve black women’s experiences of maternity care too. We know that too often black women are not listened to and experience racism and bias. That is completely unacceptable. Importantly, our ambition must also extend beyond maternity services, so that we can tackle wider health inequalities, including the determinants of ill health. I know that health inequalities do not start at the door of maternity services, and nor do they end when women go home.
Here is what we are doing and where we need to go further. We are aware of calls for a national inquiry into maternity care, which we will carefully consider. There have been a number of reviews, inquiries and wider research in recent years that have provided a shared and clear sense of the issues in maternity and neonatal care. The most important priority must remain for us to target resources and efforts to address the existing issues identified and avoid any further delays. The focus must be to address inequalities and the action taken to do so for women and babies.
NHS England is now in the final year of delivering its three-year plan to improve maternity and neonatal services. Central to the plan is the objective to reduce inequalities for all in maternity access, experience and outcomes, and taking steps to tackle and address inequalities for black women. To achieve this objective, all local areas now have in place and are implementing their equity and equality action plans. Those plans detail local interventions tailored to population needs, in order to tackle inequalities for women and babies from ethnic minorities and those living in the most deprived areas. There have been some great examples of local best practice within those plans, ranging from targeted pre-conception health support to tailored support to ensure equitable access to care, and bespoke communications for pregnant asylum seekers and refugees.
As part of the three-year delivery plan, all local areas are working to implement version three of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which provides maternity units with guidance and interventions to reduce and tackle the inequalities in stillbirths, neonatal deaths, brain injuries and pre-term births. Those local and national interventions are essential steps to improving equity and equality in maternity care.
In parallel, however, it is vital that we continue to work to foster a culture of safety, compassion, honesty and one that is actively anti-racist, which must be led by outstanding leadership. I am pleased that all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme.
For clarity, and I think particularly for the shadow Minister, we recognise that racism and unconscious bias need to be tackled, that they are unacceptable and must be tackled in the NHS.
Ashley Dalton
I will finish what I am saying and then I will give the shadow Minister an opportunity to come back to me.
To clarify, this work is not only about the behaviours that we must tackle in the NHS; it is also about the systems that we create in the NHS and ensuring that those systems do not consciously or subconsciously discriminate against people on the grounds of their race. That is what we mean and that is why we are putting in place training for leaders in our maternity units. We will ensure that they are signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme, to ensure that those systems are as equitable as they possibly can be.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I think we all agree that racism is wrong and must be weeded out wherever it happens. Could she say, in answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) at the beginning of her speech, whether she believes that the NHS is structurally racist?
Ashley Dalton
The shadow Minister will know that that is not actually the question that my hon. Friend asked. She asked about systemic racism. We recognise that racism and unconscious bias can play a part both in the behaviours of some people, which must be tackled, and in the way that systems are structured. That is why the training that we are introducing will help to tackle racism. It is not necessarily the case that there is racism throughout the NHS, but we must do everything we possibly can to make sure that NHS systems are as equitable as they can be.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I confess that I thought I heard the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill say “structural”. However, if the word she used was “systemic”, does the Minister think the NHS is systemically racist?
Ashley Dalton
I think that we have to do everything possible to make sure that all the systems in the NHS are as equitable as possible.
We have set clear expectations for escalation and accountability through the three-year plan, and all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme. We are supporting staff to hold up their hands when things go wrong through the Freedom to Speak Up initiative. Our approach to tackling inequalities in maternity and neonatal care must be underpinned by evidence, research and—critically—working with women and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) pointed out, it is crucial that women’s voices, including black women’s voices, are heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned funding for research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has launched a £500 million funding call that challenges researchers and policymakers to come up with new ways of tackling maternity inequalities and poor pregnancy outcomes. The NIHR has also invited applications for funding of up to £500,000 for a research project to understand how biases in medical devices used during the pregnancy and neonatal period might be contributing to inequalities for women and babies.
NHSE is working closely with the NHS Race and Health Observatory on the outputs of the learning and action network programme, which aims to address inequalities for women and babies from black, Asian and other ethnic minority backgrounds. Local maternity and neonatal voices partnerships bring together the voices and experiences of women and families to improve maternity and neonatal care. More than a quarter of the partnership leads are from ethnic minority groups. Women’s voices must continue to be at the heart of our improvements to care.
I will be frank with colleagues: although the measures I have set out are important, I do not believe they will be enough to meet the scale of our ambitions. The Government are committed to ensuring that all women and babies, regardless of their ethnicity, background or location, receive the high-quality, equitable care they deserve. Many of these initiatives began under the previous Government, and although there has been some progress across maternity and neonatal care—for example, good progress has been made in reducing the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths—we have much further to go to improve care and tackle inequalities.
Looking forward, we are clear that we want to see high-impact actions to tackle inequalities and racism in maternity services. Baroness Merron and the Secretary of State are working closely across the sector to identify the right actions and interventions to deliver the required change.
The shadow Minister asked about data collection. Data on women’s ethnic background is routinely collected by services at multiple points throughout maternity care. The data is used to disaggregate reporting of adverse outcomes, such as maternal mortality, by ethnicity. Differences by ethnicity are also reported as part of the Care Quality Commission’s annual survey, which asks a sample of pregnant women and new mothers about their experiences of NHS maternity services. NHS trusts are incentivised to collect this information through the maternity incentive scheme, which is a financial incentive programme that is designed to enhance maternity safety in NHS trusts. Safety action 2 of the maternity incentive scheme incentivises trusts to submit digital information, including ethnicity data, to the maternity services dataset.
Some of our processes will take time to implement, but we need to understand the immediate actions that can begin to deliver change here and now. I therefore reiterate our commitment to setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. We must get this right. Targets must be evidence based, and that is why it is so important that the data is collected, as I have said, that our targets are women and baby-centred and, crucially, that the system is supported to meet the targets that are set. To this end, NHS England has undertaken a review of the evidence base and conducted extensive stakeholder engagement to identify the key drivers of inequalities for black and Asian women and babies—again ensuring that black women’s voices are heard.
Dr Johnson
The Minister talks about the importance of setting an achievable target and working on how it will be delivered, but the Government have now been at this for 10 months, and it was a manifesto commitment. Will she at least commit to a date by which it is likely to be set? Nothing will happen until there is a target and a plan. The Government are spending time deciding when to make a target, and all the while women are waiting.
Ashley Dalton
We are working at pace, ensuring that what we do is right and that it is achievable. The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government are developing a 10-year plan for health, and women’s health, including maternity health, will be at the centre of it. We want to ensure that whatever we put in place dovetails with all the other interventions and actions that the Government are putting forward.
The areas identified for intervention so far include the improper management of existing conditions, racism and discrimination, and access to care. We are clear that we want to see innovative and high-impact ideas that will shift the dial. We want to make sure not just that we are coming up with some sort of plan, but that it can be delivered and will be impactful.
Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill that this issue keeps us up at night. I know that she will continue to hold us to account. I began my speech by referencing Amber’s story. She asked how she could put her trust in a system that let her down so badly, and I completely understand why she felt that way. It is our duty to make sure that women like Amber can trust the system with something as precious as their children, and to prevent what should be one of the most joyful days in their lives from becoming a tragedy.
World Health Organisation: Pandemic Accord Negotiations and International Health Regulations
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to update the House regarding the final round of negotiations on the international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response—the pandemic accord—at the World Health Organisation, as well as the targeted amendments to the international health regulations, which were agreed in June 2024.
Pandemic accord negotiations
In March 2021, member states of the WHO, including the UK, agreed to draft and negotiate a pandemic accord to keep the UK and the world safer from pandemic threats. I am pleased to announce that following the most recent rounds of negotiations between 7 to 11 April and 15 to 16 April, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body has reached agreement on the full text. WHO member states will consider its formal adoption at the World Health Assembly next month.
This is a historic moment for the UK and global health security. The accord should meaningfully improve UK and global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capabilities. It should protect lives, livelihoods, the economy and the NHS, and bring genuine benefits to UK health security, jobs and growth, in line with the Government plan for change.
Since the House was last updated, UK officials have worked closely with our global partners to resolve the key remaining issues in the accord, including on the pathogen access and benefit sharing—PABS—system. This will be a new, voluntary system for pharmaceutical companies to sign up to in order to gain faster access, with less red tape, to the pathogens they need to create new vaccines, treatments and tests in the event of a pandemic. This is good news for scientific innovation, good news for the UK’s world-leading life sciences industry, and good news for all of us.
Negotiators also resolved outstanding and important issues on pandemic prevention. The accord will ensure that member states take comprehensive action, together, to better prevent pandemics and improve disease surveillance so we can detect and respond to emerging pandemic threats promptly. In addition, the inclusion of a “One Health” approach in the accord—which recognises the vital link between animal, human and environmental health—strengthens multi-sectoral collaboration, helping to better address the emergence of pandemic risks, many of which originate in animal populations. At the same time the accord protects the sovereignty of member states, including the UK, to make their own public health decisions in the event of a global health emergency.
I now look forward to the 78th meeting of the World Health Assembly in May, where member states will come together to make a final decision on whether to adopt the accord. If adopted, member states will then start negotiations to agree the details of how the PABS system will operate, after which it will be up to each member state to decide whether to ratify the pandemic accord.
International health regulations
I would also like to update the House on the IHR, for which targeted amendments were agreed at the WHA in June 2024. The IHR are an important technical framework that helps to prevent and protect against the international spread of disease. Amendments to the IHR were agreed by countries to reflect lessons learnt from recent global health emergencies, such as the covid-19 pandemic, including by improving information sharing and collaboration for public health emergency response. Member states have until 19 July 2025 to decide whether to recognise the amendments or to reserve or opt out.
The Department of Health and Social Care has been leading work across Government to confirm the implications of the amendments for the UK, working with counterparts in the devolved Governments, and our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to ensure all relevant territories are considered. This analysis will inform the decision about which amendments are in the UK’s national interest. No decision has yet been made on which IHR amendments the UK will accept.
Neither the pandemic accord nor the IHR include any proposals that would give the WHO powers to impose domestic decisions on the UK. This Government will only agree to a pandemic accord and IHR amendments that are in the national interest. The sovereign right of states is expressed as one of the guiding principles of the accord. Under the IHR, while the WHO director-general may make recommendations on international responses to public health emergencies, these recommendations are non-binding and it is for member states to determine their domestic response.
I will update the House again following the WHA in May.
[HCWS603]
Men’s Health Strategy: Call for Evidence
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
In November 2024, the Secretary of State announced his commitment to publish a call for evidence to support the development of England’s first men’s health strategy.
Today we are publishing the call for evidence which is available on the gov.uk website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/mens-health-strategy-for-england-call-for-evidence
The 12-week call for evidence will gather vital insights from the public, health and social care professionals, academics, employers and organisations with expertise on men’s health so that the Government can consider how to tackle the biggest health issues facing men of all backgrounds.
The Government have set out an ambitious programme of reform for the NHS. The health mission has set the clear goals of achieving: an NHS that is there when people need it, fewer lives lost to the biggest killers, halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions, and a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer. Our plan for change will rebuild the health service and deliver better care for everyone.
The men’s health strategy for England will form part of this programme of reform, ensuring that all men get the support they need to live happy, healthy and fulfilling lives.
We know that men face unique challenges throughout their lives. Men are disproportionately affected by a range of health conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Life expectancy data also shows that on average women live four years more than men in England.
Around three in four people who died by suicide in 2023 were men. Suicide is the biggest cause of death in men under the age of 50.
Evidence suggests that men are also more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviours such as, but not limited to, smoking, harmful gambling and alcohol consumption, and substance misuse.
Inequalities within men’s health are stark. Those in more deprived areas are likely to die earlier on average than those who live in less deprived areas. The gap in life expectancy at birth between men and women increases in line with greater levels of deprivation.
We recognise that men can face various barriers to accessing healthcare services. We want to understand the challenges that men face in seeking and securing help and care, and to ensure that the services they receive are responsive to their needs.
The men’s health strategy will tackle these problems head on.
Following engagement with stakeholder organisations, analysis of the responses to the call for evidence and submissions to the Change NHS website relevant to men’s health, we intend to develop and publish the strategy by the end of 2025.
[HCWS602]
Draft Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to be debating these short but important regulations. I will start by setting out some background. The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 provide for the safe and effective regulation of medical devices and in vitro diagnostic, or IVD, devices in Great Britain. Those regulations promote the safety and availability of such devices for British patients and ensure that the UK remains a great place to research, develop, manufacture and supply medical devices. We have a thriving life sciences sector, and this Government are determined to harness that power for growth.
The 2002 regulations originally transposed three EU directives into UK law, and they reference other pieces of EU law that form part of the regulatory framework for Great Britain. We are working to reform the regulations to improve patient safety and access to the latest innovations, but I will say more on that shortly. The statutory instrument we are discussing today prevents four of those pieces of assimilated EU law from expiring by revoking their sunset dates. Without it, they would expire on 25 and 26 May this year.
Those four pieces of assimilated EU law are: first, the decision on common specifications for IVD devices, which sets out the technical specifications—for example, around performance testing—that ensure that these devices are safe and accurate; secondly, the regulation on electronic instructions for the use of medical devices, which sets out when instructions may be provided electronically instead of on paper; thirdly, the regulation on devices manufactured using animal tissue, which sets out what must happen before these devices are placed on the market; and fourthly, the regulation on the designation and supervision of approved bodies—approved bodies are the organisations that assess whether certain medical devices meet the regulations, and this piece of EU law allows them to be properly monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
These laws may seem technical, but they are also necessary, and they have been working as intended since they were introduced in the 2002 regulations. Without them, the resulting changes to well-established regulatory requirements would create industry disruption, and we would be unable to effectively regulate the medical devices industry and ensure that devices are safe and effective for patients. However, I want to be clear that this statutory instrument is a temporary measure to maintain the status quo, pending wider reforms. In time, the Government intend to fully replace these pieces of assimilated EU law as part of a broad programme of medtech regulatory reform.
Medtech has transformed the quality of care for patients since the 2002 regulations were introduced. We need only look at digital health products involving software, advanced diagnostics and AI. Diagnostic accuracy for cancers and other conditions has vastly improved, alongside tools that can identify previously undiagnosed spinal fractures. However, that is not the only reason we need updated regulations. In 2020, Baroness Cumberlege published the recommendations of her independent medicines and medical devices safety review, including those relating to device regulations. We must also keep up with the regulations of both our friends and competitors internationally.
For all those reasons, we have published plans to introduce several SIs to amend the regulatory framework for medical devices, which will improve patient safety, drive access to devices and support innovation. Some members of the Committee may recall the Medical Devices (Post-market Surveillance Requirements) (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2024, which were debated in the House in November. Those will come into force in June this year and will strengthen the legal requirements for manufacturers to monitor and report on their devices once they are being used in the real world. That will mean that safety issues can be identified, investigated and resolved faster, saving the NHS time and money. It will amplify patients’ voices by requiring manufacturers to engage with patients and the public during their post-market surveillance, where appropriate.
That SI will go hand in hand with the pre-market regulations, which we are currently developing. As the name suggests, those regulations will bring further improvements to patient safety, with additional measures that must be taken before a product goes to market. Those will include measures for unique device identifiers and implant cards, which improve the traceability of devices; new rules to ensure that claims that manufacturers make about their devices are consistent with the device’s intended purpose, so that patients are not misled; and changes to the classification of some medical devices, so that the level of regulatory burden is proportionate to the risk of the device.
That pre-market SI will also include an international reliance scheme for medical devices. That will be a huge step forward in reducing unnecessary and duplicative red tape for the medtech industry, where appropriate regulatory approval has been granted in a comparable country. That will mean that a patient waiting for a device that has already been approved by our friends in Australia, for example, does not need to wait for it to go through the same lengthy process in Great Britain. Those measures address some of the key recommendations of the Cumberlege review, while providing alternatives to the assimilated EU law in question.
That pre-market legislation is being developed with the intention of it coming into force in 2026. As well as the measures I have described, it will remove the need for two of the pieces of assimilated EU law: those relating to IVD devices and to electronic instructions for use. The reference to the EU decision on IVD devices will be replaced with a reference to the updated EU common specifications, which reflect the latest scientific and technical progress in that area. The EU regulation on electronic instructions for use will be replaced with the latest version of those rules, with some modifications for the GB market. That regulation allows manufacturers to take a more flexible and proportionate approach to providing electronic instructions for use instead of paper copies. The remaining two pieces of assimilated EU law will also be replaced in due course, as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the regulations. Indeed, the pre-market SI is not the end point of our work to ensure that the regulatory framework is up to date, safe and proportionate.
The Government will continue to work to improve the regulatory framework for devices. Technology does not stand still, and neither should our regulations. In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that the draft regulations are necessary for continuity and innovation, for safety and smart regulation, and for growth and the people’s priorities. I commend them to the Committee.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the shadow Minister for her input, and I will try to respond to the points she raised. The MHRA has published the road map for this process, and I can let her have a copy of it after the debate; it sets out the timeframe for the various steps that need to be taken. Specifically on further SIs, there will be a further SI dealing with two of these issues by the end of the year, and two further SIs in 2026 and 2027.
On Northern Ireland, we are obviously aware that there are concerns and issues that have to be dealt with differently. Once the provisions have been updated, the GB framework will still refer to EU law, but certain domestic requirements may differ from those in other jurisdictions. However, we recognise the benefit of international harmonisation of medical device regulations. Of course, we will ensure that any future legislation meets our obligations under the Windsor framework.
On US tariffs, the Committee will appreciate that there is an ongoing discussion, and decisions have not yet been made by the US. I would not want to pre-empt or second-guess any decisions made by colleagues. Obviously, those tariffs will be taken into account once we have a final view of what they might look like.
Dr Johnson
My understanding is that the US Government are reviewing whether the tariffs will affect medical pharmaceutical products. However, some manufactures of medical devices, as per this SI, are concerned that the tariffs that have already been announced affect medical devices. Can the Minister please give more clarity on that?
Ashley Dalton
I am not able to give further clarity on that today, but I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister when we have some more clarity.
I hope I have set out why these regulations, while only a small part of the wider reform programme, are nevertheless important to ensuring a smoothly functioning regulatory environment. They will give manufacturers certainty and ensure that patients can continue to access safe and effective devices. They are just a small part of the reforms that are under way, and I am grateful to members of the Committee for playing their part in bringing them into force.
Question put and agreed to.
Childhood Obesity
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Today, I am updating the House on the implementation of the TV and online advertising restrictions for less healthy food or drink that are due to come into force UK-wide on 1 October 2025. I wish to re-confirm the Government’s view on how the restrictions will apply to brand advertising, and give an update on how we are working with Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority, as the regulators, to ensure an effective and proportionate implementation of the restrictions.
This Government have set a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and take action to address the childhood obesity crisis. As part of this ambition, this Government made a manifesto commitment to implement advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink on TV and online. These are designed to reduce children’s exposure to less healthy products, based on evidence that they contribute to childhood obesity, as well as incentivise businesses to reformulate their products and help create a healthier food environment for our children. Alongside this and in support of the Government’s growth mission, we want to deliver proportionate regulation that balances the health benefits with the impact on businesses.
To achieve these objectives, the Communications Act 2003—as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022 —sets out that the restrictions will apply to adverts for ‘identifiable’ less healthy food and drink products. ‘Identifiable’ means if persons in the UK could reasonably be expected to be able to identify an advert as being for a less healthy product.
While it is for a court to interpret the legislation, the Government’s view remains that pure brand advertising is not in scope of this policy. This is because the legislation only restricts adverts that could reasonably be considered to be for identifiable less healthy products, and not adverts that could be reasonably understood to be advertising brands. This has been the consistent position of this Government and was clearly stated to Parliament during the passage of the Health and Care Bill. We therefore expect that businesses will still have opportunities to promote their brands, provided that their adverts do not identify a less healthy product. For example, brands could promote their non-product attributes, such as corporate social responsibility commitments or customer experience, or advertise the healthier products within their portfolios. We do not expect the perception of a corporate brand, or its association with less healthy products, to automatically bring an advert into scope of the restrictions. The Government do not intend to prevent brands from advertising, but instead intend to give businesses an incentive to innovate and create healthier products.
We understand that businesses need clarity in order to plan and secure future advertising campaigns. We also recognise the considerable investment they have already made in preparing for the restrictions coming into force. The Government have been clear that, while a robust regulatory framework is needed, we expect regulators to act in a way that supports economic growth, and helps industry to make future investment decisions and innovate with confidence.
The Government and the regulators share the same aims: to offer clarity and support to businesses as these restrictions are introduced. While it is of course for the regulators to act independently, we anticipate that they will want to act quickly and firmly on any obvious breaches of the law where a less healthy product is clearly identified in an advert. However, in other instances and where the circumstances make it appropriate, in the Government’s view, the law provides considerable discretion in how the available enforcement tools can be used positively to support a business to move to compliance over a period of time.
The ASA will finalise its implementation guidance following consultation. We know that the ASA is already engaging with industry and will continue to do so following publication of the final guidance later in the spring.
By implementing the advertising restrictions and taking preventative action now, the Government are beginning to fix the foundations of good health, and are protecting the next generation, so that it can become the healthiest ever.
[HCWS579]
Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Recovery Grant
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
On 31 March, the Government published the targeted drug and alcohol treatment and recovery grant funding for local authorities in England for 2025-26.
Drug and alcohol addiction costs the country billions of pounds in additional health and criminal justice expenditure.
Dedicated investment in high-quality treatment and recovery services will reduce crime and save lives. This will benefit people who are experiencing drug and alcohol addiction, their families, and communities, many of whom are vulnerable with complex needs. Through access to individual placement and support employment support, we can help people to sustain their recovery and local employers to recruit from an untapped pool of talent.
This funding is an important component of our plan for change in health, through which we will build an NHS fit for the future, tackle the underlying drivers of ill health and health inequalities, and deliver three fundamental shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention.
It contributes to the safer streets mission by reducing crime and re-offending and funding services that continue to provide support for people who are sleeping rough who have a substance misuse problem. It also supports the opportunity mission by increasing support and early intervention for children and young people’s substance issues as well as reducing the adverse childhood experience of parental substance misuse.
Allocations will see £310 million go directly to councils to build on their vital work of improving outcomes for people who need treatment and recovery support.
Full details of the grant allocations to local authorities for 2025-26 can be found on www.gov.uk. This information has been communicated to local authorities.
[HCWS568]
Down Syndrome Act 2022: Local Authority Guidance
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this debate on such an important topic. I am also grateful to him for his work with the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome.
People with Down syndrome should have the same opportunities to participate fully in society like everyone else, but we know this does not always happen. There is a pressing need to raise awareness of the needs of people with Down syndrome and how they can be met. While every person with Down syndrome is a unique individual, they often face common health risks.
For example, we know that almost half of children with Down syndrome are born with a heart condition. We also know that people with Down syndrome may need additional support with their speech, hearing or vision. And as the average life expectancy of a person with Down syndrome continues to rise—an increase I am very pleased to see—this means that more people require additional support in later life. This may be additional support with new, age-related health needs, as well as increased demand for social care services.
This Government are committed to ensuring that all people with Down syndrome receive the care and support they need to lead the lives they want in their communities, and we are taking action to achieve that by implementing the Down Syndrome Act. The Act lays the foundations to ensure that every person with Down syndrome can live a full and fulfilling life through accessing the health and care services they need, receiving the right education, securing appropriate living arrangements that work for them, and being supported into employment. We recognise that there is still much to do to achieve that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government are working on the implementation of the Act as a priority.
The Down Syndrome Act requires the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care—including local authorities—education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down syndrome. Earlier this month, Minister Kinnock wrote to sector partners and the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome with an update on the development of the guidance, including the Government’s plan to put the guidance out for consultation by the summer. That followed a roundtable on 26 November, which Minister Kinnock—
Ashley Dalton
I’m so sorry!
That followed a roundtable on 26 November, which the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) convened to discuss with partners how we can improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome and the opportunities that the guidance presents in support of that.
We appreciate that many of the issues that have been raised are borne out of a desire to ensure the guidance is as effective as possible and published as soon as possible. We know just how important the guidance is. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a huge amount of work has been, and continues to be, carried out to develop the guidance. And we, like others, want to make sure the guidance is fit for purpose and impactful.
It has been vital that people with lived experience, and the organisations that work to support them, are involved at every stage of the work to develop the guidance. A range of sector engagement has taken place. That includes a national call for evidence, partner working groups, and a review of evidence to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. Throughout the process, there have been differences in opinion on the scope of the guidance and how it should be drafted. Officials have worked hard to build consensus on these issues, but, as I am sure Members can appreciate, it is not always possible to resolve differing opinions quickly, especially on a topic as important as this. While that means the development of the guidance has taken longer than we all had hoped, it is only right that the issues are given the due consideration they deserve. The Minister responsible set out his position on the issues at hand in his recent letter to sector partners.
Our position remains that the guidance will be Down syndrome-specific, in accordance with the Government’s statutory duty under the Act. It is our intention to include references to where the guidance could have wider benefit. That is in line with the commitment made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. This is not about moving the focus away from Down syndrome. The guidance is about meeting the needs of people with Down syndrome. It is about taking the opportunity, through the guidance, to help as many people as possible. Officials will continue to work with partners to ensure the guidance has the maximum benefit for all communities involved.
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I have today secured a commitment that the Minister will work with sector partners to ensure that people with Down syndrome have direct access to, and are supported in taking part in, the consultation.
I would like to thank the individuals and organisations across the country who have worked tirelessly to help us develop the guidance. Their contributions have been invaluable throughout, and we appreciate their continued patience while we work to finalise the guidance for consultation. We would also welcome their support to ensure that the communities they represent are aware of the consultation and can share their views.
We are grateful to members of the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome for their engagement and can assure them that their comments on the guidance have been considered throughout the development process. The Minister in charge wrote to the APPG on 18 March. Officials will share a second draft of the guidance with sector partners for feedback in the coming weeks. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will pass on his comments to the Minister responsible, as requested.
On specific training, under existing legislation, Care Quality Commission-registered providers must ensure that staff receive the appropriate professional development necessary for them to carry out their duties, and must receive specific training on learning disability and autism appropriate to their role. We expect that providers should be considering whether specific training on Down syndrome is required for their staff. Officials will work with stakeholders to signpost that effectively in the guidance we are developing under the Down Syndrome Act.
I thank again the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Prevention of Drug Deaths
Ashley Dalton Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. He raised a number of important points, and I agree that the rise in drug-related deaths across the UK is deeply concerning. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
We in the Department of Health and Social Care are aware of this issue, even on a personal level. Just last month, a homeless man known as Paddy died of a drug overdose just around the corner from 39 Victoria Street. Paddy was known to many civil servants and was noted for the gentle way he looked after his dog. His death, less than a 10-minute walk from this place, should remind us of the stark realities that many people face every day. It serves as a painful reminder that, while we in this Chamber discuss policies and politics, real lives are at stake on our doorstep.
Paddy’s story is not an isolated one; it is a tragic reflection of the systemic issues that continue to affect vulnerable people in our society. His death has brought home most vividly to us that behind every statistic is a human being who deserves dignity, care and support. My family, too, has been affected by drug-related death. As I rise to speak, my cousin Stephen, who we lost in this way, tragically young, is at the forefront of my mind.
There is no doubt that illicit drugs have a devastating impact on communities across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Drug misuse deaths have doubled since 2012. More than 3,300 people died in England alone in 2023, the highest rate since records began in 1993. Drug and alcohol deaths are the leading cause of premature mortality in those aged under 50.
These deaths are preventable, and this Government are committed, through our health mission, to ensuring that people live longer, healthier lives. We recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and others, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, this is a public health issue. That is why I, as the Minister responsible for public health, am standing at the Dispatch Box today.
We are determined to make our communities safer, more secure and free from the violence caused by the illicit drugs market through our safer streets mission. Although the Opposition seem to have sent the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), here to speak almost entirely about criminal justice issues, I will focus most of my comments on the public health areas and write to her afterwards with some of the details that she raised.
We know that many people struggling with drug addiction are already at the sharpest end of inequality and often have multiple and complex needs. The links between homelessness, deprivation and people who have spent time in prison with addiction are profound. Tackling the blight of illicit drugs is an issue that cuts across our four nations. It is crucial, now more than, ever that we work together and share learning to tackle the harms that drugs cause. My Department continues to work very closely with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, and I am grateful for that ongoing collaboration.
I also want to take this opportunity to put on record and add my voice to the condolences to the family and friends of Christina McKelvie. I look forward to meeting ministerial counterparts in the devolved Governments later this year to discuss how we can continue to work together to reduce drug-related deaths.
On the harms caused by drugs, the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised some issues about the Home Office and public health. This is a mission-led Government and, although I stand here as a Public Health Minister, we will continue to work closely with the Home Office and the Department for Education—indeed, across Government —on the drugs agenda. I met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention just last week to discuss this complex issue. Although we have no plans to decriminalise drug possession—prohibiting drug possession helps to reduce the availability of drugs and sends a clear signal that using drugs is not normal—we support programmes that divert drug users away from the criminal justice system and into treatment.
If we are really to shift the dial on drug-related deaths, we must ensure that anyone with a drug problem, wherever they are, can access the help and support they need. That means providing evidence-based, high-quality treatment. Those dedicated drug treatment services reduce harm and provide a path to recovery. My Department is continuing to invest in improvements to local treatment services, which faced significant cutbacks during a decade of disinvestment, and the local authority funding allocations for 2025-26 will be announced imminently. I recognise the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) about the importance of community-based treatment.
Grahame Morris
I am very pleased with the Minister’s response. I appreciate that she has an awful lot on her plate, with cancer services and piloting a Bill through the House of Commons yesterday, but, given that we are looking at evaluating the evidence on what works best, will she agree to meet me and a small group of representatives from the treatment providers, so that they can explain in person what they think is the most effective way to tackle this issue?
Ashley Dalton
I would be delighted to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, consultation and engagement are at my very core. I would be happy to meet him and others.
My Department has invested an additional £267 million in 2024-25 to improve the capacity and quality of drug and alcohol treatment services, alongside £105 million made available by the DHSC, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve treatment pathways and recovery specifically for people who are sleeping rough, and housing and employment support. The Government have also awarded £12 million to projects across the UK that are researching innovative technology to support people with addictions and to prevent drug-related deaths.
As of January this year, there were 43,500 more people in drug and alcohol treatment, including more than 4,500 children and young people, and 12,500 more people in long-term recovery. There are around 340,000 people in structured treatment in England, which I am pleased to say is the highest number on record.
The hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire and for Brighton Pavilion, and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), all referred to drug consumption rooms. This Government recognise the exercised prosecutorial independence of the Lord Advocate of Scotland in respect of the pilot drug consumption room known as The Thistle in Scotland. Along with the Home Office, we will consider any evidence that emerges from the evaluation of that pilot and report on it in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) talked about safe inhalation pipes; I will write to her with further information on them in due course, because there is an academic research study under way to test their effectiveness. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is part of the advisory group and is waiting to see the findings.
Mental health issues and trauma often lie at the heart of substance use issues. People with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems find it hard to engage with support, and services too often fail to meet their needs. That must change. We are committed to ensuring cohesion between mental health services and substance use services, which will mean that people no longer fall through the gaps of treatment. Jointly with NHS England, my Department has developed a mental health action plan to tackle this issue, which I hope will be published soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about naloxone, which other hon. Members also mentioned. I know that tackling drug-related deaths is a key priority for all four nations, and I am proud that together we have legislated to widen access to naloxone, the lifesaving medicine that reverses the effects of an opiate overdose. We know that over half of the people struggling with opiate addiction are not engaged in treatment at all, which means that significant numbers of an incredibly vulnerable population are at increased risk of overdosing and dying. The UK-wide naloxone legislation that came into force in December 2024 enables more services and professionals to supply the medication, which in turn makes it easier to access for people at risk and their loved ones. We are also working to set up a registration service in England that will further expand access to naloxone.
We are highly alert to the growing threat posed by synthetic opioids, which were raised by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Easington. Synthetic opioids such as nitazenes and fentanyl are often more potent and deadly, but naloxone is an effective medicine for synthetic opioid overdose. The Government are undertaking a range of actions to prevent the rise of these dangerous drugs and working with colleagues across the devolved Governments, including on increased surveillance and enforcement.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for raising the important issue of children affected by parental drug use. Our mission-based approach will ensure that every child has the best start in life and that we create the healthiest generation of children ever, which includes supporting the children of parents with drug problems and those suffering adverse childhood experiences.
My Department is leading work to improve the health system’s ability to respond to and support the needs of those people who have drug addiction and multiple and complex physical health needs. Intervening earlier and treating co-occurring physical health conditions will reduce drug-related deaths and improve recovery outcomes.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has an action plan in place to reduce drug and alcohol-related deaths, and I was pleased to announce that on 1 May this year my Department will host a national event on preventing drug and alcohol-related deaths, where we will work with the sector to agree priorities.
I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I can assure everyone that this Government are committed to reducing the harms illicit drugs pose to both individuals and across wider society. These deaths are avoidable, and I am confident that the Government’s mission-led approach will put us in a stronger position to tackle this complex issue. Harm reduction and strong public health approaches are at the heart of this Government’s work to prevent drug related deaths.