Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the planned timetable is for the complete conclusion of the review of the Carr-Hill formula, and the publication of its findings.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Phase 1 of the Carr-Hill review concluded in May 2026. The report and recommendations are currently with the Department for consideration. The review’s findings and recommendations will be published in due course by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and MPs will be updated once the review’s findings are available.
Phase 2 of the review will comprise the technical development, testing, and modelling of alternative approaches. Timelines for the remainder of the Carr-Hill review, including subsequent publications, are being informed by the outputs of Phase 1 and will be confirmed in due course.
Implementation of any new approach to core general practice funding would be subject to ministerial decision and consultation with the General Practice Committee England of the British Medical Association, in the context of available funding and our commitment to substantively reform the General Medical Services Contract within this Parliament.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when he expects the National Institute for Health and Care Research to publish findings from phase one of the Carr-Hill review.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Phase 1 of the Carr-Hill review concluded in May 2026. The report and recommendations are currently with the Department for consideration. The review’s findings and recommendations will be published in due course by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and MPs will be updated once the review’s findings are available.
Phase 2 of the review will comprise the technical development, testing, and modelling of alternative approaches. Timelines for the remainder of the Carr-Hill review, including subsequent publications, are being informed by the outputs of Phase 1 and will be confirmed in due course.
Implementation of any new approach to core general practice funding would be subject to ministerial decision and consultation with the General Practice Committee England of the British Medical Association, in the context of available funding and our commitment to substantively reform the General Medical Services Contract within this Parliament.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of differing levels of skills funding between mayoral and non-mayoral combined authorities on trends in the level of (a) educational achievement, (b) regional social mobility, and (c) job creation.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Skills provision is funded in a number of different ways including but not limited to 16-19 funding, the Adult Skills Fund (ASF), Apprenticeships funding, and Advanced Learner Loans. There are no plans to make the proposed assessment, as the costs to do so would be disproportionate.
The ASF fully funds or co-funds education and skills training for eligible adults aged 19 and above from pre-entry to level 3, to help them gain the skills they need for work, an apprenticeship or further learning, with the aim to in particular support adults with low earnings or skills, both in work and unemployed.
As of August 2025, approximately 68% of the ASF is devolved to 12 Strategic Authorities (SAs) and the Greater London Authority. These authorities are responsible for the provision of ASF-funded adult education for their residents and allocation of the ASF to learning providers. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is responsible for the remaining ASF in non-devolved areas.
The current levels of funding for the devolved authorities and the residual share for serving learners in non-devolved areas are based on their share of the Adult Education Budget in 2017/18 (the previous name for the Adult Skills Fund).
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions she is having with UK border control authorities to ensure staff training about the need for Animal Health Certificates at the UK border.
Answered by Stephen Morgan - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Checks on pets travelling from Great Britain (GB) into the EU, requiring an Animal Health Certificate (AHC), are completed on behalf of the competent authority in the member state of destination rather than by UK authorities.
Checks on pets entering GB are conducted by pet checkers. Pet checkers are employed by carriers to undertake compliance checks on all pet dogs, cats and ferrets, on behalf of the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), the competent authority responsible for pet travel.
Pet checkers have received the necessary training and guidance to complete these checks and ensure that all pet dogs, cats, and ferrets meet the necessary health and documentary requirements.
The import processes for pets, including training for pet checkers, are under continual review and monitoring by APHA, and the Government is satisfied with the current guidance in place regarding AHCs.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to ensure GPs are adequately trained and equipped to identify and respond to men at risk of suicide.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Our first ever Men’s Health Strategy, launched on 19 November 2025, announced the Suicide Prevention Support Pathfinders programme which will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide.
Locally, integrated care boards are responsible for working with local authorities to implement local multiagency action plans. National Health Service guidance, including the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, strongly encourages systems to ensure staff complete suicide awareness training, such as the Zero Suicide Alliance and Staying Safe from Suicide. Further information on the National Suicide Prevention Strategy, staff suicide awareness training, and NHS England’s Staying Safe from Suicide guidance is available at the following links:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/suicide-prevention-strategy-for-england-2023-to-2028
https://stormskillstraining.com/2025/04/30/staying-safe-from-suicide/
https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/staying-safe-from-suicide/
The mental health topic guide within the general practitioner (GP) training curriculum also highlights the need for GPs understand and differentiate between stress, distress, mood disorder, and diagnosable mental illness. GPs should be able to communicate effectively, professionally, and sensitively with patients and assess risks to the patient’s safety. The assessment of risk and prevention of death by suicide is seen as a common part of GP work. The guide frames suicide as a critical component of risk assessment and patient safety. It states that GPs must assess risk as a priority, including risk of self-harm and suicide. However, the curriculum explicitly cautions that there are no validated scales that predict suicide and that clinical assessment must rely on history, context, and professional judgement.
The curriculum also expects GPs to understand the epidemiology of and risk factors for suicide, which would include the risk in men, as well as associations with depression and other mental illness, substance misuse, and adverse life events.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to help ensure that primary care services identify and support men at risk of suicide.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Our first ever Men’s Health Strategy, launched on 19 November 2025, announced the Suicide Prevention Support Pathfinders programme which will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide.
Locally, integrated care boards are responsible for working with local authorities to implement local multiagency action plans. National Health Service guidance, including the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, strongly encourages systems to ensure staff complete suicide awareness training, such as the Zero Suicide Alliance and Staying Safe from Suicide. Further information on the National Suicide Prevention Strategy, staff suicide awareness training, and NHS England’s Staying Safe from Suicide guidance is available at the following links:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/suicide-prevention-strategy-for-england-2023-to-2028
https://stormskillstraining.com/2025/04/30/staying-safe-from-suicide/
https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/staying-safe-from-suicide/
The mental health topic guide within the general practitioner (GP) training curriculum also highlights the need for GPs understand and differentiate between stress, distress, mood disorder, and diagnosable mental illness. GPs should be able to communicate effectively, professionally, and sensitively with patients and assess risks to the patient’s safety. The assessment of risk and prevention of death by suicide is seen as a common part of GP work. The guide frames suicide as a critical component of risk assessment and patient safety. It states that GPs must assess risk as a priority, including risk of self-harm and suicide. However, the curriculum explicitly cautions that there are no validated scales that predict suicide and that clinical assessment must rely on history, context, and professional judgement.
The curriculum also expects GPs to understand the epidemiology of and risk factors for suicide, which would include the risk in men, as well as associations with depression and other mental illness, substance misuse, and adverse life events.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the compatibility of minimum waiting time policies with the NHS Constitution for England, including patients’ rights to access services within maximum waiting times.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.
It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.
The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.
NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.
All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what data is held by NHS England on the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across Integrated Care Boards; and whether this information is collected centrally.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.
It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.
The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.
NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.
All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what guidance NHS England has issued to Integrated Care Boards on the use of minimum waiting times; and whether prior approval is required before such policies are implemented.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.
It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.
The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.
NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.
All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for which procedures, treatments or clinical pathways minimum waiting times have been applied by Integrated Care Boards; and what criteria are used to determine their application.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.
It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.
The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.
NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.
All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.