Written questions by Midgley.

What the average time taken was between (a) a domestic abuse-related death and (b) the commissioning of a Domestic Homicide Review in each of the last five years.

Domestic homicide reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable. However, whilst the Government remains committed to the fundamental principles of the DHR process, I recognise that there is room for improvement and that more must be done to improve how DHRs are currently conducted.DHRs are the responsibility of local Community Safety Partnerships. The Home Office provides guidance through statutory guidance; however, it does not get involved in local processes or individual cases.The Home Office has been undertaking a programme of work to reform DHRs. The aim of these reforms is to increase efficiency, enhance accountability, and ensure that recommendations are disseminated and embedded swiftly. The Home Office is planning to publish updated statutory guidance to ensure that a more effective and streamlined process is put in place going forward. This is due to be published within the coming months.Historically there have been significant delays in the DHR quality assurance (QA) process. To resolve this, we have now reformed the QA system and launched a new DHR Quality Assurance Board, appointing three new public office holders. The Board members bring decades of frontline experience and are experts in domestic abuse with specialisms in policing, stalking, ‘honor’-based abuse, and economic abuse. This replaces the former QA Panel and is designed to streamline review procedures, ensure consistent, high-quality feedback, and provide Community Safety Partnerships with more timely responses going forward.Each DHR is unique, and therefore the timescales are variable, however, the statutory guidance is clear that local areas should be proportionate with scope and time frames and that any delays are clearly accounted for in the final DHR. Due to the variety of different cases, we are not able to comment on specific delays in each case.

⁠⁠what recent discussions she has had with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on (a) the timing of launching Domestic Homicide Reviews and (b) the implementation of recommendations.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount. Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.I recognise the important role of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s (DAC) Office in relation to DHRs, as reflected in the statutory requirement for all published DHRs to be submitted to the DAC’s Office. That is why my officials meet with the DAC’s Office monthly to discuss reflections on the DHR process and the implementation of learning. I meet the DAC regularly, most recently on 3 February 2026 at the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy Advisory Board.The Home Office has committed to funding and delivering an oversight mechanism for recommendations made within DHRs. We will put in place a system that strengthens accountability and ensures learning is consistently embedded across both local and national agencies.

What central oversight exists to ensure that recommendations from Domestic Homicide Reviews are acted upon by relevant agencies.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount to preventing fatal domestic abuse. I recognise that Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.The statutory guidance is clear that local Community Safety Partnerships have a responsibility to monitor the implementation of action plans, as set out in section 79(f) of the guidance. Additionally, section 79(g) states that a DHR is not formally concluded until the action plan has been implemented, including completion of an audit process.The importance of dissemination of learnings is also clearly outlined in the statutory guidance, section 110 (a-f). This includes distributing learnings locally through multi-agency settings but also that ensuring the final report is shared with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Police and Crime commissioner.At present, the Home Office does not monitor the progress of individual action plans. However, I understand the importance of oversight, and therefore, I am currently exploring options for improving oversight of DHR recommendations.

⁠⁠what mechanisms are in place to monitor compliance by local areas with statutory guidance on the timely commissioning and completion of Domestic Homicide Reviews.

Domestic homicide reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable. However, whilst the Government remains committed to the fundamental principles of the DHR process, I recognise that there is room for improvement and that more must be done to improve how DHRs are currently conducted.DHRs are the responsibility of local Community Safety Partnerships. The Home Office provides guidance through statutory guidance; however, it does not get involved in local processes or individual cases.The Home Office has been undertaking a programme of work to reform DHRs. The aim of these reforms is to increase efficiency, enhance accountability, and ensure that recommendations are disseminated and embedded swiftly. The Home Office is planning to publish updated statutory guidance to ensure that a more effective and streamlined process is put in place going forward. This is due to be published within the coming months.Historically there have been significant delays in the DHR quality assurance (QA) process. To resolve this, we have now reformed the QA system and launched a new DHR Quality Assurance Board, appointing three new public office holders. The Board members bring decades of frontline experience and are experts in domestic abuse with specialisms in policing, stalking, ‘honor’-based abuse, and economic abuse. This replaces the former QA Panel and is designed to streamline review procedures, ensure consistent, high-quality feedback, and provide Community Safety Partnerships with more timely responses going forward.Each DHR is unique, and therefore the timescales are variable, however, the statutory guidance is clear that local areas should be proportionate with scope and time frames and that any delays are clearly accounted for in the final DHR. Due to the variety of different cases, we are not able to comment on specific delays in each case.

⁠⁠what consequences apply to public bodies that do not implement recommendations arising from Domestic Homicide Reviews.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount to preventing fatal domestic abuse. I recognise that Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.The statutory guidance is clear that local Community Safety Partnerships have a responsibility to monitor the implementation of action plans, as set out in section 79(f) of the guidance. Additionally, section 79(g) states that a DHR is not formally concluded until the action plan has been implemented, including completion of an audit process.The importance of dissemination of learnings is also clearly outlined in the statutory guidance, section 110 (a-f). This includes distributing learnings locally through multi-agency settings but also that ensuring the final report is shared with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Police and Crime commissioner.At present, the Home Office does not monitor the progress of individual action plans. However, I understand the importance of oversight, and therefore, I am currently exploring options for improving oversight of DHR recommendations.

Communities and Local Government, what deadline the Government has set for residential freeholders to complete remediation works on buildings with unsafe cladding; and what steps he will take in cases where such works are not completed by that deadline.

In the Remediation Acceleration Plan, we set a clear target that, by the end of 2029, every residential building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will have either completed remediation works or have a firm completion date in place, otherwise the responsible entity will face enforcement action. To this end, we are legislating to give regulators access to new criminal and civil penalties to deal with those that are not doing all they can to remediate their buildings and any party that stands in their way. The Remediation Acceleration Plan sets out the Government’s intentions to give regulators the power to identify beneficial owners and hold all relevant parties to account. We will also create a new Remediation Backstop, which grants the State step-in powers for remediation. No matter where the responsible entity is based and their responsiveness to enforcement, resident safety must be ensured.

Communities and Local Government, whether (a) his Department and (b) any of its arms-length bodies are (i) investigating and (ii) undertaking enforcement action against Rockwell (FC100) Ltd in relation to its residential building remediation obligations.

The Department is not actively investigating or taking enforcement action against Rockwell (FC100), nor to our knowledge are any of the Department’s arm’s length bodies. The Government is working with local authorities and fire and rescue services to take enforcement action against building owners who are failing to get on with remediation. Regulators are operationally independent and are subject to their own duties and regulatory regimes. As such it would be inappropriate for the department to comment on regulatory decision making. Where remediation is not progressing, local authorities and fire and rescue services have a range of tools to compel building owners to fix their unsafe buildings. Regulators have long-standing powers under the Housing Act 2004 and Fire Safety Order 2005 to make sure building owners fix their unsafe buildings. The Building Safety Act 2022 bolstered these powers by introducing remediation orders and remediation contribution orders. These powers allow regulators to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order that requires a building owner to fix, or pay to fix, unsafe buildings. In addition, the Fire Safety Order has been strengthened through changes to Section 156 of the Building Safety Act 2022. Section 116 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 makes it clear that a Remediation Contribution Order, under section 124 of the Building Safety Act, can include associated costs of alternative accommodation when residents are decanted from relevant buildings on building safety grounds. There is also provision for local authorities to apply to the Courts, to recover their costs if they pay to rehouse residents in these circumstances.

Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to secure compliance with building safety remediation requirements where the freeholder is registered overseas.

In the Remediation Acceleration Plan, we set a clear target that, by the end of 2029, every residential building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will have either completed remediation works or have a firm completion date in place, otherwise the responsible entity will face enforcement action. To this end, we are legislating to give regulators access to new criminal and civil penalties to deal with those that are not doing all they can to remediate their buildings and any party that stands in their way. The Remediation Acceleration Plan sets out the Government’s intentions to give regulators the power to identify beneficial owners and hold all relevant parties to account. We will also create a new Remediation Backstop, which grants the State step-in powers for remediation. No matter where the responsible entity is based and their responsiveness to enforcement, resident safety must be ensured.

Communities and Local Government, what guidance her Department has issued on the levying of service charges in residential buildings that have been fully decanted pending remediation works; and whether she will take steps to restrict the recovery of such charges in those circumstances.

Some levying of service charges in the event of a decant may be necessary to help pay for remediation. However, leaseholders with qualifying leases will still benefit from the caps on service charges for building safety defects, as set out at Schedule 8 of the Building Safety Act, irrespective of whether their building has been decanted. Any service charges wrongfully raised from leaseholders for building safety defects can be recovered from building owners via Remediation Contribution Orders. RCOs can include associated costs of alternative accommodation when residents are decanted from relevant buildings on building safety grounds. This has been set out in extensive guidance on the UK Government website. Local authorities can apply to the Court to recover their costs if they pay to rehouse residents in these circumstances. There is also limited scope for Resident Management Companies to recover the legal costs of raising an RCO from leaseholders where they might otherwise struggle to find the funds to do so. Relevant guidance can be found here: Amendments to the Building Safety Act introduced through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 - GOV.UK.

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of introducing a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer for men identified as high risk.

The Government is guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended. The UK NSC makes its recommendations based on internationally recognised criteria and a rigorous evidence review and consultation process. The UK NSC is currently considering the responses to a public consultation on their draft recommendation to:- offer a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme to men with confirmed BRCA1/2 gene variants every two years, from the age 45 years old to age 61 years old;- not recommend population screening;- not recommend targeted screening of black men;- not recommend targeted screening of men with family history; and- collaborate with the Transform trial team to answer outstanding questions on screening effectiveness for black men and men with a family history, as soon as trial data becomes available, and await the results of the study to develop and trial a more accurate test than the prostate specific antigen test alone, to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening.The evidence that supports this recommendation can be found on the following link:https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/The modelling used to arrive at the recommendation included cost benefit analysis.

Whether his Department has conducted a cost-benefit analysis of offering routine prostate-specific antigen testing to high-risk groups.

The Government is guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended. The UK NSC makes its recommendations based on internationally recognised criteria and a rigorous evidence review and consultation process. The UK NSC is currently considering the responses to a public consultation on their draft recommendation to:- offer a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme to men with confirmed BRCA1/2 gene variants every two years, from the age 45 years old to age 61 years old;- not recommend population screening;- not recommend targeted screening of black men;- not recommend targeted screening of men with family history; and- collaborate with the Transform trial team to answer outstanding questions on screening effectiveness for black men and men with a family history, as soon as trial data becomes available, and await the results of the study to develop and trial a more accurate test than the prostate specific antigen test alone, to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening.The evidence that supports this recommendation can be found on the following link:https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/The modelling used to arrive at the recommendation included cost benefit analysis.

If she will set out the changes to the bus funding allocations formula between 2025-26 and 2026-27.

On 5 December, the Government confirmed investment of over £3 billion from 2026/27 for the rest of the spending review period to support local leaders and bus operators across the country to improve bus services for millions of passengers. This includes multi-year allocations for local authorities under the Local Authority Bus Grant (LABG) totalling nearly £700 million per year, ending the short-term approach to bus funding and giving councils the certainty they need to plan ahead. The formula used to calculate LABG allocations in 2025/26 was the Government’s first step towards ending competitive allocations and it considered population size, levels of deprivation and the extent of existing bus services. To prevent sharp decreases of funding, and as part of the Government’s effort to rebalance inequalities created by competitive allocations, losses were capped at 25%. We revised this formula for 2026/27 onwards to give a greater weighting to levels of deprivation and population, and to cap any losses at 5% in our continued effort to end the inequalities of competitive allocations once and for all. The formula now also includes consideration of the rurality of local areas in response to a recommendation from the Transport Select Committee. Further details on the funding formula and local authority allocations for 2026/27 onwards have been published on GOV.UK at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-bus-grant-allocations. LABG allocations for 2025/26 are also published on GOV.UK at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-service-improvement-plans-local-transport-authority-allocations/total-combined-bus-funding-allocations-2025-to-2026. In addition to the LABG, the Government has also introduced a £3 million Bus Franchising Fund for Mayoral Combined Authorities that are pursuing franchising to apply for in 26/27, such as Liverpool City Region, to help support their transition to franchised services.

What estimate his Department has made of the cost of epilepsy to (a) the NHS and (b) the wider economy; and how this estimate informs decisions on funding for epilepsy research.

While the Government has not made a formal estimate of the cost of epilepsy to the National Health Service and the wider economy, we are aware of a report published by Economist Impact in February 2024, titled, The value of action: mitigating the impact of neurological disorders in the United Kingdom, which estimated that idiopathic epilepsy cost the economy £1.7 billion or 0.07% of gross domestic product in 2019. This report is available at the following link:https://impact.economist.com/health/value-action-mitigating-impact-neurological-disorders-united-kingdomThe Department funds research into epilepsy via the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Between 2020/21 and 2024/25, the NIHR invested £12.8 million in direct research funding on epilepsy.The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including epilepsy. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. Welcoming applications on epilepsy to all NIHR programmes enables maximum flexibility both in terms of the amount of research funding a particular area can be awarded, and the type of research which can be funded.

If her Department will publish changes in bus funding allocations by local transport authority for 2025–26 and 2026–27.

On 5 December, the Government confirmed investment of over £3 billion from 2026/27 for the rest of the spending review period to support local leaders and bus operators across the country to improve bus services for millions of passengers. This includes multi-year allocations for local authorities under the Local Authority Bus Grant (LABG) totalling nearly £700 million per year, ending the short-term approach to bus funding and giving councils the certainty they need to plan ahead. The formula used to calculate LABG allocations in 2025/26 was the Government’s first step towards ending competitive allocations and it considered population size, levels of deprivation and the extent of existing bus services. To prevent sharp decreases of funding, and as part of the Government’s effort to rebalance inequalities created by competitive allocations, losses were capped at 25%. We revised this formula for 2026/27 onwards to give a greater weighting to levels of deprivation and population, and to cap any losses at 5% in our continued effort to end the inequalities of competitive allocations once and for all. The formula now also includes consideration of the rurality of local areas in response to a recommendation from the Transport Select Committee. Further details on the funding formula and local authority allocations for 2026/27 onwards have been published on GOV.UK at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-bus-grant-allocations. LABG allocations for 2025/26 are also published on GOV.UK at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-service-improvement-plans-local-transport-authority-allocations/total-combined-bus-funding-allocations-2025-to-2026. In addition to the LABG, the Government has also introduced a £3 million Bus Franchising Fund for Mayoral Combined Authorities that are pursuing franchising to apply for in 26/27, such as Liverpool City Region, to help support their transition to franchised services.

Innovation and Technology, what proportion of research funding is allocated to epilepsy research; and if she will make an assessment of the adequacy of this proportion.

The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), has committed a total of over £25.5 million since 2018/19 on epilepsy research, including over £9.5 million in 2024/25. This research spans discovery science and fundamental understanding of the disease, through to new approaches for diagnosis and intervention. MRC also supports epilepsy research within its portfolio of larger investments. For example, this includes a new MRC Centre of Research Excellence (CoRE) in Restorative Neural Dynamics which aims to develop brain stimulation devices to treat a range of conditions including childhood epilepsy, and the UK data platform for Traumatic Brain Injury research (TBI-REPORTER) which includes post-traumatic epilepsy as one of the areas of focus.The Department of Health and Social Care also funds research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The NIHR has funded a range of ongoing epilepsy research and has awarded £12.8 million to studies in the last five financial years. The NIHR continues to welcome funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including alternative treatments for epilepsy.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department's funding for epilepsy research.

The Department funds research into epilepsy via the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Between 2020/21 and 2024/25, the NIHR invested £12.8 million in direct research funding on epilepsy. This investment in epilepsy research allows us to continue developing our understanding of the condition and make a real difference to people living with epilepsy, as demonstrated by the examples of impact outlined below.In 2022, the NIHR-hosted James Lind Alliance (JLA) carried out a UK Epilepsy Priority Setting Partnership (PSP), funded and convened by the Epilepsy Research Centre, with epilepsy patients, carers, and service providers to identify the most pressing research priorities for ongoing epilepsy research investment. Many NIHR-funded research projects align to and address the priorities set out by the JLA PSP, boosting epilepsy research. These include:the Ultra Long-Term EEG to Guide Rapid Treatment Changes for People with Epilepsy (LEG-RTC) study, which that is studying how the first ever ultra-long term seizure recorder could help improve outcomes and reduce risk of harm for patients with epilepsy whose condition cannot be controlled by medication, with further information available at the following link: https://www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR209057;the Medicinal Cannabis in Refractory Epilepsies study, which aims to explore whether two different cannabis-based medicines are a useful treatment for refractory epilepsy in reducing seizures, and whether these medicines impact learning, sleep, behavior, quality of life, stress, and anxiety, with further information available at the following link: https://www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR131309; andthe Developing a wireless intracranial neuromonitoring device for drug-resistant epilepsy study, to develop a wireless neuromonitoring device for drug-resistant epilepsy, aiming to create a minimally invasive, implantable device which allows for extended monitoring of seizures without the need for patients to remain in hospital leading to less patient distress, better localization data, reduced clinical costs, and better surgical outcomes. Further information is available at the following link: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR204209.Other examples of NIHR-funded epilepsy research and impact include:the Epilepsy: what are the chances of having a second seizure? study, where, in 2023, NIHR-funded researchers found that an individual’s risk of having a second seizure after an initial unprovoked seizure was highest in the first six months, although the risk remained elevated for two years and beyond, providing critical insights for doctors counselling their patients on repeat seizure risks. Many studies in this review had a follow-up period of less than two years. This review therefore highlights the need for further research which can estimate the risk of seizure recurrence beyond two years. Further information is available at the following link: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/epilepsy-what-are-the-chances-of-having-a-second-seizure/; andthe How can we support the mental health of children with epilepsy? study, which evaluated the remotely delivered Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy (MICE), delivered by epilepsy clinicians with limited formal training in psychological interventions. Compared with usual care, when clinicians used the intervention, young people with epilepsy and their carers had improved mental health. The evidence from this research suggests that a variety of clinicians can effectively and safely treat children with epilepsy and mental health difficulties. The remote delivery of MICE was beneficial in terms of less travel time and less time out of school for children. Further information is available at the following link: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/how-can-we-support-the-mental-health-of-children-with-epilepsy/.The NIHR also works closely with other Government funders, including UK Research and Innovation, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and includes the Medical Research Council, to fund research into epilepsy to improve treatments and prevent poor health outcomes for patients.The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including epilepsy. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. Welcoming applications on epilepsy to all NIHR programmes enables maximum flexibility both in terms of amount of research funding a particular area can be awarded, and the type of research which can be funded.

What estimate she has made of the (a) number of Child Trust Fund accounts that remain unclaimed and (b) value of funds held in those unclaimed Child Trust Fund accounts.

The number of Child Trust Funds that have matured and have not been claimed or transferred to an ISA, and the value of funds held in these accounts, can be found in the Child Trust Fund tables of the Annual Savings Statistics.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-savings-statistics-2025 Table 1a: Market Value of CTFs as of 5 April 2025Number of accounts (thousands)Average Market Value (£)Total Market Value (£ Million)Matured This Year (Continuing)2952,039602Matured Previously (Continuing)4631,942899

What steps her Department is taking to help ensure that councils with above-average demand for children’s social care receive adequate resources under the revised needs-based formula.

The existing formula, last updated in 2013/14, is significantly outdated and no longer reflects current levels of need. Since then, many local authorities have experienced substantial changes in deprivation, child population density, and other factors that drive demand for services.The Children and Young People’s Services formula provides a more accurate and robust assessment of each local authority’s relative need for children’s services. It does so by analysing a combination of child and neighbourhood characteristics that best predict whether a child will engage with social care. These include child‑level factors such as age, gender, and eligibility for free school meals, alongside neighbourhood indicators such as deprivation and poor health.This approach ensures that councils with the greatest levels of relative need receive the largest shares of available funding, enabling them to effectively deliver vital services.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure the NHS is appropriately prepared for winter flu-related admissions in 2025 and early 2026.

We have started earlier and done more than ever to prepare for winter this year. We continue to monitor the impact of winter pressures on the National Health Service over the winter months, providing additional support to services across the country as needed.The Department is continuing to take key steps to ensure the health service is prepared throughout the colder months. This includes taking actions to try and reduce demand pressure on accident and emergency departments, increasing vaccination rates, and offering health checks to the most vulnerable, as well as stress-testing integrated care board and trust winter plans to ensure they are able to meet demand and ensure patient flow.Flu is a recurring pressure that the NHS faces every winter. There is particular risk of severe illness for older people, the very young, pregnant people, and those with certain underlying health conditions. The flu vaccine remains the best form of defense against influenza, particularly for the most vulnerable, and continues to be highly effective at preventing severe disease and hospitalisation.  This year we have:expanded the use of the National Booking Service for flu vaccination;carried out a major campaign aimed at eligible people, encouraging them to take up their vaccinations; anddeveloped the “flu walk-in finder” so that, from October 2025, patients can easily look up when they can walk into a community pharmacy to get a vaccination.

What measures are in place to reduce pressure on the NHS from flu-related hospital admissions this winter.

We have started earlier and done more than ever to prepare for winter this year. We continue to monitor the impact of winter pressures on the National Health Service over the winter months, providing additional support to services across the country as needed.The Department is continuing to take key steps to ensure the health service is prepared throughout the colder months. This includes taking actions to try and reduce demand pressure on accident and emergency departments, increasing vaccination rates, and offering health checks to the most vulnerable, as well as stress-testing integrated care board and trust winter plans to ensure they are able to meet demand and ensure patient flow.Flu is a recurring pressure that the NHS faces every winter. There is particular risk of severe illness for older people, the very young, pregnant people, and those with certain underlying health conditions. The flu vaccine remains the best form of defense against influenza, particularly for the most vulnerable, and continues to be highly effective at preventing severe disease and hospitalisation.  This year we have:expanded the use of the National Booking Service for flu vaccination;carried out a major campaign aimed at eligible people, encouraging them to take up their vaccinations; anddeveloped the “flu walk-in finder” so that, from October 2025, patients can easily look up when they can walk into a community pharmacy to get a vaccination.