Written questions by Betts.

How many major food incidents have there been in each of the last 5 years and of those how many were meat related.

In responding to food and feed safety incidents and foodborne disease outbreaks, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) categorises its handling of incident responses at Routine or Non-routine levels. Non-routine incident and outbreak responses are escalated where it is considered that their successful management requires levels of resources and authority beyond those available for routine incident handling. In the calendar years 2021 to 2026, the FSA escalated three meat related incidents and outbreak responses to Non-routine status. This was from a total of 15 Non-routine incidents in that period. All three of these meat related incidents were escalated within the calendar year 2023. The following table shows the number of incidents/outbreak responses escalated to Non-routine status for the calendar years 2021 to 2026: Calendar yearNumber of incidents/outbreak responses escalated to Non-routine status202122022220235202432025220261Total15

If he will direct the FSA to publish the terms of reference and timetable for conduct of their review of current and emerging abattoir technologies and their potential regulatory use including what plans they have to consult industry stakeholders.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) works closely with the meat industry on the introduction of new technology in abattoirs. Whilst it is for businesses to determine what technology they wish to invest in and deploy, the FSA is keen to collaborate on these initiatives to understand any impacts on regulation and any associated benefits for food safety, animal welfare standards, and business growth. For example, the FSA and industry trade bodies have recently developed a joint protocol for the deployment of automated faecal contamination technology in abattoirs. The FSA also recently commissioned independent research into new technologies in meat official controls, which involved engagement with both trade bodies and individual businesses. This research will be published later this year.

When the FSA last reviewed and updated the scientific evidence, research and data underpinning the Official Controls legislation referred to in PQ Answer 120762.

In 2022, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) completed an operational transformation programme and launched a new operational modernisation programme in 2023. These aim to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of the delivery of official controls through enhanced capability and better use of technology.Beyond strategic review programmes, the FSA continually reviews how Official Controls Regulations are implemented in FSA-approved establishments and regularly updates the publicly available Manual for Official Controls. The FSA conducts and commissions research to ensure regulations remain evidence-based and proportionate.

How many billing errors the Food Standards Agency made in charging food business operators for Official Controls in each of the last 3 years, and what was the total monetary value of these in each of these years.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) does not centrally record billing errors for Official Controls in the format requested. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a definitive count of billing errors made in charging food business operators for Official Controls, nor the total monetary value of such errors, for each of the last three years.The FSA operates financial management and assurance processes designed to minimise errors in invoicing, including routine reconciliation and review procedures. Where errors are identified, these are corrected through our standard processes, and any necessary adjustments are made to ensure that charges accurately reflect the cost of Official Controls delivered.The FSA continues to keep its billing and assurance processes under review to ensure accuracy, transparency, and fairness for food business operators.

Whether his Department will a) review the ongoing data collection work of the British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy registry and b) work with partners in the space to identify opportunities to support further development of the registry, to drive improvements in care and treatment for patients with graft-vs-host disease.

The UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum’s 2022 report, A ten-year vision for stem cell transplantation and cellular therapies, set out a number of recommendations for improving data collection for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy (HSCT-CT) to drive improvements in care and treatment of HSCT-CT patients, including those with graft-vs-host disease. The report is available at the following link:https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/who-we-are/performance-and-strategy/stem-cell-and-advanced-cellular-therapy-strategy/Following on from the report recommendations, the forum has established a HSCT-CT Data Commission to create an enhanced, accessible, and sustainable data model for UK HSCT-CT data, with collaboration across the British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, the UK Aligned Registry, NHS England and the devolved counterparts, patients, academia, and industry. The Department will consider any proposals made by the commission.The Department is also exploring how to support the report’s recommendations on data through the extension of the Department’s stem cell programme funding.

What plans his Department has to consider transplants, including stem cell and bone marrow transplants, as part of the Getting It Right First Time programme.

There are no current plans to consider transplants, including stem cell and bone marrow transplants, as part of the Getting It Right First Time programme. The Department is aware of challenges around the timely provision of well-matched stem cell donors, particularly for people from mixed heritage or ethnic minority backgrounds, and therefore instead intends to review the factors underlying this and the system supporting stem cell donation.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the removal of access to a CAR-T therapy for mantle cell lymphoma on patients; and if his Department will consider learnings from other health systems that have provided access.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is re-evaluating brexucabtagene autoleucel following managed access through the Cancer Drugs Fund to determine whether it should be recommended for routine National Health Service funding. NICE’s draft guidance, published in December, does not recommend it as a clinically and cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. The Government recognises that any potential withdrawal for future patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be concerning, but these decisions are rightly taken independently and based on the available evidence. Under an arrangement between NHS England and the company, if NICE’s final guidance does not recommend routine use, patients who started treatment during the managed access period can continue their treatment.NICE is an England-only body. Medicine availability decisions in the devolved administrations are for the relevant devolved governments.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that access to CAR‑T therapies for mantle cell lymphoma is consistent across the UK, in the context of its continued availability in Scotland.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is re-evaluating brexucabtagene autoleucel following managed access through the Cancer Drugs Fund to determine whether it should be recommended for routine National Health Service funding. NICE’s draft guidance, published in December, does not recommend it as a clinically and cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. The Government recognises that any potential withdrawal for future patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be concerning, but these decisions are rightly taken independently and based on the available evidence. Under an arrangement between NHS England and the company, if NICE’s final guidance does not recommend routine use, patients who started treatment during the managed access period can continue their treatment.NICE is an England-only body. Medicine availability decisions in the devolved administrations are for the relevant devolved governments.

What plans he has to introduce more effective uses of technology and science evidence-based approaches to the delivery of Official Controls by the Food Standards Agency.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) supports evidence‑based use of technology in Official Controls, but inspection requirements in abattoirs are set in assimilated European Union law Regulation, and are prescriptive, and divergence could restrict British access to the EU and other markets. The FSA has commissioned a review of current and emerging abattoir technologies and their potential regulatory use and is sharing learning internationally to inform future modernisation while maintaining food safety and animal health and welfare standards.The FSA applies a science-based, evidence led approach to delivery of official controls. Decisions are informed by risk assessments, data analysis, and established scientific principles to ensure that controls are proportionate, targeted, and effective, and adopt risk-based decisions, for example in the setting of audit frequencies, microbiological testing requirements for food business operators or its own enforcement activity. Under Article 1 of assimilated Regulation (EC) 852/2004, meat businesses are legally responsible for the safety and compliance of the food they produce, as in other sectors. However, Official Controls for meat are more prescriptive in legislation than for many other foods, so any move to a different delivery model would require legislative change.

What steps he is taking to ensure that the Food Standards Agency is subject to an appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was established by the Food Standards Act 1999 as a non-ministerial Government department. The FSA is accountable to the Westminster Parliament, the Senedd, and the Northern Ireland Assembly through health ministers in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland respectively.The FSA’s annual report and accounts are laid before the Westminster Parliament, the Senedd, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The 2024/25 report is available at the following link:https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/Westminster%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202024-25.pdfThe FSA is accountable to Parliament directly through select committees and regularly engages with them. The Chief Executive of the FSA recently gave oral evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in October 2025 and the Industry and Regulators Committee in January 2026.

If he will bring food businesses responsible for processing meat and meat products in line with the regulatory approach used elsewhere in the food industry by allowing them to be fully responsible for the product they produce.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) supports evidence‑based use of technology in Official Controls, but inspection requirements in abattoirs are set in assimilated European Union law Regulation, and are prescriptive, and divergence could restrict British access to the EU and other markets. The FSA has commissioned a review of current and emerging abattoir technologies and their potential regulatory use and is sharing learning internationally to inform future modernisation while maintaining food safety and animal health and welfare standards.The FSA applies a science-based, evidence led approach to delivery of official controls. Decisions are informed by risk assessments, data analysis, and established scientific principles to ensure that controls are proportionate, targeted, and effective, and adopt risk-based decisions, for example in the setting of audit frequencies, microbiological testing requirements for food business operators or its own enforcement activity. Under Article 1 of assimilated Regulation (EC) 852/2004, meat businesses are legally responsible for the safety and compliance of the food they produce, as in other sectors. However, Official Controls for meat are more prescriptive in legislation than for many other foods, so any move to a different delivery model would require legislative change.

If he will direct the Food Standards Agency to publish details of the overhead costs associated with charging businesses for meat hygiene controls, specifically the costs of (a) administering the billing and discounting system and (b) correcting billing errors.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has for many years published comprehensive information on how its meat charges are made up annually. This information can be found in Cost Data Slides available on its website, at the following link:https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/charges-for-controls-in-meat-premisesThe costs of administering the FSA’s charging and discounts system, including correcting billing errors, are factored into its charges as a proportion of the work carried out by the finance function. As indicated on page 44 of the Cost Data Slides relating to England and Wales, £0.18 million is budgeted for this for the forthcoming 2026/27 financial year. As indicated on page 41, a proportion of this amount relates to billing and collecting charges, which includes correcting billing errors.

For what reason the meat processing industry is subject to permanent on‑site regulatory presence and inspection of every item; what the evidentiary basis is for this practice; and how this level of oversight compares with that applied to other industries.

The official controls legislation, Regulation (EU) 2017/625, sets clear requirements to undertake ante-mortem and post-mortem official inspections and the verification of compliance with food law, animal health, and welfare rules in slaughterhouses and game handling establishments. To perform these official controls, it is necessary to have official physical presence. This level of regulatory presence is limited to those activities identified as presenting the highest risk to the food chain. Meat processing establishments are not generally subject to such supervision unless they are also engaged in those high-risk activities. Conformance with these requirements is critical to protect public health, animal health and welfare, assure food safety and underpin international trade in products of animal origin. The legislation provides for certain flexibilities in the way official controls are delivered.The legislation is drafted to reflect scientific evidence, research and data with a strong focus on public health, animal health and welfare whilst minimising unnecessary burden for businesses. Other industries are also subject to a regulatory framework for inspections and verification which is proportionate to the risks they present.

Pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2026 to Question 89382 on Social Services: Investment, what assessment his Department has made of the main barriers to (a) public sector funding and (b) private sector capital investment in social care; and what regional variations are there.

The Government assesses the funding required for adult social care, which considers a wide range of factors. This assessment is considered alongside other Government priorities through the Spending Review process to inform decisions about how available public sector funding is distributed. Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities are tasked with the duty to shape their care markets to meet the diverse needs of all local people. This includes commissioning a diverse range of care and support services that enable people to access quality care. Conditions in local care markets can vary across the country and local authorities are best placed to understand and respond to these local market conditions. The Department has not carried out a specific assessment on the barriers to private sector capital investment in social care and any regional variations. While private adult social care providers are individual businesses and the Government does not intervene in their operations, we have been clear that the expectation is for adult social care providers to behave responsibly, including through sustainable financial arrangements that support the sector and meet needs as required.

Pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2026 to Question 89382 on Social Services: Investment, whether his Department plans to consider the (a) previous and (b) forecast (i) levels and (ii) adequacy of (A) private and (B) public sector capital funding in social care in England.

The Government will consider the capital funding needs of adult social care as part of the next Spending Review. We have recently announced an additional £50 million for the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in 2025/26. This could fund approximately 5,000 home adaptations supporting older and disabled people to live more independently in their homes, and brings the total DFG amount this year to £761 million. We have also confirmed £723 million for the DFG in 2026/27. The DFG budget across 2025/26 and 2026/27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years, 2023/24 and 2024/25. This represents an 11% increase that exceeds inflation.Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities are tasked with the duty to shape their care markets to meet the diverse needs of all local people. This includes assessing current and future local provision of adult social care services and working with their local market to ensure that both present and anticipated demand can be met.

Pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2026 to Question 89382 on Social Services: Investment, whether his Department plans to (a) increase public sector funding and (b) incentivise private sector investment in social care in England.

We are progressing towards a National Care Service based on greater choice and control, joined up services, and higher quality of care, with over £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care by 2028/29 compared to 2025/26. We have no direct plans designed to incentivise private investment. Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities are tasked with the duty to shape their care markets to meet the diverse needs of all local people and are responsible for deciding how they spend the funding made available to them for adult social care, unless it is ringfenced for a particular purpose.While private adult social care providers are individual businesses and the Government does not intervene in their operations, we have been clear that the expectation is for adult social care providers to behave responsibly, including through sustainable financial arrangements that support the sector and meet need as required.

With reference to the NHS 10 Year Plan, what steps his Department is taking to to double the level of CT and MRI scanner capacity; and what plans he has to develop stronger and more structured partnerships with industry to tackle barriers to modernisation and to accelerate diagnostic innovation.

We are committed to transforming diagnostic services and will support the National Health Service to increase diagnostic capacity to bring down the size of the list and reduce waiting times, including investment in new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scanners. Speeding up waiting times for diagnostic tests is a crucial part of reducing overall waiting times and returning to the referral to treatment 18-week standard.The 2025 Spending Review confirmed over £6 billion of additional capital investment over five years across new diagnostic, elective, and urgent care capacity. This includes £600 million in capital funding for diagnostics in 2025/26 to support delivery of the NHS performance standards. This funding will deliver new community diagnostic centres, including new MRI and CT scanners, new scanners in acute hospital settings, as well as replacements of the oldest CT and MRI scanners. Further details and allocations will be set out in due course.The Health Innovation Network (HIN) fosters partnerships with industry and the NHS to accelerate the evaluation, adoption, and spread of health innovations, including diagnostics. This is why the Government’s 10-Year Health Plan and the Life Sciences Sector Plan make explicit commitments to continue funding and empowering the HIN.

Whether he plans to develop the universal, digital‑first prehabilitation offer for people with cancer in the National Cancer Plan into a fully structured, personalised, community‑based offer of both prehabilitation and rehabilitation for all people with cancer.

The National Cancer Plan will redesign cancer services around people’s lives, not just around hospitals, recognising that more people are living for longer with and beyond cancer and need ongoing, coordinated support. To achieve this aim, the plan committed to the development of new standards for both prehabilitation and rehabilitation through cancer manuals by 2028.Through the National Cancer Plan’s implementation, more cancer care and support will be delivered closer to home, including a universal digital-first prehabilitation offer, expanded supportive oncology, greater use of virtual monitoring, and growing opportunities for treatment and follow-up in community settings where safe and appropriate.For patients who have more extensive needs and who will require more support to live well, the National Health Service will deliver an enhanced level of care during and after treatment, known as supportive oncology. This will include enhanced rehabilitation, psychological support, and preventative interventions, such as physical activity and smoking cessation. Additionally, it will include acute oncology, support for severe and sometimes sudden symptoms, that means people can get rapid access to the right care in their home or community where appropriate.

Whether he plans to set out national quality standards for rehabilitation for all people with cancer within cancer manuals, alongside those for prehabilitation announced in the National Cancer Plan.

The National Cancer Plan will redesign cancer services around people’s lives, not just around hospitals, recognising that more people are living for longer with and beyond cancer and need ongoing, coordinated support. To achieve this aim, the plan committed to the development of new standards for both prehabilitation and rehabilitation through cancer manuals by 2028.Through the National Cancer Plan’s implementation, more cancer care and support will be delivered closer to home, including a universal digital-first prehabilitation offer, expanded supportive oncology, greater use of virtual monitoring, and growing opportunities for treatment and follow-up in community settings where safe and appropriate.For patients who have more extensive needs and who will require more support to live well, the National Health Service will deliver an enhanced level of care during and after treatment, known as supportive oncology. This will include enhanced rehabilitation, psychological support, and preventative interventions, such as physical activity and smoking cessation. Additionally, it will include acute oncology, support for severe and sometimes sudden symptoms, that means people can get rapid access to the right care in their home or community where appropriate.

What plans he has to ensure equitable cancer research funding across the country.

The Department invests £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Cancer is a major area of NIHR spending at £141.6 million in 2024/25, reflecting its high priority.NIHR research infrastructure has national coverage for the whole of England. Our infrastructure schemes aim to build research capacity and capability across all geographies, settings, and disease areas, including understanding disease biology, patient access to novel treatments, and dedicated spaces for medicine studies.In addition, through the NIHR Research Delivery Network (RDN), the NIHR supports 100% of National Health Service trusts in England to deliver research, operating across 12 regions throughout the country. The RDN also provides health research delivery investment that better enables trial access across wider care settings, including primary care, community-based, and residential research delivery organisations. In 2024/25 the RDN supported over 1,200 cancer studies, including the recruitment of almost 100,000 patients to cancer studies.The NIHR continues to encourage and welcome applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including all cancer types.