Disability Equipment Provision

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.

I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office, which oversees the ballot that leads to the selection of debate topics. I am truly very pleased to have secured this debate to provide us all with the opportunity to shine a light on the issues that many people across the country are facing in accessing disability equipment.

I particularly welcome Milana Hadji-Touma, who is representing herself and a number of others today; I thank her for attending. I also thank the 653 people who have shared their experiences and provided moving testimonials, which have been invaluable in my preparation for this debate. I appreciate the time and energy that has gone into each response, and I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for all those who contributed.

I want to begin by offering some quotes from the responses, including some from my constituents:

“My daughter had to wait two years for her wheelchair.”

“I wouldn’t be able to function without my stairlift, my powered wheelchair and my crutches.”

“It is about my safety, my dignity and my ability to live independently.”

“I use a shower chair and a toilet frame which might seem small items but they have transformed my day to day safety and confidence.”

“With the correct equipment, I was able to complete a master's degree at a top university, become a teacher, learn to drive, hand cycle across eleven countries and live a full and rich life.”

Around 25% of the UK population are disabled, so access to disability equipment is essential. It alleviates everyday struggles and allows thousands of people to live safe and independent lives, which boosts personal confidence and mental wellbeing. Whether it is wheelchairs, living aids or home-adaptation items like grab rails, the devices offer numerous and powerful benefits, transforming lives so that the activities of daily life become more manageable, both for those dealing with disabling conditions and for those who provide care, including family members, friends and care workers.

Those benefits were echoed throughout my survey. One respondent stated:

“My disability equipment is my entire life”,

while another reported:

“It simplifies tasks, turns impossible activities into manageable ones with the right support, eases physical pain, reduces moments of embarrassment or vulnerability, and—most importantly—fosters greater independence and less dependence on others.”

Despite the benefits, 64% of respondents revealed that waiting times for disability equipment were longer than expected. As I said, one person reported that their daughter waited for a wheelchair for nearly two years, while one of my constituents highlighted the issues that arise from delayed equipment provision, stating:

“Without proper assessment and provision, disabled people can be left living in environments that actively worsen their health or place them at risk of injury.”

The testimonies I have shared show that there is a growing belief that the system to provide disability equipment is becoming increasingly unsustainable. With complaints about waiting times, quality of equipment and poor communication around access, it is no surprise that over 650 people responded to my survey in the space of four days. In addition, hundreds more people gave testimonies to inform the latest report from the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment, published last October. Among stories of frustration and disappointment, the report revealed that 63% of carers and 55% of equipment users felt that services were getting worse.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I agree with absolutely everything he has said. He talks about the problem with access to equipment; I know of one case, which is representative of many that come across my desk, that concerns the inability to hand back equipment after use. A constituent contacted me whose mother had died after two years of home care. She had a hospital bed, three commodes, an orthopaedic chair and a walking frame. The NHS provider had gone into receivership and there was no method whatsoever for her to hand back the equipment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are compounding the problems for people getting equipment by not reusing the stuff that is already out there?

I do agree. Indeed, that problem causes a massive cost to the taxpayer as well.

It is no surprise that 74% of equipment providers were aware of patients experiencing delayed hospital discharge due to unavailable community equipment. The APPG’s report recommended and called for the implementation of a national strategy to ensure the cohesive and comprehensive delivery, monitoring and financing of disability equipment.

Complaints about the current system and provision of equipment have been reported by various other organisations, including the UK charity for young wheelchair users, Whizz Kidz, which described wheelchair services as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured.” In June 2025, it was reported that Citizens Advice receives a new complaint about faulty aids every hour.

My own pedigree in this area goes back many years—in fact, to 1996, when I first joined a health and personal social services commissioning organisation, under the leadership of my great friends Mary Wilmont and Kevin Keenan, both former directors of social services in Northern Ireland. We examined in great detail the wheelchair services, and services for people who were deaf or blind, hard of hearing or visually impaired. One report stands out in my memory—not because I authored it, but because it was a simple idea to address the challenges facing people in getting to a hospital appointment. We called it “Getting There”. That was 30 years ago.

Although this Government need to “get there”, the challenges in the existing system are more profound. In England and Wales, the provision of equipment is currently run by the NHS and local authorities, which are primarily responsible for facilitating care needs assessments and subsequently approving and providing equipment. As a result, available equipment, the length of waiting times and the quality of adaptations are increasingly becoming a postcode lottery.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the patchwork system to which he referred is, through delay and dysfunction, denying many disabled people the independence they deserve? A 56-year-old constituent of mine in Somerset with a progressive muscle wasting condition has been left effectively housebound and in severe pain for months while trying to obtain essential wheelchair adaptations. May I appeal to the Minister’s extensive good will and ask him to look at that case?

I agree with the hon. Member, and that highlights the need for a national strategy and a review of the current organisational arrangements.

Age UK has noted that, due to a lack of national guidelines on timelines, long waiting lists are common, partly due to shortages in that noble profession, occupational therapists. To mitigate the situation, multiple organisations have been set up with the sole purpose of supporting those in need of disability equipment in the face of a failing system. They include Back Up, a UK-wide charity that works with people affected by spinal cord injury and provides vital wheelchair skills training. The Motability Foundation has awarded £36.4 million in grants to customers of its Motability scheme to help them access adequate and good-quality equipment, as many people have resorted to self-funding permanent or temporary equipment. The foundation has also conducted an economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England and recommended that greater integration across services is needed to prevent variation in the quality of provision.

In Scotland, the handling of disability equipment and adaptations is carried out by integrated authorities—united bodies in which local authorities and NHS services work together to provide more cohesive and community-focused health and social care planning. To guide those bodies, the Scottish Government agreed a memorandum of understanding some years ago, setting out a standardised approach for the provision of equipment to maintain consistency across all local councils. During engagement with voluntary organisations in this field, I was told that the Scottish approach is paying dividends. I recommend to the Minister that a similar approach should be considered for implementation in England and Wales, because the system needs change now.

Thousands of people across the UK are sick, sore and tired of being unheard after countless complaints. When will their voices be taken seriously? Greater national leadership is urgently needed to put an end to the insecure and uncertain system in which someone’s ability to obtain necessary life-supporting equipment is based on where they live rather than their need. Everyone has a right to access disability equipment and live a safe and independent life. The pressure is on the UK Government to step up and redesign the system, and respond to the many calls to establish a national strategy.

Order. Six Back Benchers want to speak in the debate, so I suggest about five minutes each as a guideline.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users. It is also well known that one of my children has cerebral palsy and uses a wide range of equipment, from a wheelchair to postural seating for eating and for bathing and so on, so I have become a bit of an expert in some of these matters over the years. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. There will be a separate debate later this year, through the Backbench Business Committee, on wheelchair provision, which I will be sponsoring.

On the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), the collapse of NRS Healthcare last summer has caused real issues across the country. My Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency borders Kent and I know that there have been issues there, as there have been for other local authorities, and I have been working with organisations to try to reduce them. However, recycling continues to be an issue, and it is addressed in the recommendations of the APPG’s report.

As chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment, I am delighted to contribute to this debate, and I pay tribute to Newlife, the charity for disabled children, and the British Healthcare Trades Association for their dedication and hard work in advocating for users of disability equipment. As has been said, our first report, “Barriers to Accessing Lifesaving Disability Equipment”, was published in October. The report resulted from our inquiry—our first inquiry, in fact—into the systemic barriers that prevent millions of disabled children and adults across the UK from accessing the medical and community equipment that they need to live safely and independently.

I want to highlight some of the evidence that we heard. We found that 71% of people feel that the system providing hoists, grab rails and other essential medical equipment is not currently meeting their needs, and our first key recommendation was the implementation of a national strategy. Currently, there is no cohesive national strategy for community equipment and care provision, which has resulted in inconsistent experiences across the country. The APPG recommended that a national strategy should be overseen by a Minister, who would ensure that a national directive is issued to local authorities to clarify whose responsibility it is to provide equipment. That would ensure consistency and reduce confusion.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate.

Disabilities impact the lives of many people in the south-west of England, with older people some of the most affected. Age UK says that disabilities affect 40% of people over 60 but 75% of people over 80, and they are a particularly pressing concern for people in mid and east Devon, where a third of residents are aged 65-plus. Hearing loss is one such disability. It is all too common among older people and has some serious consequences. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People and SignHealth report how people with hearing impairments are less able to take advantage of other health treatments. Access to healthcare is obviously necessary for older people, and any obstacle is a great concern.

Devon’s provision of hearing aids faced a major shake-up last year, when Chime Social Enterprise, which had been praised by its users, stopped providing NHS audiology services in Devon. Chime had provided rechargeable hearing aids, along with drop-in clinics for emergency repairs, based out of community hospitals. Since Chime’s departure, there has been frustration about the provision. A constituent in Honiton whose ears were damaged when he was doing national service with the Royal Artillery, wrote of being redirected endlessly to different bodies for a simple hearing aid repair. A constituent from Seaton told me that models offered by the new providers are “shoddy”. He has already had two hearing aids become unusable because the tubes slip out of the rubber mould. That would have been a simple £60 replacement with Chime, but now, he wrote, he wonders whether the

“next stage is a conch shell”.

I wish to draw particular attention to the case of Mary Dickinson. I met Mary last year at a remembrance service in Sidmouth. She is aged 92. She was an NHS nurse for most of her life and to this day volunteers at Sidmouth Hospice at Home. For those acts of service, she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the British Red Cross. Mary, like many others, was provided by Chime with rechargeable hearing aids, which worked very well. She has paraesthesia and arthritis in both hands, so the idea that she should now be able to replace the batteries in her hearing aids is really quite wild. She said that if I wanted to obtain batteries for hearing aids, the best place I could look would be down the side of her settee, because there are many down there.

I want to speak about three things in this debate, which was helpfully secured by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan).

The first has already been dealt with but requires some amplification: the system is not working as well as it should. The figures that we heard quoted about access to wheelchairs, for example, are stark and surprising. In researching for the debate, I was surprised that, according to figures from NHS England—and we heard it again from the hon. Member—70% of wheelchair users wait more than three months for their chair, 30% wait more than six months, and 15% more than 12 months. Those are pretty astounding figures.

I say to the Minister: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If those people could be provided with some help—perhaps not the chair ideally suited to their needs but something that assisted them—through a recycling scheme, I am sure that they would feel that the authorities were at least making an effort. If someone is sitting at home, hearing nothing and getting nothing, they must get increasingly frustrated. Let us be more creative in how we improve those numbers. Recycling equipment has to be at the heart of that. It is not a perfect solution, because equipment often has to be tailored to the specific requirements of the individual concerned, but it might help.

The second point I want to raise is about housing. There are real problems with adapted housing, with the obligation on developers to build enough adapted houses, and with local authorities facing up to their responsibilities. I know that you are a great expert in this field, Mr Betts—a greater expert than me—but I would like to go back to the days when adapted housing was built for the elderly, the infirm and the disabled, perhaps with a resident warden who would take personal care in their interests and be available night and day for their needs. I am talking not about a distant individual obtained by means of a telephone or—heaven forbid—online, but about someone with hands-on knowledge of local residents. That existed in our lifetimes, and it does not exist now in any significant shape or form. Let us think again about best practice from past times in respect of housing, and create some obligations on local authorities and private developers to build a sufficient number of adapted homes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate, which is timely because I want to highlight the case of a constituent and ask the Minister to work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to intervene urgently in what has become a deeply troubling example of administrative failure in the DWP’s Access to Work scheme.

My constituent lives with cerebral palsy and ME. She wants to do exactly what Government policy encourages people to do: work, contribute and maintain her independence. To do that, she requires a wheelchair through the Access to Work programme—an essential piece of equipment that enables her to remain in employment. My constituent has done everything asked of her ever since her first application in July 2024. Her assessment was completed, quotes for a suitable chair were submitted and the case had progressed to the point of an award. Then, the system failed her. In September 2025, her case manager informed her that he was retiring, and that the case had been passed to a colleague, who would contact her. That contact never came.

Despite my constituent’s repeated attempts to follow up, no one in the Access to Work scheme took ownership of the case or progressed the order. Instead, months later, she was told that her case had been closed due to “no contact” since July, which was demonstrably untrue. When my office intervened, the Department acknowledged the issue, and stated that it would contact my constituent within 10 working days. That deadline then passed. When she attempted to chase the matter herself, she spent nearly an hour on hold, only to be told that the manager was unavailable. What is perhaps most concerning is the reason now being given: the Department would prefer my constituent to submit a completely new application for the wheelchair, rather than reopen the existing case, purely because reopening it would affect its management information.

Last year saw the first fall in Access to Work approvals in more than a decade, including a 16% drop in approvals for aids and equipment, despite the alleged surge in disability claims overall. That suggests that, behind the scenes, the Government have instructed the DWP to get tougher on approval criteria, but without announcing any formal change to policy in public. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a strange way to go about improving employment prospects for the disabled?

My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point, and I very much want to get underneath the detail of why that change has happened.

Returning to my constituent’s case, I want to ask the Minister three questions to which I believe my constituent deserves a response; if he is not able to answer them, perhaps he can write and raise these matters with the correct Minister. First, does the Minister agree, as I hope he does, that the case should urgently be reopened? Secondly, does he disagree with the DWP’s apparent position that the integrity of its management information is more important than ensuring that a disabled person has the equipment that they need to work? Thirdly, will he ask his colleagues in the DWP to review the so-called integrity of the Department’s management information, given the serious concern that cases may be closed and replaced with new ones in a way that creates the appearance of efficiency, when the reality for constituents like mine is repeated failure?

At its best, Access to Work is a transformative scheme, but when the system fails and the metrics appear to matter more than the people who the scheme exists to support, confidence is undermined. My constituent is not asking for special treatment; she is simply asking for the Department to finish the job it started. I hope the Minister will help me to swiftly put that right.