Draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. A copy of the draft regulations was laid before the House on 21 October.
There are estimated to be around 47,000 people in the UK with Down’s syndrome. Despite existing legal duties and frameworks, those people face real challenges in accessing the care and support they need to live the lives they want to in their own communities. This Government are determined to set that right. Through the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, aligned with the overarching aims of our 10-year health plan for England, we are striving to improve the life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome by improving their access to services, raising awareness and understanding of their needs, and breaking down the barriers to opportunity that they and other disabled people face. The draft regulations will make a technical but necessary amendment to the Down Syndrome Act to support its effective implementation, and it is right that they should be given full scrutiny in Committee.
I will begin by setting out what the Down Syndrome Act requires. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is required to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. Relevant authorities must have due regard to the final statutory guidance, once published. This Government want disabled people’s access to, and experience of, healthcare services to be equitable and effective. The guidance under the Down Syndrome Act supports that aim by raising awareness of, and bringing together in one place, the practical steps that organisations should take to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. It also helps to clarify the support and services that people with Down’s syndrome can expect to receive.
On 5 November, we launched a public consultation on draft guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. Work to develop the draft guidance has involved significant engagement with people with lived experience and, importantly, with the organisations that support them. The consultation presents a further opportunity for people with lived experience and their families to share their views. We expect the guidance to improve support for people with Down’s syndrome and for those with other, similar conditions. In order for the guidance to deliver improvements for those people, it needs to be implemented effectively across the range of communities that it serves.
On 9 May 2023, NHS England published statutory guidance stating that every integrated care board should identify a member of its board to lead on supporting that ICB to perform its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down’s syndrome. The NHS England guidance also states that ICBs should have a lead for learning disability and autism, and a lead for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It will be important for ICB leads to work collaboratively across the integrated care system, with local authority, public health, education and wider partners. The consultation on the draft guidance will help us to understand whether the guidance is clear, informative and useful to relevant authorities in carrying out their legislative requirements in support of people with Down’s syndrome. We will use the feedback received to ensure the guidance is fit for purpose.
I now turn to what the draft regulations will do. Under the Down Syndrome Act, relevant authorities must have due regard to the final statutory guidance when exercising their relevant functions. The Act does not create any functions beyond that duty. The schedule to the Act specifies the relevant authorities that must have due regard to the guidance and the specific functions of those bodies to which the guidance applies. As drafted, the schedule does not include NHS England or ICBs. Rather, it refers to the National Health Service Commissioning Board, which was the former name of NHS England, and to clinical commissioning groups, which were the commissioning bodies in place at the time the Down Syndrome Act was passed.
These draft regulations seek to bring the legislation up to date by replacing references to CCGs with ICBs, and references to the National Health Service Commissioning Board with NHS England. The changes are required because the Health and Social Care Act 2022 made provision for the abolition of CCGs and replaced them with ICBs, and renamed the National Health Service Commissioning Board as NHS England. The purpose of that change is to bring ICBs and NHS England within scope of the Down Syndrome Act duty to have due regard to the guidance.
Final guidance issued under the Down Syndrome Act will not be published until these changes come into force. We intend to publish the guidance before the planned abolition of NHS England comes into effect. We understand that the ongoing reforms across Government affect the timing and content of the final guidance, and its content after publication. We will keep the final guidance under review, and it will be updated to reflect the latest policy and legislative frameworks as and when necessary.
The Down’s syndrome guidance will not be statutory for those not specified in the schedule to the Down Syndrome Act, which means that persons who are not relevant authorities are under no obligation to have due regard to the guidance. It is therefore important that we change the wording in the Down Syndrome Act now to ensure that the guidance will apply to current relevant authorities. The change will also ensure that the legislation is in alignment with NHS England’s statutory guidance on the ICB leads on Down’s syndrome. ICB leads are responsible for the implementation of the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. It is therefore critical that they are referenced in the legislation itself.
The regulations will come into force on the day after the date on which they are made. The rationale is to ensure that the duty under the Down Syndrome Act to give guidance to relevant authorities applies to the correct authorities. The regulations will have no material effect until the final guidance is published. We therefore do not believe it necessary to engage with or notify the public further on these changes.
By making important updates to the Down Syndrome Act, these regulations will provide vital assurance that the guidance will be implemented effectively, ensuring that it can achieve the aim of improving the life outcomes of those with Down’s syndrome. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure it will delight the Committee to know that I do not intend to detain us for too long. [Interruption.] I always get a cheer when I say that. I would like to begin by saying that I do not see anything particularly contentious in this. The Minister rightly points out that these are technical changes that bring the Down Syndrome Act into line with the reforms introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022, in particular the replacement of CCGs with ICBs and the renaming of the NHS Commissioning Board as NHS England.
However, it is worth questioning the Government on the longer-term stability of these changes. As hon. Members will know, the Government have stated their intention to abolish NHS England by April 2027. That process has already been delayed, reportedly due to uncertainty over who will meet the redundancy costs for staff within those organisations. If that abolishment proceeds, a new health Bill will be required. At present, we do not know when that Bill will be brought forward or what it will contain. It is therefore entirely possible that the statutory references being updated today will need to be amended again in the near future.
I also note that there is no statutory review clause in this instrument. While that may be understandable given the technical nature of the changes, it adds to concerns that further legislative changes may not be properly anticipated or subject to adequate scrutiny in good time.
While I support these draft regulations, I urge the Minister to clarify what transitional arrangements are being considered for the functions currently held by NHS England and the integrated care boards. That is especially important, as he rightly pointed out, for the consistency of support that we all want to see in the context of the Down Syndrome Act. We must ensure that people with Down’s syndrome are not adversely affected by any ongoing organisational changes within the health system. The Minister mentioned some of the updates to the Down Syndrome Act. Perhaps he could update us further on any other actions that are ongoing. How many still need to be done?
In addition, I note that the Act seems to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance, on which the Government have just launched a consultation. One of the criticisms of the Act at the time was that it is specific to Down’s syndrome. Although I obviously welcome that focus, others face similar disabilities and challenges. How might the Government support them?
Finally, it looks like people can respond to the guidance only online. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he is confident that those who are digitally excluded will not be prevented from taking part in this important consultation?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing the consensus on the Down Syndrome Act. It should be placed on record that the Act was a private Member’s Bill sponsored by Sir Liam Fox, then a Conservative Member. I am delighted to carry forward the draft regulations on the basis of that consensus.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what these statutory instruments will look like in relation to future iterations of NHS governance structures. As he said, NHS England will continue to undertake the statutory functions until parliamentary time allows for legislative changes. I am confident that the Down Syndrome Act and Acts like it will be components of the primary legislation that will be required to make those new arrangements, such that we will not require this type of Delegated Legislation Committee process again.
I will take back the question about digital access to the consultation process to my officials. The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point on exclusion, of which I am also very cognisant. I am happy to write to him with a fuller answer.
Again, I am grateful for the consensus on both sides of the Committee. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The purpose of the statutory instrument is simple: to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.
As the Committee will know, the UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements where possible after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI implements the procurement chapters of them.
Before I cover the procurement chapter commitments in some detail, I want to provide the House with more background on the two agreements. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. They will strengthen our co-operation across a range of priority areas and signal our commitment to two strategically important partners.
The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister al-Sudani’s visit to the UK in January this year. During that visit, both Prime Ministers announced a trade package worth over £12 billion. That package, when fully delivered, will represent a tenfold increase compared with our current annual trade. The UK has therefore started a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq, and the PCA will deepen our bilateral relationship across a wide range of sectors including, but not limited to: energy, transport, scientific research, education and culture, as well as counter-terrorism and arms controls.
The UK-Kazakhstan SPCA, which was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government, provides a framework for political dialogue and deeper co-operation on trade, security, climate, education and culture. The agreement goes further than existing World Trade Organisation arrangements on the provision of services, creating more favourable conditions on the establishment of cross-border supply. It also exceeds Kazakhstan’s current WTO commitments on global procurement, aligning them to the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding.
The treaty is a substantial indication of the UK’s commitment to strategic political and economic co-operation with Kazakhstan, and it confirms our long-standing shared interests. UK businesses have traded with Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991 in areas such as minerals, education and architecture. The agreement will deepen those links. The text of the SPCA also makes important and specific references to bilateral dialogue on human rights, labour relations and gender equality.
It is important to note that the procurement chapters of the agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements before our exit from the EU. Some of the language has been tweaked to better reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and the two countries today. A key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazakh agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the SPCA can considered broadly equivalent to that of the WTO GPA. However, the market access levels in the Iraq PCA are lower than that as they only include access to central Government entities.
As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this SI was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of the agreements can only take effect once the agreements have implemented in domestic legislation. The SI will achieve that by updating schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. Through the addition of the agreements to schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Procurement Act. That will provide them with access and rights in UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access for UK suppliers. The Procurement Act regulations are being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial extent of this instrument is UK wide. The territorial application of the instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. Therefore, the Welsh Government will make a separate SI to implement the agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers, and the Scottish Government will implement the agreements separately, under their own legislation, in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the statutory instrument, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations.
If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders?
On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected?
The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.
Chris Ward
I was rather expecting some further contributions, but there we go—I can see what the time is. I welcome the continuing cross-party support on this matter across the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of this work—particularly on the Kazakhstan agreement—was started under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. We do not expect there to be a material policy change. As I said, the regulations replicate much of where we were pre-EU exit. There are some technical tweaks, but, to his point, there is no material change. On additional burdens on business, which he also mentioned, we do not expect there to be a significant impact from the regulations because the underpinning framework is not being substantially amended; these really are technical changes.
On SMEs, as I said, we do not expect huge changes, but once the regulations are agreed to formally by the House, updated guidance will be published to inform SMEs, affected people and suppliers looking to trade into Kazakhstan and Iraq and vice versa. More broadly, the Government have a big programme of work to try to improve support for SMEs in the procurement regime. Some really important progress was made on that in the Procurement Act—there is cross-party agreement here—but we are looking to go much further and ensure that the public procurement budget of almost £400 billion a year does everything it can to support SMEs. We will look to do that going forward, but we do not expect there to be material change from the regulations. I think that covers all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
The implementation of the regulations will be a key step in formalising our relationship with both countries, with mutual benefits on both sides. We are committed to enhancing our relationship with Kazakhstan and with Iraq. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.