Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Thursday 16th July 2026
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 July 2026 - (16 Jul 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We resume line-by-line consideration of the Health Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Proceedings must, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion by 5 pm. Once again, I am happy to give a blanket dispensation for the removal of jackets.
New Clause 31
ECG screenings
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Twelve young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. One of those was Clarissa Nicholls, who died just before her 21st birthday, while on a year abroad in France. Her mother and friends have campaigned tirelessly not only to provide electrocardiograms to young people, but to raise awareness about early detection of heart conditions. Finding a heart condition does not mean that exercise must stop or that life goes on hold; it just means that appropriate alterations can be made to keep a person safe, active and healthy.
Such a scheme has been rolled out in Italy and has been hugely successful. The new clause would push the Government to look seriously at having ECGs for young people as an early identifier for potentially fatal conditions, so that we do not lose up to 12 young people a week due just to a lack of testing.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.
The Chair
As that was a speech and not an intervention, we will take the Minister before the hon. Member for Winchester responds.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The hon. Member for Winchester raises an important point. Cardiac issues are serious, and people too often lose their lives as a result of unidentified cardiac conditions. As we know, ECGs are used significantly across the whole of healthcare, from accident and emergency to new community diagnostic centres and beyond. They are important for investigating palpitations or unexpected syncope and for evaluating pacemaker function, and are an extremely useful diagnostic tool. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket suggested, there is no clear evidence that non-symptomatic population screening using standard ECGs would yield any useful health data or improve population outcomes.
Clearly, the loss of life—particularly a young life, as in the case of the constituent the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, although we have all seen or, sadly, experienced such cases—is an awful tragedy for those concerned, but we need to rely on evidence. The UK National Screening Committee, which is an independent scientific advisory body, advises all four nations and is considering the issue. The committee launched a three-month public consultation on 8 June to look at the evidence on screening for sudden cardiac death. Its draft recommendation is against screening, because ECGs, as well as other tests, are an unreliable tool for identifying significant cardiac issues in asymptomatic individuals. ECGs are useful tools in the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, and the UK National Screening Committee is in the process of reviewing ECG use for asymptomatic individuals. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for her comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
Review on deaths related to antimicrobial resistant infection
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the number of yearly deaths in the UK which are related to antimicrobial resistant infection.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the number of yearly deaths in the UK which are related to antimicrobial resistant infection.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Chambers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the yearly number of deaths in the UK related to antimicrobial-resistant infections. I declare an interest as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on antimicrobial resistance. AMR is a major threat to public health globally and domestically, and it is already contributing to an estimated 35,200 deaths every year in the UK.
AMR is a bit like a silent pandemic. It gets little media attention, but given the prediction that 39 million people worldwide will have died of AMR by 2040, it will eventually be pushed right up the political agenda. This is not simply a matter of people dying from infections that could not be treated; nearly all the advances in modern medicine over the last 50, 60 or 70 years would be null and void. It would be too risky for someone to have something like a hip replacement, because of the risk of getting an infection that could kill them; they would be better off living with a painful arthritic hip than taking the risk of dying from sepsis. It is the same with things like heart disease, while giving birth will once again become one of the most dangerous things a woman can do if we lose the impact and effectiveness of antibiotics.
The Government invested more than £560 million in AMR programmes between 2020 and 2024, so it is reasonable that Parliament should receive an annual assessment of AMR-related deaths to ensure that that significant public investment is delivering results, represents value for money and is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. We cannot effectively tackle what we do not measure, and an annual review of deaths linked to AMR would provide a clear, consistent picture of the scale of the problem and enable Parliament and the public to track whether policies are working.
Better data leads to better targeted interventions. We know that rapid diagnostic tests and different types of decontamination will be hugely important in tackling AMR, along with potential future technologies such as phage technology. Surveillance has already identified significant variations by age, deprivation and geography. Understanding where deaths are occurring, and in who, would help direct resources to the communities and services that are most affected.
AMR threatens the effectiveness of modern medicine, including surgery, cancer treatment and routine healthcare. An annual review of AMR-related deaths would ensure that this growing public health threat receives the attention and urgency it deserves. The reason I am determined to push it up the agenda is that the national cancer plan does not specifically mention AMR or infection, but it is the second biggest cause of death in cancer patients. At the moment, it is not pushed up the political agenda enough.
Karin Smyth
I commend the hon. Member for outlining this important issue before the Committee and for his work on the APPG.
AMR is recognised as a chronic risk in the Government’s national risk register. In 2022, it was estimated that 7,500 deaths per year can be directly attributed to AMR in the UK, with a further 35,000 deaths per year associated with AMR. It is a significant and growing issue that the Government take very seriously—I want to assure the hon. Member and the Committee of that. Through the delivery of the 2024 to 2029 UK AMR national action plan, the Government are already taking comprehensive action to tackle this threat and ultimately reduce the burden it places on individuals, families and the healthcare system. That is where that work is located.
I am not convinced that a review of the number of deaths at this point, while important, would add significantly to our understanding of the impact and burden of AMR or to the action being taken to address it, which we do take seriously. The Government will continue to work with APPGs and with information around this issue through the action plan. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for her comments. We understand that the Government take this matter very seriously, but we are working on estimated numbers of deaths for something that will eventually be killing more people than covid. We really need some tangible figures, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care.
(2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a ‘duty to whistleblow’) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting.
(3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing—
(a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area,
(b) the Care Quality Commission,
(c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) the information to be included in a referral,
(b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and
(c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed.
(5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection for whistleblowing).
(6) The duties imposed by this section are in addition to, and do not affect, a senior coroner’s duty to make a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (reports on action to prevent other deaths).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for them to formally refer suspected health system failings (including systemic issues) directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It provides legal protection for those making such referrals.
Helen Morgan
New clause 36 would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS trust and NHS foundation trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It would also impose a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns about malpractice.
New clause 37 would require the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to formally refer suspected health system failings, including systemic issues, directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care and HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It would provide legal protection for those making such referrals.
The new clauses were tabled in the light of the Ockenden review into failings at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust, which came out a couple of weeks ago, and other reviews, including the review of Mid Staffordshire some time ago, which showed that hospital management failed to spot, and more importantly deal with, systemic issues. Staff were dismissed, failures were hidden from regulators, and patients and their families were not listened to. In the case of Nottingham, the board commissioned a number of independent reports into maternity services, and when it did not see an answer it liked, it just commissioned another one. We feel strongly that those issues should have been referred onwards as soon as they were known about. The new clauses would introduce a mandatory duty and create a standardised framework within which such concerns could be raised.
Coroners and medical examiners often spot trends or worrying failures in care that they think might hint at something systemic, but their main power is a regulation 28 order. When an order goes back to the hospital board, it investigates and reports back: “Everything is fine. We’ve dealt with the problem. There’s nothing to see here.” Coroners are often overworked and trying to get through huge court backlogs, so they do not have sufficient capacity to push back, even when they question the diligence of the internal review. We want to give them more powers and standardised routes to escalate concerns to the police, the CHC, the DHSC or the HSSIB , where they see fit. We need as many eyes on this as possible, because we have seen a defensive cover-up culture too many times.
We tabled similar amendments to the Hillsborough Bill to achieve the same outcome. We all know that the NHS is under strain and overworked, but trust management need to be more transparent, open and receptive to staff concerns. Although I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote, I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to ensure that concerns are acted on more quickly.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who raises issues of patient safety diligently on behalf of her constituents and the wider system. I will take the time to answer some of the points about where the Government are. Obviously, we support prioritising patient safety, which along with service quality and experience is of the utmost importance.
On new clause 36, trusts are already subject to regulatory and contractual requirements to report medical malpractice, which is why we do not think the new clause is necessary. For example, CQC regulations on safe care and treatment and on good governance are central to trust accountability for systemic malpractice. They require trusts to have effective systems to identify patterns of harm, manage risks and deliver system-wide improvements.
Trusts are required to identify and report incidents leading to significant harm through the Learn from Patient Safety Events service, ensuring that the CQC is informed and enabling NHS England to identify trends and support learning and improvement. This information can be shared with and accessed by HSSIB and could in the future be shared with and accessed by the investigations arm of the CQC.
The CQC regulation on duty of candour reinforces transparency through truthful accounts of what has happened when something goes wrong, including where harm reflects systemic issues. Under the patient safety incident response framework, trusts must undertake patient safety learning investigations into certain incidents to support learning and improvement.
In parallel, the NHS provider licence requires NHS trust boards to maintain clear accountability for quality of care and reporting of safety information through effective governance systems. Where failures of governance occur, NHS England has the powers to intervene. Those powers will transfer to the Secretary of State as part of the Bill.
The new clause would clearly duplicate current processes. Together, the existing mechanisms already help trusts to identify and address systemic issues locally, while enabling national aggregation to support system-wide learning.
New clause 37 seeks to require the creation of a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to report health system failings. I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that regulations already require medical examiners to report serious concerns identified in respect of clinical governance, patient safety or public health surveillance, in accordance with local reporting arrangements. Existing regulations also require coroners, in the context of an investigation, to issue a report to a person, organisation, local authority, or Government Department or agency where the coroner believes they may have power to take relevant action to prevent future deaths.
In September 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care introduced death certification reforms, putting in place regulations to provide greater safeguards for the public by ensuring independent scrutiny by medical examiners of all deaths not investigated by a coroner. These reforms, as set out in the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death Regulations 2024, which require an independent review to be carried out for all deaths in England, introduce a system whereby all deaths are subject to either a medical examiner’s independent scrutiny or a coroner’s investigation.
Should the medical examiner detect concerns about care, they will refer such cases to established clinical governance review processes and bodies and notify the coroner or, if necessary, the police. The Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 require all doctors, including medical examiners, to refer a death to a coroner if they believe that deficiency of care while undergoing treatment contributed to the death, making the death unnatural. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner has a statutory duty to report issues to the appropriate bodies where they believe that action can be taken to mitigate or prevent the risk of future deaths, and both the report and responses to it are published by the chief coroner.
When incidents and errors occur resulting in death or serious injury, it is important that we learn any lessons. The Government are committed to ensuring that the prevention of future deaths reports are taken seriously and lead to meaningful action. The Department is working across Government and with the chief coroner to identify ways to strengthen oversight and ensure that the right organisations are consistently notified of concerns, respond to them in a timely manner and drive appropriate action.
Under the Medical Act 1983, the General Medical Council ensures that all doctors, including medical examiners, report suspected health system failings by speaking up. That is a mandatory professional obligation linked to a doctor’s licence to practise, embedding this whistleblowing requirement into the GMC’s core regulatory and fitness to practise frameworks. The GMC also enforces a professional duty of candour requiring all doctors to be open and honest with patients and official bodies when things go wrong and actively report adverse incidents so that systematic lessons can be learned.
In summary, both new clauses duplicate requirements that already exist. Regulations, systems and processes are already in place to report suspected health system failings to the appropriate bodies. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire to withdraw the new clause.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for outlining the existing statutory framework. I agree that it ought to be sufficient, but there are high-profile instances where it has not been, so I look forward to hearing more from her on Report about how the cultural change will be implemented so that further legislation is not necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Single sex facilities
“The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex—
(a) changing rooms for NHS staff
(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff
(c) wards for NHS patients
(d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very straightforward new clause. The Secretary of State would be required to ensure that there are single-sex changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff and single-sex wards, toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex in 2025, and the Minister herself said:
“We are completely committed to single-sex spaces.”
However, it appears that the Minister for Women and Equalities did not get that memo. Despite having apparently been sat on her desk since September, the new draft code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission was not laid before Parliament until 21 May. One week before that guidance was published, a female NHS England employee in Leeds won her claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment over a policy allowing transgender colleagues to use toilets and changing rooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. On 28 June, after the draft code was laid, it was reported that West London NHS trust had told patients that they could use single-sex facilities based on gender identity.
It has taken the current Health Secretary some time, but I understand that he has changed his mind on the issue and come to the same conclusion as others: that a woman is, in fact, a woman and that toilets and changing facilities must be protected. Will the Minister follow his lead and protect single-sex spaces in NHS trusts? The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by her biological sex. My party knows that. The Minister claims her party knows that too. It is time for her to show it by pulling the levers that only she can to ensure that patients and staff are protected right across our health service.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this discussion before the Committee. She is right that, following the For Women Scotland case at the Supreme Court in April 2025 and the recent laying of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice on 21 May, ensuring the provision of single-sex facilities for patients and staff is a prominent issue. The Government welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment. The EHRC code of practice sets out how service providers may lawfully apply sex-based distinctions following the Supreme Court judgment. That guidance is applicable to services, public functions and associations and includes, but is not limited to, the services provided in the NHS.
Following that, NHS England drafted the revised guidance, “Privacy, dignity and safety in hospital accommodation”, which will align with the legal position and the EHRC code of practice and replace existing guidance. I know that many colleagues are impatient to see the existing guidance replaced following the Supreme Court ruling. It was important to wait for the EHRC code of practice to be published so that it could be considered in any guidance. The code of practice was published on 21 May. Following the publication, NHS England reviewed the guidance to ensure that it was in line with the code. The code was subject to a 40-day laying period before Parliament, which ended on 9 July. The Government expect the code to come into force in early August. Guidance for the NHS will be published shortly afterwards.
NHS England is also developing guidance on staff facilities, including changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities that should be used by trusts and ICBs. The provision of physical single-sex facilities for NHS staff is for NHS organisations to individually manage in line with their legal obligations. There is already legislation covering this issue, particularly the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Organisations should already be conducting assessments of their own estates and the needs of their workforce to decide what changes they need to make to comply with all legislative requirements.
On mixed-sex accommodation and breaches, there is a long-standing policy of same-sex accommodation. Individuals should not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite sex unless appropriate. In practice, the proposed amendment does not allow scope for mixed-sex accommodation where clinically appropriate—for example, intensive care unit facilities or where it is necessary for patient safety. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the business case for the use of public-private partnerships for neighbourhood health centres. This goes back to the use of the private finance initiative in the past, particularly during the last Labour Government when Ministers were attracted by the prospect of off-balance sheet financing. Although the idea looked good on paper, it proved a disaster in practice. Before the 2008 financial crisis, private finance initiative interest rates were 2.5% to 4.4% higher than public sector borrowing rates. After the crisis, PFI projects increased their rates by 20% to 30%. In the interests of time, I will not rehash the story I told earlier in Committee about the problems with simple things such as putting a whiteboard up, but PFI did create operational problems, too.
The previous Government rightly called time on PFI and announced in the 2018 Budget that it would not be used for future projects, which is why this Government’s plans are so peculiar. Labour Ministers have taken a trip to the graveyard of bad ideas, resurrected PFI and adorned it in new clothes: it is now PPP. The Government have tried to reassure the public that it is not a rehash of PFI, but the facts suggest otherwise. The funding of neighbourhood health centres is to be 80% through PPP. The Minister told the BBC we will be working with the private sector, particularly around construction and maintenance of many of the new centres. How is PPP different from PFI?
The Minister has previously told this House that the new scheme will draw on lessons learnt in the past, so could she please say what those lessons are? If they have been learnt, why did 53 academics write a letter urging the Government to abandon the proposal? Why did dozens of Labour MPs sign an early-day motion expressing grave concerns? And why have the Treasury Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Institute of Economic Affairs all cast doubt over the value of money for such schemes?
No matter how Ministers dress things up, I am concerned. The Government need to publish a business case for the proposal to show how it will work in practice and demonstrate they have learnt lessons from the past. If they have, Members have no good reason to object to the amendment. It only asks Ministers to show their workings-out in full view of the House openly and transparently.
Karin Smyth
Well, what was a disaster was the Tories’ management of the capital estate pre-1997 and post-2010, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham wants to talk about disasters on capital planning. I could talk about this for a very long time, but I know the Committee is keen to move forward, and I addressed some of these issues in debate on a previous amendment. I am very proud of, for example, Southmead hospital in Bristol, which is one of the finest examples of a hospital in the country and was built under a PFI scheme. I received treatment there a couple of years ago, in facilities that are good for staff to work and patients to be treated in. It replaced a hospital that was falling down and in shocking condition, despite the best efforts of staff. We can see similar examples across the country.
Under the Tories’ management, and for some of the early PFI schemes under the last Labour Government, contracts were poorly negotiated. They had issues with, for example, management of inflation. We have learned lessons from that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about some contracts, including one where, I think, her whiteboard was not working. We know what the lessons are to be learned from that, and we are doing exactly what a good Government do when they take charge—change it.
In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power, they could have started negotiating these contracts differently at any point, but they chose not to. They chose to let the estate atrophy and fall down. That is bad for patients and the public. That is why I was proud last week to launch the Government’s capital plan, building for the future, looking forward and giving nine years of certainty for estates across all our constituencies.
Dr Prinsley
I agree with everything that the Minister has to say—what a surprise—but particularly the fact that when the new Government came in, they did something about these 40 “new” hospitals that were not full hospitals. The people of Bury St Edmunds were delighted to learn that their RAAC-affected hospital, which is tumbling down, will be one of the first to be reconstructed. We look forward to that and are grateful for the decisions made by the Government.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Across the east of England, where we now have so many Labour MPs, everyone has been trying to rectify the mismanagement that local people have seen, particularly of the capital estate. I will not detain the Committee on the capital estate—one of my favourite subjects—for very long.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is aware that the decision on neighbourhood health centres was announced in the autumn. The decision-making process was supported by a business case to examine the feasibility of developing a new model, learning the lessons of the past on public-private partnerships specifically to build neighbourhood health centres as part of our 10-year plan. That informed the decision to proceed. The business case was a strategic outline case, the purpose of which was to scope and identify the preferred way forward for a new potential model, in line with the Treasury’s five case model. We are now working with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority to develop this further, and we expect a further round of market engagement in the autumn.
I recognise the interest in making the business case available to both Houses, but that must be balanced with the need to develop an effective policy. Publication while policy development is ongoing would limit full, candid and proper deliberation. Civil servants and subject experts need to be able to engage in frank discussion of policy options to expose their merits, demerits and possible implications. Their candour in doing so would be affected by their assessment of whether the content of such discussions would be disclosed.
We are committed to building neighbourhood health centres across the country. That is what patients and the public deserve. We will obviously be mindful of public money and subject to the usual processes of the House, including the Public Accounts Committee. We will learn those lessons. We are in full discussion with NISTA. For those reasons, we are committed to developing good estate across our country. That is what our constituents deserve. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
For the record, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and work as a consultant paediatrician at North West Anglia NHS foundation trust, which will have a new hospital. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause asks the Government to use private providers to help get waiting lists down. We are told that waiting lists are falling, but the Government’s own figures show that waiting lists are higher than they were last month, and if we look at the group of people who are waiting for admission for a procedure or operation, they are higher than they were last month, last year or indeed at the general election in 2024. There were 76,250 women waiting for gynaecological treatment at the end of July ’24, when this Labour Government took office; that rose by more than 6,000 patients to 82,623 as of May 2026. Private providers have capacity that may be able to help with that.
The deployment of private providers is about using all the resources and capacity on offer across the country to get waiting lists down. The NHS uses private providers to perform some surgeries and scans, mental health support, GPs and dentistry, but it is a sensible measure to ensure that all hands are on deck when it comes to treating patients. I look forward to hearing how the Minister can use private providers to get more patients seen more quickly as opposed to wiping them from waiting lists at record rates.
Karin Smyth
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the NHS uses private provision to support access to treatment and reduce lists. I understand the point that she is making, but I assure her that this is an unnecessary new clause.
ICBs already can and do use private healthcare providers to offer patients treatment in their area and boost capacity to reduce lists. Our approach is pragmatic, not ideological: in the 10-year health plan, the Government committed to continuing to use private sector capacity where it is available; that is not because we favour the private sector but because we are committed to using capacity wherever it is available. Our priority is treating patients in a timely manner, not favouring one form of provider over another. Under existing legislation, patients must be offered a choice of provider for their first outpatient appointment, where the duty of choice applies. If a person’s needs are not met by local services or waiting times are high, they can use that choice to see an appropriately qualified provider.
However, we must resist the temptation to apply a one-size-fits-all approach here. ICBs are responsible for the financial sustainability, planning and strategic commissioning of services for their local populations, so they are best placed to decide how private premises should be used to meet a population’s needs. For example, high waiting times, which we obviously inherited from the Conservatives, for a particular specialty may result not from a lack of capacity but from increased demand from GP referrals. The ICB must have the flexibility to improve how advice and guidance—referral support, for instance—is working for GPs, rather than being required to wastefully spend NHS funds on increasing capacity with the private sector.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
If this is put on the statute book, will it not mean that the private sector can have more and more hospitals, when we should be using them only if the NHS does not have the capacity? The private sector should be the last resort rather than a first choice.
Karin Smyth
I am slightly confused, as I suspect other Committee members are, by the Opposition’s approach to the private sector, having had a discussion in relation to the previous new clause about not using the private sector and boosting work and employment opportunities in our country. They do have a slightly odd view with regard to this. As I said, our view is very pragmatic: it is to support the treatment of patients to get waiting lists down. That is what our constituents deserve. Where capacity can be used, we want to make sure that that choice is available.
Dr Prinsley
I am confused by the Opposition referring in their new clause to a requirement to “make regulations” in this respect, as the private sector is already widely used to reduce waiting lists where appropriate. However, we must also be aware of the problem we have with overuse of private facilities. That can have an effect on the provision of NHS services, because the number of available staff is limited. I think particularly of ophthalmology services, as we have created a situation in which the overprovision of private services has disabled the provision of ophthalmology services.
Karin Smyth
That is why I was clear in outlining that ICBs have a duty to make sure that they are financially sustainable and that their planning and strategic commissioning meets the needs of their local population. They need to balance those requirements.
Under the new clause, there is a risk that the Secretary of State, by setting blanket requirements, would contravene the level playing field provisions in clause 10 of the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
The previous use of private providers was to remove debt from the Government’s balance sheet. That is not the same as providing guidance and regulations on how to increase capacity and use the spare capacity of private providers to reduce waiting lists, which are currently rising. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the workforce plan is important. Despite that plan being “imminent” for several weeks now, it has not been published. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 75—Transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the abolition of NHS England takes effect, prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out a transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England (the ‘strategy’).
(2) The strategy must—
(a) identify and map critical functions and areas of expertise currently exercised by NHS England, including clinical, operational, analytical and patient engagement capabilities;
(b) assess the risk of loss of knowledge, skills and organisational capacity arising from the abolition of NHS England;
(c) set out the steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to ensure the retention and effective transfer of such functions, expertise, knowledge and skills; and
(d) assess the likely impact of the transition on the delivery of key health programmes and services, including cancer services.
(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of not more than 12 months, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the transition strategy.
(4) A report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) progress on workforce retention;
(b) arrangements for the transfer of knowledge, expertise and institutional capability; and
(c) any identified gaps in capability and the steps being taken to address them.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before the abolition of NHS England, setting out how critical functions and expertise will be identified, retained and transferred. It would also require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at least annually on the implementation of that strategy.
Amendment 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.
(3B) The conditions are that—
(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the ‘operating model document’); and
(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the ‘workforce transition plan’).
(3C) The operating model document must include—
(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;
(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;
(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and
(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.
(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—
(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;
(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and
(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.
(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.
(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”
This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.
Amendment 38, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) has been met.
(3B) The condition is that the Secretary of State has published an impact assessment in respect of the abolition of NHS England that complies with subsection (3C) (a ‘qualifying impact assessment’).
(3C) A qualifying impact assessment must include—
(a) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the total transition costs of abolishing NHS England, including in particular—
(i) redundancy costs;
(ii) the costs of integrating data, digital and information technology systems;
(iii) the costs of reorganising and rehousing staff and functions; and
(iv) productivity losses during the transition period;
(b) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the ongoing annual costs of the restructured Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England, including any costs falling on integrated care boards as a result of the transfer of functions to them;
(c) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the estimated annual savings arising from the abolition, including savings from the elimination of duplicated corporate functions and reduced administrative costs;
(d) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the net present value of the abolition, being the difference between the total costs under paragraphs (a) and (b) and the total benefits under paragraph (c) over a period of not less than ten years;
(e) a statement of the key assumptions underlying the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (d) and an assessment of the sensitivity of those estimates to changes in those assumptions;
(f) an assessment of the risks to the delivery of the anticipated benefits, including the risk of disruption to NHS functions during the transition period; and
(g) a statement of the methodology used to produce the estimates, including any data sources relied upon.
(3D) Before publishing a qualifying impact assessment, the Secretary of State must submit it for independent scrutiny to the Regulatory Policy Committee (or any successor body) and must publish the Committee's opinion on the assessment alongside it.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the qualifying impact assessment and the Committee's opinion before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid unless at least 60 sitting days have elapsed since the qualifying impact assessment was laid under subsection (3E).”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish, and submit to independent scrutiny, an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England, containing quantified cost and benefit figures, before making regulations to abolish the body.
Amendment 39, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) is met.
(3B) The condition is that the Secretary of State has published a plan setting out how health services provided by or under arrangements made by NHS bodies are to work alongside and be integrated with the social care system in England (the ‘health and social care integration plan’).
(3C) Before preparing the health and social care integration plan, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care chaired by Baroness Casey of Blackstock (or any successor body undertaking that Commission’s work) in any report published by the Commission before the plan is laid; and
(b) the need to reflect any such recommendations in the content of the plan so far as they are relevant to the interface between health services and adult social care.
(3D) The health and social care integration plan must include—
(a) a description of the structural and operational arrangements for joint working between NHS bodies and local authority social care services following the abolition of NHS England;
(b) proposals for how the transfer of NHS England’s functions to the Secretary of State will affect the coordination of health and social care commissioning, including in particular the commissioning of services for people with complex needs spanning health and social care;
(c) arrangements for reducing delayed discharges from hospital attributable to the absence of suitable social care provision;
(d) proposals for how the funding flows between the NHS and the social care system, including NHS Continuing Healthcare, will be managed following the abolition;
(e) the workforce implications for the health and social care sectors arising from the abolition and the steps to be taken to address them; and
(f) a timetable for implementing the arrangements described in the plan.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the health and social care integration plan before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid before either House of Parliament until at least 60 sitting days have elapsed since the health and social care integration plan was laid under subsection (3E).
(3H) In this section—
‘NHS body’ has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 2006;
‘social care system’ means the system for the provision of care and support under the Care Act 2014 and services provided by local authorities in the exercise of their functions relating to adult social care.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using their powers for its abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows (including NHS Continuing Healthcare), delayed hospital discharges, and workforce.
Dr Johnson
New clause 46 would require the Secretary of State to publish the number of staff in the Department of Health and Social Care and the number of people made redundant following the abolition of NHS England. New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy. Amendment 37 would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model. Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to publish and submit to independent scrutiny an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England containing quantified cost and benefit figures before making regulations to abolish it.
Amendment 39 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using the powers in the Bill for abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows, delayed hospital discharges and the workforce. The problem is essentially that Ministers marched off into a battle without a plan and continue to fight without one.
In this Committee, we have heard consistently about the number of times that things have not been thoroughly planned out and properly considered, particularly in relation to social care. I know that Members on all sides of the House are concerned about how social care will interact with the health service under the proposed new regime. In March 2025, Ministers and officials were going to work to determine what was needed, and in March 2026, they were still progressing to develop the design—12 months later, there was a change in tense but still no proper plan.
When putting the Bill before the House, the Government published an impact assessment, but where there should be numbers quantifying how much this is all going to cost us, there is simply “N/A”. How is that any way to conduct a reorganisation? That is why I tabled amendments 37, 38 and 39. They would apply the brakes until the operating model had been established by requiring the full publication of a proper impact assessment, a detailed plan of how the health service will work alongside social care, and the publication of redundancy figures. They would ensure that the Government have worked out what they are going to do before they get on and start doing it.
Karin Smyth
The Government of course recognise the importance of clarity and assurance as we undertake this significant transformation, including on how functions, governance and the workforce will operate in the future. That is essential for ensuring that our staff and other stakeholders understand the new role of the Department.
On new clause 46, we recognise the importance of transparency around departmental workforce numbers and the impact of abolishing NHS England. The Government remain committed to significantly reducing headcount across NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, but I put on record my thanks to all the staff and talented professionals working in both organisations; this is a difficult time for them. However, this new clause is not necessary. Workforce information is already published both monthly and through the Department’s annual report and accounts, alongside wider Government transparency publications. Placing a further reporting requirement in legislation would risk duplicating existing transparency data, so it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill.
On amendment 37, I reassure the Committee that we will consult on the proposed structure for the new Department of Health and Social Care, and that is also required under existing employment law. The structure will clearly explain what every part of the new Department will do and set out every post we think we need. The target operating model is an internal document that sets out the proposed purpose, role, governance and organisational structure of the future Department. It will be shared internally, following engagement with staff and stakeholders, including trade unions. The chair of NHS England, Dr Penny Dash, has committed to sharing it with the Health and Social Care Committee once it is finalised.
The target operating model will be used to guide detailed organisational design and will iterate over time. The proposed design of the new organisation will be subject to consultation. The target operating model does not implement changes that remain subject to parliamentary approval through this Bill.
On workforce transition, we will follow TUPE-like principles whether TUPE or any other transfer mechanism applies, in line with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector. That means that recognised trade unions will be formally consulted and engaged with on measures related to the transfer. No changes to contractual terms and conditions will be made without proper consultation and engagement.
We are committed to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with trade unions and staff throughout this period of change, and we are updating them as often as possible. Where appropriate, we are also committed to working with staff networks on the changes, particularly on how we can best support staff. Given those commitments, I hope that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham agrees that placing further requirements in the Bill would be disproportionate.
On amendment 38, we agree that it is important to be transparent about the costs and benefits of this programme. The Department has been open about the initial estimate of around £1 billion of savings per year, and we published an impact assessment alongside the Bill. The detailed timing and scale of costs and savings from the programme depend on factors such as the take-up of voluntary exit and redundancy schemes, which are under way. We will continue to refine our assessment of costs and savings as the programme progresses and as we move towards the abolition of NHS England. We will continue to be open about those figures.
The savings will support continued investment in frontline services. The timescales set out in the amendment would risk delaying the abolition of NHS England and, as a result, would delay the transfer of savings to frontline services and the stability and certainty we need for our staff.
On amendment 39, the Government are committed to supporting the integration of health and social care so that people experience more joined-up, person-centred care. Key planning frameworks, including for the better care fund and for neighbourhood health, already stress the critical importance of strong join-up and integration. We expect those frameworks to continue to guide the health and care system following the abolition of NHS England. Most importantly of all, we are committed to developing neighbourhood health approaches as an essential part of reforming the health and care system. That approach will deliver more integrated services across health, local government and wider partners, including the voluntary and community sector.
The Bill simplifies existing complex legal frameworks to make collaboration easier and emphasises the role of health and wellbeing boards as a focal point for that collaboration. However, partnership and collaboration take many forms depending on local circumstances, and they cannot simply be prescribed through a centrally developed plan. Instead, we should encourage areas to develop effective, productive relationships in the interests of the people they serve. We have discussed that in this Committee, and hon. Members from all parties have a key role to play there.
Turning to new clause 75, we absolutely recognise the need to ensure that critical functions, expertise and organisational capability are identified, retained and effectively transferred during this period of change. That is essential to maintaining continuity of services and supporting the delivery of key health programmes, including vital services such as cancer care.
I reassure the Committee that that work is already well under way. We are carefully mapping all areas of current activity across NHS England, assessing what capabilities we need to deliver them in future and putting processes in place to support the retention and transfer of expertise. This includes the phased approach we are taking to workforce changes, alongside a robust and consistently applied process for voluntary redundancies and voluntary exits, to minimise disruption and protect critical skills. We are also committed to ongoing monitoring and oversight through the transition, and as part of our programme of governance, there is ongoing consideration of skill retention, knowledge transfer and organisational capability, and we will take action where gaps are identified.
As drafted, the new clause would introduce a new statutory requirement to produce and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before the abolition of NHS England and the implementation of transfer schemes, alongside new ongoing reporting obligations. While well-intentioned, it would add another unnecessary step into what is already a complex and carefully sequenced programme. It would reduce the flexibility needed to adapt workforce organisational decisions as the transformation progresses. For those reasons, the Government believe that the objectives of the new clause are already being delivered through existing programme arrangements, without the need to place further requirements in the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I do not know where the Government have transparently published all these numbers and calculations. A lot of parliamentary questions have been asked on the detail of this transition, so I think it is important that the detail is published so we can see it, and that the detail is planned, before the abolition process takes place. I therefore want to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for securing the provision of universal fracture liaison services across England. As we get older, our bone density naturally decreases, increasing the risk of bone fractures and possibly osteoporosis, which affects 3.5 million people across the UK.
Fracture liaison services identify people aged 50 or over who have broken a bone, and they provide treatment to reduce the risk of further debilitating fractures. Of those over 50, one in two women and one in five men will break a bone because of osteoporosis. Heartbreakingly, 2,000 people die each year from preventable fractures. When the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), claimed that delivering universal fracture liaison services would be one of his first priorities if elected to Government, many people hoped to see this happen, but it has not.
The previous Conservative Government began rolling out fracture liaison services, and it is an indicator of just how little progress the current Government have made that 97% of today’s fracture liaison services were delivered by the Conservatives. What have the Labour Government been doing? What is more, one in two NHS trusts, following freedom of information requests, tell me that they have no fracture liaison service at all, which is quite literally an accident waiting to happen. I am very grateful to the Royal Osteoporosis Society for its campaigning on this issue. By its calculations, at the current rate of delivery, it will take 38 years for the Government to deliver universal fracture liaison services, which is obviously far too slow.
We have tabled the new clause because the Government need a plan. The former puppeteer of this Government, Morgan McSweeney, made it clear that Labour did not have a plan for government. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to deliver a plan within 90 days, not just to secure the provision of universal fracture liaison services but to deliver on his predecessor’s very clear and very deliberate promise to do so.
The Minister in the other place was asked whether an implementation plan for fracture liaison services was needed. The answer was, effectively, no. What is the view of the Minister before us in Committee? There are so many critical questions in this area that have no answers and that a plan would and should address. What are the Minister’s annual milestones for achieving universal access to fracture liaison services by 2030? How will the Minister’s plans to cut ICB budgets by 50% impact that key promise? An important question on the promise is whether the Minister’s plans to merge ICBs mean that fewer services will now be delivered. How will that impact patients? What extra workforce, diagnostic and NHS estates capacity is required to deliver it?
Yet again, as so often with this Government, we are left with a headline-grabbing promise with no plan behind it. The consequence is that more than 40,000 people are predicted to die from hip fractures that could have been prevented through timely national implementation.
Dr Prinsley
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member, who is a medical colleague of mine, has to say. Although I think that a fracture liaison service is an excellent idea, there are many, many aspects of medical care that require careful attention, such as the management of people with hearing loss—my own field—or the assessment of people with chronic renal failure. Does the shadow Minister believe that all aspects of each individual disease category require some sort of primary legislation?
Dr Johnson
Not necessarily, no, but this one does, because the Government clearly made a promise before the election. The former Secretary of State was clear that it would be one of his first acts—that is what he said—and it has not happened, so in this case we need to hold the Government to account. It is our job to hold them to account on their promises, and I am afraid that they are failing on this one.
To sum up, the Government need to get their act together, because otherwise more and more vulnerable people will come to unnecessary and potentially fatal harm. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to accelerate the delivery of the Government’s promise—and fast.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister back from her son’s graduation —I hope it went well.
I rise to state my support for new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a clear roll-out plan for fracture liaison services across England and report annually to Parliament on progress towards universal coverage by 2030. It is not about creating a new target, because the target already exists: both this Government and the previous Government committed to achieving 100% fracture liaison service coverage by 2030. The question before us, as proposed by the shadow Minister, is simple: how will that promise be delivered, and how will Parliament know whether meaningful progress is being made?
Fracture liaison services are one of the most evidence-based interventions in osteoporosis care. They systematically identify people aged over 50 who suffer a fragility fracture; assess their bone health; initiate treatment where appropriate; and monitor patients to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. Given that around half of patients who sustain a hip fracture have previously broken another bone, those services represent a vital opportunity to intervene before a life-changing injury occurs. The human cost is considerable. Osteoporosis affects millions of people, particularly older women, and fragility fractures can result in a loss of independence, reduced mobility, social isolation and significant pressure on health and social care services. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that around 180,000 fractures each year in England and Wales are attributable to osteoporosis.
There is also a compelling economic case: the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that investing around £30 million in fracture liaison services could prevent approximately 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures, saving the NHS around £665 million and freeing up some 750,000 bed days. Few preventive interventions offer that combination of better patient outcomes and substantial savings for the NHS.
The Government frequently point to their commitment to universal coverage by 2030, but as the shadow Minister pointed out, progress has been achingly slow. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I questioned him on that issue directly. While he confirmed that the Department remains committed to meeting that 2030 target, which was first established by the previous Conservative Government, no plan—or indication of when a plan would come—was given. A commitment alone is not a delivery plan.
There are also growing concerns that the Government have overstated the progress that has already been made. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has confirmed that more than 97% of the fracture liaison services counted by the current Government were already in place before the change of Government. So, rather than that representing any significant expansion in national coverage, this Government have gone slow. I think it is therefore very reasonable—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket—for Parliament to be entitled to ask what additional progress has actually been made since the commitment was reaffirmed.
New clause 47 would also require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of access in every integrated care board area. It would also require annual milestones, because, at present, there is no publicly available timetable showing where the services will be established, or which areas will be prioritised or progressed between now and 2030.
Crucially, the new clause would require the Government to set out how integrated care boards will actually be supported. Ministers rightly point out that fracture liaison services are commissioned locally by integrated care boards, but if the responsibility for delivery rests locally while responsibility for national targets rests with central Government, there clearly needs to be a well-thought-through national framework explaining how those boards will be supported through funding, guidance, workforce planning and accountability.
This is, therefore, a straightforward request for transparency, accountability and, most importantly, delivery. If Ministers are committed to achieving this by 2030, they should have absolutely no objection to publishing a plan that shows how they intend to get there. For those reasons, I support the new clause.
Karin Smyth
I will partly agree with the Opposition to start off with: they are absolutely right that osteoporosis is a really important issue, particularly for older women. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined some of the economic case, but crucially, it is a strong health issue. I worked and campaigned on this issue in opposition myself, because it predominantly affects older women. It also very much fits into our 10-year health plan regarding prevention. That is why we have also, for example, increased access to DEXA—dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry—scanners.
It is rather disappointing, though, for a subject on which there is obviously so much agreement to be used as a political back-and-forth here today. Let me be clear. I think some of the comments show why some of this has got a bit confused, including for people who genuinely care about this rather than just wanting to make it a political issue. Again, it is entirely the Opposition’s job to oppose the Government, and I do not have any problem with that, but there is a serious issue here about how this is monitored.
We are absolutely committed to having coverage across the country by 2030, as the Secretary of State has recently said. That is why we are rolling out more DEXA scanners and so on, but with the clustering of ICBs, 92% of the country is now covered across those clusters.
Karin Smyth
That is why it is important that we look at what is actually happening on the ground and how we are moving forward. We are committed to supporting this cohort, and particularly those patients for whom this condition is largely preventable. Care closer to home, based around our 10-year plan, is absolutely the right way to go about that.
Karin Smyth
I was going to outline the points, but I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants.
Dr Johnson
Can the Minister be clear on the point about ICBs? There is a concern that, where there are perhaps three ICBs, one of which has a service and two of which do not, and they merge together, the Government then say, “Aha! This ICB area now has coverage,” but that is for part of it, not all of it. What is important for a universal service is that it is available to all.
Karin Smyth
Again, the hon. Lady has intervened, but that is exactly my point. There is a danger here of the Conservative party focusing on a target or number and totally missing the point, which is to have good, locally available services accessible to this predominantly female and predominantly older population through our 10-year health plan. If one counts the new clustered ICBs in that target, 92% of areas are covered.
We want to get to the heart of this issue. Integrated care boards are the commissioners of local health services and remain best placed to make decisions according to local need. Commissioning these services at a local rather than national level—which is the entire thrust of our 10-year health plan, and indeed this Bill—means that ICBs are best placed to commission holistic, integrated care that wraps around the patient’s need, where the patient is.
We have been very clear in our 10-year health plan, and indeed in this Bill, that we are not expecting patients to fit in with models of care that have been devised over a period of time and in hospitals that are largely located far from their homes. We are looking at a close-to-home service and building models of care around peoples’ needs. A legislative requirement for a national implementation plan would cut across that responsibility, undermining local ability to tailor services to patient needs and causing confusion for delivery. That is why we do not think the new clause is necessary.
The renewed women’s health strategy sets an expectation that ICBs prioritise community-based models when commissioning new fracture prevention services. The Department will continue to work closely with NHS England and ICBs to explore a range of options that provide better quality, and better access to, important preventive services. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the motion.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I am not reassured at all. The Minister seems to be saying that the ICBs will do it—the same ICBs where she is cutting their budgets, making them change the board and making them merge with each other all at the same time. The target is behind schedule and it is important that we hold the Government to account on it. Therefore, I will press new clause 47 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 53—Cancer treatment: waiting times—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral.
(2) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to support NHS hospital trusts in meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(3) As part of the scheme, the Secretary of State must expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
(4) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to Parliament on progress on meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(5) Any statement made under subsection (4) should be made as close as reasonably practicable to 4 February.”
This new clause gives patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and requires the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver this. It also requires the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on/around the time of World Cancer Day.
New clause 54—Cancer Survival Research—
“(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Cancer Survival Research Programme.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require government co-ordination and funding for research into cancers with a five-year survival rate below 20%, and
(b) establish a fellowship programme for foreign academics in cancer research.
(3) Any programme established under paragraph 2(b) must make provision to waive visa fees for entry into the UK for participating academics.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the government to coordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
New clause 65—National framework on radiotherapy treatment
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must include minimum standards, established by the Secretary of State, against which—
(a) integrated care boards must measure and report their investment in, and delivery of, radiotherapy services, and
(b) the Secretary of State must assess the performance of integrated care boards.
(3) The minimum standards under subsection (2) must include standards regarding—
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy (including time to definitive treatment),
(b) patient travel times to radiotherapy services,
(c) the number of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and the quality of such radiotherapy,
(d) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment,
(e) access to modern radiotherapy techniques and technologies,
(f) access to treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,
(g) radiotherapy treatment capacity against current and projected population needs,
(h) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas,
(i) workforce capacity to deliver radiotherapy treatment,
(j) the level of investment in radiotherapy services and the extent to which such investment reflects clinical need.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(d) the Secretary of State must set a maximum proportion of linear accelerators that are more than 10 years old or otherwise beyond the recommended replacement age.
(5) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the minimum standards in the framework.
(6) Where an integrated care board fails to meet at least one of minimum standards it must publish a remedial action plan setting out the steps it will take to achieve compliance.
(7) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult all persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework.”
New clause 100—Single patient record: review of flagging for early cancer diagnosis—
“(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of using patient records held by the health service to indicate, to a person providing health care to a patient, cases in which a patient has presented symptoms on more than one occasion which may indicate the presence of cancer.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the potential for such indication to support early diagnosis of cancer in patients aged under 50 years of age, and
(b) any implications of such an indication requirement for clinical responsibility and patient safety.
(3) In preparing the report the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) NICE, and
(b) any other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the feasibility of using patient records held by the health service to indicate, to a person providing health care to a patient, cases in which a patient has presented symptoms on more than one occasion which may indicate the presence of cancer.
Dr Johnson
New clause 48 would require the Secretary of State to
“publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.”
One in four people can expect to need radiotherapy in their lives. That is a lot of people who will need consultation, assessment, pre-treatment planning and treatment delivery. Data published a few years ago showed that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more linear accelerator machines per million people than in England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? Last year, Radiotherapy UK had research indicating that more than 60,000 cancer patients are not getting the radiotherapy they need and I know particular areas of the country are struggling. Can the Minister provide an update on the roll-out of the new LINAC machines at 28 hospitals, which she spoke about in May 2025?
We were also told that by March 2027, up to 27,500 additional treatments will be delivered. Can the Minister share some information on how that will be achieved? The Labour Government have now been in power for two years. They have raised taxes by more than £60 billion and they do not have much to show for it. They have not produced a workforce plan. They have said that one will be imminent; can the Minister confirm whether it will be published today before we break for the recess? Is the intention to publish it during the recess or will we have to wait until the autumn?
There is a 31% shortfall in clinical radiologists. New clause 48 essentially requires the publication and maintenance of
“a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services”.
This Government have essentially shown that if a requirement is not in legislation, plans just get delayed, diminished and disowned, but patients cannot afford to wait any longer.
Helen Morgan
I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and new clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
New clause 53 would give patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver that. It would also require the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the Government to co-ordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
Karin Smyth
This is an important debate, as many of them are today. I understand that waiting for a cancer diagnosis, as I have had to do myself, is very stressful. The national cancer plan sets out how the Government will change that experience for patients and their families. Crucially, the plan is driven by evidence and shaped by the voices of more than 11,000 patients, charities and professionals who responded to our call for evidence.
The plan covers the entirety of the pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care, as well as prevention and research and innovation, and tackles the key issues raised in the new clauses. Delivery of the plan will be monitored by the national cancer board, with an independent co-chair reporting to the Department.
On new clauses 48 and 65, let me be clear that improving access to high-quality radiotherapy services is a priority for the Government, and one that we are already delivering. In May last year we announced the roll-out of new linear accelerator machines, we have committed to meeting all cancer waiting time targets by the end of this Parliament, and timely access to radiotherapy is central to the 31-day and 62-day treatment standards. We will go further by reviewing the targets, once they have been met, to consider whether they should be strengthened. That will include considering what data is needed to support improved performance. A separate statutory framework would duplicate the established performance regime.
We are well aware that radiotherapy performance is below that of other treatment types, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire outlined. We are also aware of the serious variation between different parts of the country. We have at our disposal the Getting It Right First Time programme and national interventions to address those issues at a local level. The national cancer plan also tackles unwarranted variation through robust national data and oversight from the national cancer board, while ensuring that service configuration remains clinically led.
We have committed to improving the productivity of radiotherapy services, including by using artificial intelligence to streamline treatment. We will make a £70 million investment in state-of-the-art radiotherapy machines by 2027 through a managed national replacement programme. Imposing fixed legislative limits on the age profile of equipment would reduce the flexibility required to manage that programme effectively. Additionally, the NHS is already under a clear statutory duty to fund NICE-recommended interventions, supported by national commissioning guidance. Additional minimum standards would duplicate those safeguards without improving outcomes.
New clause 48 also suggests metrics to track radiotherapy performance. I assure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that high-quality and detailed data already helps us to understand emerging issues and to monitor performance. The National Disease Registration Service in NHS England collects diagnosis, treatment and outcome data on cancer patients in England. It routinely reports incidence, prevalence, survival, routes to diagnosis and treatment data on all cancers. NHS England also publishes monthly radiotherapy performance data.
On workforce capacity, we are already seeing increases in key roles, including clinical oncology doctors and radiologists, and the Getting It Right First Time review of radiotherapy services will report later this year. The new clauses risk duplicating efforts already in train to improve the oversight of radiotherapy services, workforce, data quality and coverage, and would create additional bureaucracy and divert resources away from patient care.
I turn to new clause 53. Improving performance against cancer waiting standards is a priority for this Government. We have made year-on-year progress with cancer waiting times, but we know that there is some way to go. Cancer incidence is about 15% higher than when the 62-day standard was last met, in late 2015. There are more than 200 distinct cancer types, and each is complex. The cancer waiting time targets, including the 62-day referral-to-treatment target, are not set at 100% for several reasons, including patient choice, clinical guidelines and the complexity of diagnosis and treatment planning. That means that not every patient can or should be treated within the waiting time standard. We therefore do not think the new clause is appropriate.
Change, including improvements to the cancer pathway and to tackle variation in performance, cannot be delivered overnight. The national cancer plan sets out the concrete actions that we are taking to get there. We have already demonstrated our commitment to transforming diagnostic services by investing £2.3 billion in diagnostic capacity. That will support us in achieving the 62-day standard through faster diagnosis. We recognise that the provision of cancer services, including treatment, varies across the country. The national cancer plan addresses how to tackle that variation.
To accelerate breakthroughs in cancer treatments, we will explore innovative procurement methods. That will aim to stimulate the development of new diagnostic tests, targeted therapies and more effective treatment for rare cancers, ensuring that the NHS remains at the forefront of medical innovation.
We believe that new clause 54, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, is unnecessary because the Department already has the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the national cancer plan underpinning its cancer research strategy. The Department invests about £1.8 billion each year on research through the NIHR. Cancer is a major area of its spending, at £141.6 million in 2024-25, reflecting the fact that it is a high priority. The NIHR does not usually ringfence funds for research in specific conditions; it welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including cancer. Research is funded through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals most likely to deliver real impact for patients are funded without imposing financial targets or limits.
The national cancer plan is the first plan to have a dedicated chapter on rare cancers, which is important to many hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, who has done great work. The plan includes a commitment to make progress on rare cancers as one of six key research priorities to tackle stubbornly low survival rates. Our aim is to be in the top quartile across 28 countries for survival of 14 rare and less common cancers. Through the NIHR, the Department is the largest funder of clinical academic training. The NIHR plays a key role in attracting training and supporting the best clinical academic researchers, providing comprehensive research career pathways for clinicians across all career stages, from undergraduate level through to professional appointments.
New clause 100 would require the Department to publish a report on the feasibility of using data in patient records to flag symptoms. I understand the concerns behind it. We fully support using the single patient record and other data to improve cancer care and diagnosis, but we have largely covered the issues raised by the new clause in the cancer plan. We understand that there are concerns in some areas. The Government have introduced Jess’s rule, which instructs GPs to rethink a diagnosis if a patient presents with the same symptoms. That followed a campaign on behalf of the family of Jessica Brady, who tragically died after symptoms of her cancer were not recognised. The single patient record will give clinicians timely access to a single trusted record, which is why it is such an important part of the Bill. We envisage that the Bill, together with the cancer plan, will enable more personalised insight into cancer risk, for example, through the NHS app. For those reasons, we do not think the new clause is necessary.
Dr Johnson
If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that the ICBs would provide NICE-approved treatment, which they have to do within 90 days at the moment. At an earlier sitting, we debated an amendment tabled by the Minister that would enable the Secretary of State to delay the provision of NICE-approved treatment, which was agreed to. I am not quite sure how that is congruous, but in either case we would like to press new clause 48 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief, because we have a lot to get through. The new clause would require the Government to produce a modern service framework for respiratory disease within 18 months and, in essence, to make a plan for providing and improving treatment for those with respiratory disease. The previous Government had a major conditions strategy, which looked at the six major causes of ill health, one of which was respiratory disease. This Government paused that when they came into office to consider their own plans, but have not responded with a plan for respiratory disease in any detail. The new clause would require them to do so.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing another important disease to the attention of the Committee. I agree that modern service frameworks are important tools for improving patient care. They sit at the heart of our 10-year health plan, enabling a step change in both service quality and delivery. That is why we are prioritising making rapid progress on them. The first two MSFs, on sepsis and cardiovascular disease, will be published shortly, and a further four are in development. Given the momentum, it is clear that primary legislation is not needed to drive the development of MSFs; instead, we have established a robust, expert-led process.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I should declare that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Clearly, a modern service framework is important, certainly for a constituency such as mine in the north-east that has a lot of respiratory health problems, but as the Minister said, we need action rather than legislative change.
Karin Smyth
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency of Bristol South has a large tobacco industry legacy, and it is crucial to address respiratory disease in a way that looks at the whole person.
Dr Prinsley
Does the Minister agree that the single most effective thing that we have done for public health since we were elected is to get the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 passed? The gradual abolition of cigarette smoking will save more lives than anything else we could conceivably do in politics.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend tempts me to go down the path that we went down in another Committee. I recognise that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill took a long time to come through Parliament, despite having been started by the Conservatives under the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). It faced a lot of opposition, but we are absolutely clear that that is the single most beneficial piece of work. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked me about the future, in terms of vape shops and so on, and I have corresponded back to her on that issue.
Instead of what is proposed in new clause 49, we have established a robust, expert-led process. The national quality board will assess all proposals for new MSFs against a clear set of criteria, ensuring that we prioritise those areas where an MSF will deliver the greatest impact for patients. Alongside developing the first wave of MSFs, we are further strengthening the process, including by setting out a clear and consistent approach for assessing future proposals. Embedding an MSF in respiratory health in primary legislation would risk limiting that flexibility, rather than strengthening our ability to improve care, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and Consett and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have outlined, by taking the action that is so necessary to help and support people with respiratory disease.
Dr Johnson
The Minister talks about momentum, but as I understand it, there is a severe mental illness MSF, for which timelines are to be published in due course; a sepsis MSF that was expected in the spring but is now anticipated in the summer; a frailty and dementia MSF expected sometime this year; a palliative care MSF that was published in June as an interim update, but will not be complete until the autumn; and a cardiovascular MSF. I do not see very much momentum there, given that the Government have been in office for two years.
Karin Smyth
It is a lot faster than the 14 years in which it was not done under the Conservatives.
Dr Johnson
Actually, there were plans, changes and improvements in respiratory care. One of the more obvious ones for lung cancer was the start of the lung cancer screening programme. I do not think the Government have the momentum and vigour that is required. Of course, they have also paused the long-term conditions strategy, which was already written and would have delivered. This is important, and we will press new clause 49 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a delivery plan for the transformative technology commitments in the 10-year plan. The 10-year plan took a lot of people a year to write, and there is plenty of ambition in it, but so far the delivery is rather suspect. The Government are right to say that technology can be game-changing, but it is one thing to ask civil servants and special advisers to draw up a grand plan and a nice brochure, and another to actually deliver on those ambitions. The Labour party came into government without a plan, and we are about to have a new Prime Minister but we do not know what his plan is, or even if he has one, either.
We have seen IT outages take down health systems, hospitals fail to communicate critical information after patients are discharged, and warm weather take down MRI scanners and radiotherapy machines. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a delivery plan for the transformative technology commitments in the 10-year health plan, and would provide a clear road map for data quality and interoperability, artificial intelligence, genomics and predictive analytics, wearables, and robotics. Let us be clear: the Opposition support introducing new technology to make the NHS more efficient and improve patient care, but we need clarity from the Government on how they will do that.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Thursday 16th July 2026
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 July 2026 - (16 Jul 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said before the break, technology is a game changer. It is a key enabler of our 10-year health plan and a modern NHS. This new clause follows the plan’s five big bets, the transformative technologies key to NHS improvement: data to deliver impact; AI to drive patient power and productivity; genomics and predictive analytics for pre-emptive personalised care; wearables to make care real-time; and robotics to support precision. To require those diverse areas to be subject to a cohort of plans to be laid before Parliament, and to make them subject to perpetual monitoring by Parliament, would be to legislate for micromanagement. One of the priorities of tech delivery is that it needs to be agile. The new clause would inhibit that.
Parliament does not usually have a role in overseeing delivery plans for specific elements of NHS technology. Adding in new reporting structures is unnecessary bureaucracy that would slow down delivery of the technologies and their impact on patients. In some areas, we already have arrangements in place to underpin delivery, via legislation approved by Parliament. The Health and Care Act 2022, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and related legislation have established a framework for mandatory information standards, which can set the technical and data requirements to ensure interoperability. Along with our 10-year plan, our ambition to be the most artificial intelligence-enabled healthcare system in the world by 2035 and our commitment to an AI road map, that means that the new clause is unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a probing amendment. The aim is to press the Government to explain why the Bill does not include provisions to implement statutory regulation of NHS management, as they had said they would, and to commit to a timetable for bringing the regulations they promised into force.
I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and am regulated as such by the General Medical Council. The GMC regulates doctors, the Nursing and Midwifery Council regulates nurses and midwives, and different bodies represent other professionals in the health service—but not managers. The Government said that there would be such a register. I know that there are many excellent managers—the Minister was one—but as in every profession, bad apples need to be identified and managed appropriately.
The Times has reported that senior bosses at Leeds teaching hospital NHS trust asked consultants and nurses to work in ways that lie outside the national service recommendations. We have also heard from Donna Ockenden that of the 66 former senior staff members in Nottingham she approached, only 35 agreed to be interviewed. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has said that he finds it
“unconscionable that people who worked for the NHS would deny them”—
the families—
“an honest account of what went wrong”.
Establishing a register would be the first step in ensuring that bad apples can be held to account. Those who bully staff, cover up problems, endanger patients or misappropriate funds should not be allowed to fail upwards. The NHS benefits from having outside experience, including from the private sector and the armed forces, so I am looking not for full occupational licensing, but simply for a register of those who are not suitable to be appointed. We should not see managers going from one trust to another and another after they fail at the first. I should finish by declaring that I worked at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust during late 2012 and early 2013.
Karin Smyth
May I put on record my thanks to all the excellent managers in the NHS? I am not sure whether I raised the bar, as the hon. Lady said, but it was a great career and one that I enjoyed very much. It is a difficult job, and we want to support managers in future. We cannot deliver our 10-year health plan without them. That is one of the reasons why we have already established a leadership college to support their development, as we committed to doing.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that managers in the NHS sometimes get a very bad press from the medical profession? I believe that to be wholly unjustified.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister for their comments about NHS managers. I agree that they often get a bad press, and often from politicians as well. We cannot run the health service without both clinically and non-clinically trained managers, so we need to ensure that they have the right support to do their difficult job. My experience is that when the partnership with clinicians works well, it is really powerful. I have certainly learned a lot from working with some fantastic clinicians in my career.
We are absolutely committed to introducing a statutory barring system. We will do that by introducing secondary legislation within this Parliament to enable the Health and Care Professions Council to operate that barring system. We intend to do so as part of the planned secondary legislation to modernise the framework that governs the Health and Care Professions Council.
Changes to this legislation are subject to a statutory three-month consultation period, in addition to which this legislation will be novel and complex. It will require extensive stakeholder engagement to ensure that we develop a barring system that is proportionate and operates efficiently alongside existing frameworks, codes of practice and other regulation governing the work of NHS senior leaders. For those reasons, a 12-month timeline to bring forward the section 60 order is unfeasible. The new clause also sets out prescriptive duties on the content of the section 60 order; we would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of detailed policy development and consultation.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for the broad programme of initiatives to professionalise and increase the accountability of managers and leaders in the NHS. Although we do not agree that it would be proportionate to set a requirement in primary legislation to lay before Parliament a timetable to which those measures will be delivered, officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and in NHS England are already working in partnership with organisations across the health sector and will set out more on the individual timelines in due course. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Access to dental provision: Dental deserts
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to improve access to dental provision (‘the Scheme’).
(2) The purpose of the scheme is to end dental deserts.
(3) A dental desert is defined as any local authority area with fewer than ten active dental practices per 100,000 people.
(4) The scheme must make provision to support integrated care boards to—
(a) guarantee emergency access to an NHS dentist,
(b) provide free dental checks up for—
(i) children,
(ii) mothers within one year of having given birth,
(iii) pregnant women, and
(iv) low-income households, and
(c) guarantee dental appointments for persons commencing—
(i) surgery,
(ii) chemotherapy, or
(iii) transplant procedures.
(5) The Secretary of State must, before publishing the scheme, issue a reformed dental contract.
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the establishment of the scheme, publish a dental workforce plan to support delivery of the scheme.”—(Helen Morgan.)
This new clause would establish a scheme to support integrated care boards to end dental deserts.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 58—Inquiry into women’s health outcomes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent inquiry into women’s health provision and outcomes in England.
(2) Any inquiry established under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the causes of—
(i) poorer health outcomes, and
(ii) disparities in patient safety
for women,
(b) the effectiveness of existing commissioning arrangements in meeting the needs of women, and
(c) recommendations to assist the Secretary of State in discharging the duty to reduce inequalities in health outcomes under section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the inquiry before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes faced by women.
New clause 104—Implementation of the Women’s Health Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, publish a women's health implementation plan (the ‘implementation plan’) setting out how the commitments in the document entitled ‘The Renewed Women's Health Strategy for England’ published on 15 April 2026 (or any successor document) will be delivered.
(2) The implementation plan must include, in particular—
(a) a timetable for delivering simpler access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC);
(b) a trajectory for reducing the gynaecology waiting list and for reducing average diagnosis times for endometriosis;
(c) a plan for establishing the regional specialist centres for group-based women's health pathways, including contraception, heavy periods, uro-gynaecology and menopause; and
(d) measurable targets and milestones for each commitment in the strategy, including a baseline and timetable for delivery.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the implementation plan before Parliament on the day it is published.
(4) In preparing the implementation plan, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
(b) the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, and
(c) patient organisations representing women affected by the conditions addressed by the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a women's health implementation plan setting out how the commitments in the document entitled “The Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England” will be delivered.
Helen Morgan
New clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. New clause 58 would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes that women face.
In communities up and down the country, we have seen the devastating toll taken by the various and sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women’s health. Vital services remain understaffed and underfunded, while women and girls are going without the care they need. In 2022, we welcomed the first women’s health strategy, which promised to
“listen more carefully to women, close gaps in care, improve research and tackle inequalities.”
Those were all vital goals, but three years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place: long waits for gynaecology treatment, patchy access to services, women reporting that they are not listened to, pain not taken seriously and conditions diagnosed too late.
Medical misogyny is a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health sector. Women are not offered pain relief when they need it. The side effects of treatment and drugs on women in particular are far too often overlooked and under-researched. More research is needed to improve medical and reproductive products for women. In addition, about half a million women are waiting for gynaecology treatment across the country.
We just cannot keep failing women in this way. The current average wait for a diagnosis of endometriosis is nine years and four months. Tackling NHS waiting times, including for gynaecological services, must be a top priority for the Government. More needs to be done to tackle the backlogs. Waits for health conditions specific to women should not be so much longer than those for general health conditions.
The former Secretary of State recognised that the NHS
“has a problem with basic, everyday sexism and an appalling culture of medical misogyny.”
We welcome that acknowledgment, but we believe that the Department of Health and Social Care should ask the same questions of itself.
As I say, new clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. It would be a meaningful step towards parity and equality. As we know, in the NHS what gets measured gets done.
The Government’s new women’s health strategy is welcome—it has more urgency and has the laudable goals of tackling medical misogyny, of faster diagnosis of conditions such as endometriosis, and of better pain management—but in comparison with the men’s health strategy that was released last year, it lacks teeth. Its goals are laudable, but it lacks a named academic network, a formal National Institute for Health and Care Research-aligned research mandate, a committed stakeholder governance group, a named condition-specific research investment at a comparable scale to that in the men’s health strategy and a formal accountability architecture with named organisations, governance structures and public reporting obligations.
This time, we need to back the strategy with real investment in the services that impact women, which have been stretched to breaking point. New clause 58 would introduce an inquiry into the poor health outcomes faced by women. We hope that such an inquiry would achieve the same goal and shed a light on women’s health issues, which seem to get so little focus at the moment.
Dr Johnson
I rise to discuss new clause 104, which stands in my name. The Labour Government’s general election manifesto made a bold pledge:
“Never again will women’s health be neglected.”
The Government have been in power for two years, and I am not convinced that they are doing all they can for women’s health. The latest NHS statistics show that waiting lists are rising under this Government. The trend is particularly acute for gynaecology services. More women are awaiting admission to hospital for gynaecology treatment or procedures than in July 2024. How does that square with the Government’s ambition to improve and prioritise women’s health?
We talked this morning about fracture liaison services, which is another treatment that would predominantly have benefited women if the Government had kept their promise and rolled it out as they said they would. The previous Conservative Government commissioned the Hughes report. The Labour Government have repeatedly pledged to address the issue at the earliest opportunity, but when will the Minister respond to the women who have been waiting so long? The Government published their renewed women’s health strategy in April, but where are the timelines, steps and milestones to deliver and implement improvements to women’s health? Where is the plan to reduce gynaecology waiting lists? Where is the timetable for delivering on long-acting reversible contraceptives, for example?
I have no doubt that the Minister has a desire to improve outcomes for women and improve their care, but I am concerned about the actual delivery, which has been a theme throughout the day. I tabled new clause 104 because this Labour Government have made promises to women that they need to keep, and that they need a plan for how they will keep them. My new clause would ensure that they have a plan to deliver, rather than just making promises in glossy brochures.
Karin Smyth
Hon. Members have brought to the Committee a really important discussion about women’s health. I am very happy to have that discussion, because the Government are committed to prioritising women’s health. That is why I am so proud that we published a renewed women’s health strategy earlier this year.
I say in response to the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, that we renewed the strategy partly because—to be absolutely fair to the Conservative party—we agreed with much of what it put in place under its women’s health strategy. We did not see the need to start it from scratch, so to speak. There had not been a men’s health strategy, so they are very different propositions.
Much of the direction had been covered, but the implementation had not. On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, we wanted to go further and faster and acknowledge some things, as the former Secretary of State did, about medical misogyny, as well as the need to renew that strategy.
I fully agree with new clause 57 that women should get equal access to high-quality elective care. We are committed to tackling the long waits for services primarily affecting women; I am acutely aware that women can wait disproportionately longer for a wide range of treatments, although none solely impacts women more than gynaecology services. The Government recognise that injustice. That is why we have implemented measures to improve gynaecology services and women’s access to care, including piloting gynaecology pathways in community diagnostic centres for patients with post-menopausal bleeding, increasing the relative funding available to incentivise providers to take on more gynaecology procedures, and using surgical hubs to help endometriosis patients to get quicker treatment. Those measures have helped to improve 18-week referral-to-treatment times for gynaecology by 5.1 percentage points over the past year.
We will go further over the course of this Parliament, including by launching NHS Online clinical services from 2027. That will initially prioritise nine conditions, including women’s health conditions such as severe menopause symptoms and menstrual problems that may be a sign of endometriosis or fibroids. Patients will have the choice of getting the specialist care they need from home, and we will provide additional appointments to reduce waiting times.
More broadly, we have committed to returning to the NHS constitutional standard by March 2029 so that 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment across all patient groups and specialties. Delivering against this standard would also require the waiting times for a diagnostic test to improve significantly. We recognise that, which is why in the medium-term planning framework, the NHS target is to ensure that by March 2029 no more than 1% of patients are waiting more than six weeks for a diagnostic test.
On new clause 58, we acknowledge that women’s health has been neglected and that women deserve better. We acknowledge that there have been longstanding failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. That is why we published the renewed women’s health strategy, making it clear that women’s voices and choices are central in healthcare. We will transform NHS performance in the services that matter most to women, support all women to live healthy, prosperous lives, and create an approach to research and development that works for and empowers women.
Reducing inequalities is hardwired throughout the strategy. Actions are targeted by deprivation, ethnicity and unmet need, with a focus on marginalised women, community-based services, neighbourhood health models, and transparent data. The renewed women’s health strategy marks a decisive shift from identifying problems to delivering change. By listening to women’s voices, improving performance where it matters most, and tackling the drivers of poor health and inequality, we will ensure that women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes they deserve. As a result, we do not think that conducting an independent inquiry into women’s health provisions and outcomes in England at this time would add value. Instead, now is the time to deliver the change that we all know and agree is absolutely needed.
I recognise the intention behind new clause 104, but I do not believe that it is necessary to publish an implementation plan. The action summary tables in the renewed women’s health strategy clearly highlight the responsible delivery organisation and the planned timeframe for all 117 actions. Some actions are already under way or funded for this year; others will be delivered over the next two to five years, and more fundamental reforms will be phased in over the next decade, aligned with the 10-year health plan.
Progress in the renewed strategy will be judged against three overarching outcomes: reversing the decline in healthy life expectancy since the 2010s, raising healthy life expectancy in the poorest regions to at least 61 years, and reducing the time women spend in poor health, particularly where inequalities are greatest—something I see very starkly in my Bristol South constituency. We will also be transparent on progress through a new women’s health data dashboard, publishing neighbourhood-level data on performance, access, outcomes and experience.
This Government have already undertaken extensive engagement to inform the development of the strategy. We had nearly 100,000 responses to the 2022 women’s health strategy call for evidence, more than 400 submissions from individuals and organisations with expertise in women’s health, and analysis from the Change NHS engagement exercise, where roundtables brought together women with lived experience, clinicians, academics and expert organisations. I was part of some of those roundtables and it was very instructive. I thank them for the work they did to get us to this point. We will continue to engage and to listen to women through the new women’s voices partnership and through patient-reported experience and outcome measures, which will help to shape and improve services.
Creating a new statutory duty to publish an implementation plan risks diverting attention and resources away from delivering the actions in the renewed strategy, which should now be our priority. It is for those reasons that I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Helen Morgan
I am suddenly cast back to 31 years ago, when I was choosing my subjects for the final year of my history degree. One of the early modern history papers was provocatively entitled “Women and other deviants”. It was called that to draw attention to the fact that, despite making up 50% of the population, women are often treated as a minority group. I sincerely hope that we are not still in that situation, but women’s issues clearly still need addressing. I will take the Minister at her word, but I will keep pressing her on this issue as we go through the course of this Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Puberty blockers
‘(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom.
(2) These regulations must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means—
(a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (‘GnRH’) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and
(b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.’—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 66 relates to the prescription of puberty blocker drugs, also known as GnRH agonists. A first rule of medicine is “Primum non nocere”—first do no harm. That is what this clause seeks: to make sure that harm does not come unnecessarily to children. It is required because the Government are sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children on puberty-blocking drugs. That is being done despite the fact that the Health Secretary claims he feels “uncomfortable and uneasy” at the prospect.
There are lots of questions that need to be answered. The minimum age for this trial is 11 years old for girls and 12 years old for boys, despite the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency having recommended a much older group. When my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) asked why in a written question, the Minister gave a holding answer. Is that because the Government do not know or because they do not want to say?
I am not convinced that the trial will produce the answers the Government want. Apparently, they are asking the question of whether puberty blockers benefit children who have questions over their gender and who will later go on to have a trans identity in adulthood. The challenge is that we do not know which of the children who have challenges with their gender during puberty will go on to have such an identity in adulthood, so we are essentially doing a trial on a large number of children to see whether puberty blockers are beneficial for a small group, or, as it was described by the Secretary of State,
“a very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]
The Government have data that they could use in a data linkage study to try to narrow that field down, but for some reason they are choosing to do this trial before that. I do not understand why; perhaps the Minister can explain.
I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this issue—I could talk for some time—because we have had Opposition day debates in the House on it, but we have seen unease from both sides of the House. The Minister will be aware that there was a vote on the trial at the end of the recent Opposition day debate, and there were a large number of abstentions, as well as three votes against, from her party, as well as many votes against from ours. Puberty blockers carry risks that may or may not be reversible: there are concerns about bone density, cognitive damage and fertility loss, all for children who should be enjoying their childhood.
The new clause would prevent a trial from taking place without votes in the Houses of Parliament. I appreciate that we would not normally seek to have votes in the Houses of Parliament on a clinical trial, because it would slow clinical trials down, but I think this topic in particular has unfortunately become so polarised that it is very difficult to see how it can be processed properly.
Ultimately, the Government have responsibility for what goes on in this country. If the Government want to pay for the trial, then it is the Government’s trial, and the Government should bring it before the House for us to decide as parliamentarians whether it is the right thing to do. I think it is absolutely not. I think we are putting children at risk of permanent harm. We do not know that these children are going to benefit. We do not even know if they are in the pool of children who would, in the long term, have a trans identity, and the Government are not even waiting to see whether they can find out using the data linkage study. It is wrong, and we need to do what we can to try to prevent it.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I had written a 25-page speech for this debate, but to the disappointment of my researcher—and probably the delight of this Committee—I do not intend to read out all 25 pages. [Interruption.] There are cries of “Shame!” from my own side, but I accept that there are a number of amendments and new clauses to get through. My stated objection to the puberty blocker trial is also well known and on the record, so I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long.
I want to pick out five areas where I think there are problems. They are why I support new clause 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. My first point can be summarised as: “Don’t repeat a mistake to find out whether it was a mistake.” Thousands of children have already received puberty blockers through the former Tavistock pathway, and my view is that, before exposing a whole new cohort, the Government should complete the long-promised data linkage study to establish what happened to those children. That is probably the core argument.
Secondly, if the Government rightly say that the drugs present an unacceptable safety risk, how can it be ethical to give them to children in a trial? It must still be an unacceptable safety risk, whether it is for the general population of those who wish for it or for the people in the trial. The Government banned routine prescribing because of the safety concerns, yet propose administering the same medicines in a research setting. That is a complete contradiction of the ban.
Thirdly, clinical equipoise does not exist in the evidence if the evidence already points to significant risk and uncertain benefit. The Cass review concluded that the evidence base for puberty blockers is weak and that concerns remain over bone health, fertility and neurodevelopment. A trial should not proceed unless there is genuine uncertainty that justifies exposing children to those risks.
Fourthly, children should not bear the burden of answering questions that the NHS should have answered itself. The failure to collect the robust, long-term evidence from previous patients, including through the data linkage trial, should not be remedied by recruiting another generation of vulnerable children. Ethical research requires exhausting the existing evidence first. Finally, even the medicines regulator—the MHRA—had sufficient concerns to halt the trial. The MHRA intervened to pause the pathways trial over safety and wellbeing concerns, reinforcing the idea that the scientific and ethical questions remain unresolved. A pause should lead to a complete reassessment, not simply restarting as soon as possible.
Dr Johnson
Does it concern my hon. Friend that the person who raised the concerns about the trial then recused himself from further involvement in it?
Gregory Stafford
It did. If memory serves, that question was raised—although I cannot say more because it was in private. I do have concerns that the professor who was in charge and raised those concerns at the MHRA was recused. I cannot discuss the details of that, but it could show that there was a bias in the selection of the people who were pushing the trial forward. I am not saying that there was bias, but I think that, on an issue of such importance, the perception of bias is almost as bad. We need to be very careful about that.
Either way, I think the trial is wrong for the five reasons I have outlined. The key reason is the moral and ethical issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East raised it in both the Health and Social Care Committee and the Chamber: it is clearly morally wrong to experiment on children just for the sake of experimenting. The fact that there is no evidence does not mean that we should put children through a trial to see whether the evidence exists.
Karin Smyth
Usually, I say that I am grateful that a discussion has been brought before the Committee and that I am happy to have it, but it is unusual to have a discussion on a clinical trial in a political environment. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that there has ever been a clinical trial subject to a parliamentary vote. There has been an Opposition day debate about this, in which many issues were rightly aired, so we will not spend much time discussing it this afternoon.
The safety and wellbeing of children and young people is paramount. Children’s healthcare must always be led by evidence and expert scientific and clinical advice. We all know that that was not the case in some of the instances at the Tavistock over time, in the late 2010s. We pay tribute, as we have done several times, to the then right hon. Member for Bromsgrove when he was Secretary of State for Health—in 2022, he finally took action on that particular service and what went on there, commissioning Dr Hilary Cass’s review, which we supported on a cross-party basis, for the health, safety and wellbeing of children. Hilary Cass’s interim review in 2022—which bears reading, for those who have not read it recently—found the evidence for the service model and the clinical base to be woefully lacking. In the 2010s, that was allowed to continue for a long time, but fortunately started to be stopped in 2022.
Ever since, we have had cross-party agreement in support of Dr Cass’s review. She found that the evidence on the use of puberty-supressing hormones for children and young people for treatment of gender incongruence is “remarkably weak”. Based on the available evidence, NHS England introduced a new clinical policy in March 2024 that means that puberty-suppressing hormones are no longer available routinely in the NHS for children and young people with gender incongruence. In December 2024, for non-NHS prescriptions, the Government introduced an indefinite ban on the sale and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones to children and young people for the purpose of gender dysphoria or incongruence. That followed independent advice from the Commission on Human Medicines.
Clinical practice should be based on evidence. When evidence is lacking, clinical research takes place to improve the evidence base. That is why, to properly understand the impact of puberty-suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence, the Cass review recommended a clinical trial. In line with the Cass review’s recommendation, a trial has been developed and has now secured updated study approvals from the MHRA and the Health Research Authority.
This country has a well-deserved international reputation for academic and scientific excellence, with robust independent regulatory processes in place to properly scrutinise and assure the scientific rigour and ethics of publicly funded clinical trials. That helps to ensure that individuals receive evidence-based care, based on the highest quality research, regardless of their clinical diagnosis. I therefore disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that, uniquely, clinical trials for those types of medicines must be subject to the scrutiny and approval of both Houses.
Dr Johnson
A couple of points. Does the Minister recognise that the cancel culture associated with much of the work in this area, and in looking after those vulnerable groups of children, means that the tendency among those who get involved is to have a particular view? How has she worked to ensure no bias among those on the committee involved in producing the trial? Does she recognise that by choosing a cohort of children—226 of them—to do this experiment on, she is selecting a group of children of whom most will have a gender incongruence that will get better by itself? There are two effects of that. First, these children will have unnecessary treatment. Secondly, even if there were in theory a benefit to the small group of children who would have persisted in a trans identity, that would affect the reliability of the results; therefore, whatever the results, people would think them unreliable.
Karin Smyth
I think that was yet another addition to the hon. Lady’s speech. Initially, she asked whether I recognised the cancel culture in this area. I have already alluded to, absolutely, recognising that what occurred in the 2010s at the Tavistock and around was not acceptable. Under the stewardship of the Conservative party of the NHS and so on, it took until 2022 to start rectifying that situation in order to give good treatment to children and young people. She is herself a clinician, so I am somewhat surprised at her. Noting what I set out, I am surprised that she does not recognise that a clinical trial has never—I stand to be corrected—been subject to a vote in Parliament, whereby politicians who are not experts have a say; but we can come back to that.
Karin Smyth
I am going to move on.
Noting what I have set out, having such a vote would set an uncomfortable precedent that would be likely to significantly compromise the value and reputation of UK research, as well as creating an inequity unique to individuals with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
I am not aware of any clinical trial that has provided potentially extremely harmful medication to children who have a self-limiting issue and who are physically healthy, to change their physically healthy bodies by changing puberty or anything else to a physiologically abnormal state from a physiologically normal one. These are children going through normal, physically healthy puberty. Their normal puberty is being stopped. I think the trial is badly designed, and I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for tabling the new clause. She has asked me to speak about dental deserts in Surrey and East Hampshire, the area that she lives in and represents. The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision of NHS dental appointments in Surrey and East Hampshire, and allows us to raise once again the shocking state of dentistry in this country.
As we have discussed on many occasions, more than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025—that is a stark reminder of what we mean when we talk about dental deserts. We have heard that DIY dentistry has become normalised, which is pretty horrifying. People are using pliers to extract teeth and superglue to reattach crowns, or attempting to fill cavities with household adhesives. Beyond those obviously shocking Victorian scenes, DIY dentistry is very risky and has, tragically, led to deaths from sepsis. That is all because people cannot get an NHS dental appointment and cannot afford a private one.
The last Conservative Government pushed dentistry to the brink, and children and parents in particular are paying the price of that neglect. That is a national shame—one that we must fix. As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to highlight the issues in her part of the country. Surrey and East Hampshire is not the worst place in the country for access to NHS dentistry, but it does face serious issues. Some pockets of the population have been left unable to get an NHS dental appointment.
The action taken so far by the Labour Government has not been good enough, but the fault for this dire situation lies solely at the door of the Conservatives. Their years of neglect have left our dentistry in a shocking condition. Healthwatch—once again showing why it is so important—has classified large parts of Hampshire as dental deserts. Equally, a Healthwatch report into dentistry in Surrey told us of ever-so-familiar themes: people cannot find a dentist accepting NHS patients, information about dentists accepting NHS patients is not up to date, and there are financial barriers to receiving dental care. Clearly, much more needs to be done for the people of Surrey and East Hampshire. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
Unlike that of the hon. Member for Guildford, my constituency covers both Surrey and East Hampshire, so I welcome the focus that new clause 72 places on our local area. Constituents regularly raise with me their concerns about seeing an NHS dentist. As I have announced a number of times in this Committee—although I have not checked today, so may not be true any more—there is not a single dentist in my constituency taking on adult or child NHS patients at the moment.
For many people, the challenge is not simply one of convenience; it is about being able to access timely care when they need it. Good oral health is an essential part of overall health, and we cannot allow dentistry to become an afterthought in our healthcare system. The ability see a dentist for routine check-ups, preventive care and urgent treatment helps to reduce pressure elsewhere in the NHS by dealing with problems before they become more serious.
The new clause rightly highlights the need both for urgent appointments and for improved access to routine NHS dental care. Prevention is at the heart of a sustainable healthcare system, and regular access to dental services plays an important role in achieving that. I welcome the accountability that the new clause seeks to introduce. In places where there are persistent challenges in accessing services—so-called dental deserts—local communities deserve transparency about what action is being taken and why improvements have not yet been delivered. As I have mentioned before, the spanking new dental surgery in Haslemere hospital has sat entirely unused since it was built, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to use it. That seems like a shocking waste of money and, more importantly, a shocking waste of a dental surgery that could be treating patients in Haslemere and the wider area.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire always wants to place the blame with the Conservatives, and does not seem to feel the need to challenge the Government, but I gently remind her that there was a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care for five years, and apparently they did absolutely nothing to raise this issue.
Although this issue is particularly important for Surrey and East Hampshire, it reflects a wider challenge facing communities across the country. Residents should not have to struggle to find an NHS dentist, and ensuring that provision is adequate must remain a priority. I hope the Government take that on board.
Karin Smyth
Welcome to another rerun of the 2010s —happier times for the Opposition. Sometimes they do not remember what happened, and I have to remind them—and every now and then, they remind us. This is a really important issue, not only for the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled new clause 72, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who moved it, but for all our constituencies. It has been a huge priority for this Government.
The Secretary of State will continue to have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. In addition, clause 4 provides for an amended duty for the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities in access to services across England. However, we also recognise that practical action is needed to secure access to urgent and routine NHS dentistry care. As the Committee has discussed, that is why the Government have prioritised a number of improvements over the past two years.
Last year, ICBs commissioned additional urgent dental care appointments, and there is now an urgent care safety net across the country. In April 2026, we introduced a requirement for NHS dental practices across England to deliver a set proportion of their contract as urgent care. Supported by increased payments for dentists delivering that care, that made it easier for patients to get prompt support through the NHS. We are committed to reforming the NHS dental contract by the end of this Parliament—something that could have been done at any point in the past 14 years. As a first step, the package of reforms we introduced earlier this year will address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will help to prioritise those with the greatest need, supporting a shift away from clinically unnecessary check-ups.
The Government are already making progress on improving access to NHS dentistry across England, including in Surrey and East Hampshire. I hope that hon. Members can see how legislating for one area in particular conflicts with the Secretary of State’s duties to promote a comprehensive health service for England as a whole, and risks creating health inequalities in other regions. For that reason, I ask that the hon. Member for North Shropshire withdraw the new clause.
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has specifically requested that I press the new clause to a vote because she feels so strongly about the issues in her area.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State
“to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation”.
We increasingly see the impact of anti-vax and medical disinformation. Lower vaccination rates have been recognised as a growing threat to public health this year, and in February the NHS launched a new vaccination campaign following concerns about the declining uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations.
Disinformation, including anti-vax conspiracy theories, is dangerous and leads to increased levels of preventable illness. The leader of Reform UK has platformed prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories at his conferences, and Reform UK needs to be held accountable for its role in this. It is amplifying and importing the conspiracy theories and outright dangerous views of the US President and Robert F. Kennedy. The leader of Reform UK has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s medical conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about autism and paracetamol. Those views have had a very real effect in the US, undermining and hollowing out important scientific and medical institutions to the detriment of the nation’s health.
Dr Prinsley
Does the hon. Member agree that the invention of vaccination by Jenner centuries ago is the single most important medical invention we have had in this country?
Helen Morgan
I absolutely agree. My mother and grandmother both had polio, which nobody would expect to experience in this day and age. That same grandmother’s sister died of diphtheria, and her father had smallpox. That was all just over 100 years ago, so it was not too long ago that people were experiencing what we now consider to be antiquated and unthinkable diseases.
The vaccination programmes that have been brought in over the past century have undoubtedly been game-changing for public health, not least for people growing up with working-class backgrounds, as my family would have been. That is why it is so important to deal with the disinformation that allows unscientific and dangerous anti-vax views to be communicated convincingly to the wider community.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member that people with power, especially those with political platforms, have used it to spread misinformation about vaccination. Some medical professionals working in our hospitals and the NHS—doctors and nurses—are also against vaccines. Can the hon. Member explain how we can tackle that issue?
Helen Morgan
It is really important not to blame people who have seen convincing information online or have been given convincing information by people who ought to know better—including at political party conferences. We need to battle the source of that information and ensure that accurate, factual information is available and communicated to everyone in an accessible way by people they trust. That is key to all this. As I have said before, ostracising or ridiculing people who have been given information in a very convincing way is not the way to resolve this problem. We need to tackle it in an understanding way by communicating the facts sympathetically and accessibly.
It is important to note that concerns about vaccinations are not exclusive to a single group of voters. There is significant vaccine hesitancy across some ethnic minority communities and in hard-to-reach places across the country. We must do more to support doctors, nurses and the NHS to fight fiction with facts, or the long-term health of the country will suffer. That is what new clause 77 seeks to do. There is some great local work being done, but there needs to be a joined-up strategy to combat all aspects of disinformation, because a nice social media video telling people to get their jab will not beat it.
Now that Reform UK has a greater presence in our local government, NHS leaders will have to handle more and more difficult conversations with anti-vax and conspiracy theorist councillors, and they deserve support to engage with those people effectively and constructively. The proposed strategy would provide just that. It would have to consider
“support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine…investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers…outreach campaigns focused on communities that are sceptical about vaccinations…introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation, and…a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.”
We must do more systematically to protect the NHS and our nation’s health from the growing threats of medical misinformation. We urge the Government to give this issue the focus it needs, and we hope that they consider this new clause one way to do that.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member has brought up an important topic. The Government absolutely recognise that inaccurate information can undermine confidence in vaccines, which are so important. We are already taking a multi-pronged approach to addressing that through national communications, support for healthcare professionals and the ongoing monitoring of emerging narratives.
The evidence is clear that, although it is a risk, misinformation is not a primary cause for people not to take up the offer of vaccinations. Rather, practical barriers such as access to services, socioeconomic factors and levels of awareness play a more significant role. We are already acting to reduce those barriers, with targeted action to improve access, strengthen communications and support frontline staff. A new statutory strategy focused solely on disinformation would risk narrowing our approach when a broader, evidence-led response is required.
For those reasons, we do not consider the new clause to be the right approach. I recognise much of what the hon. Member says about access to information, but we want to maintain a wider approach. On that basis, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her response. I think it is important that we keep an eye on the power of medical misinformation or disinformation, and expand that consideration to things such as therapy chatbots. It is not just an online problem, but an AI problem—it is not just malign influences that cause the problem. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 81
Minimum service levels
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for minimum levels of service by categories of NHS workforce staff, including all Agenda for Change staff but not doctors.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) When minimum service levels are in operation under this section, the NHS must set minimum standards of acceptable service to be provided by the NHS during periods of strike action, including mitigating any effect on appointments, medical procedures, acute services, midwifery, surgical procedures, and any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(6) With one year beginning on the day on which regulations are made under subsection (1), and within each period of a year thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on compliance with minimum service levels, including reasons for any failure by operators to secure the required thresholds, and actions the NHS is taking to improve performance to meet the minimum service levels.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which create minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 82—Strike action—
“(1) It is an offence for medical practitioners to undertake strike action.
(2) The Secretary of State may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause would make it illegal for doctors to go on strike.
Dr Johnson
New clauses 81 and 82 stand in my name. As a doctor, I felt deeply uncomfortable with the morality of going on strike, with doctors leaving their patients to suffer in order to get more money for themselves. That is one of the reasons why the previous Government introduced minimum service legislation to ban strikes in essential services. We are clear that we would not allow doctors to go on strike, just as the police and the military cannot. These are key services and key people for the functioning of our country.
Unfortunately, on 6 August, one month after entering office, this Government announced that they would repeal the minimum service legislation, leaving the safety of patients at the behest of union barons. Despite resident doctors having a 28.9% pay rise, we have seen damaging strike action across the NHS: the Minister wrote that the strike action has cost £1 billion since July 2024. The latest round of strikes in April 2026 led to the cancellation of almost 50,000 appointments, on this Government’s watch. Those are all patients who are waiting.
Dr Prinsley
I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say about strike action. I was involved in trying to get the resident doctors’ strike stopped, but was unsuccessful for many months. I think she is talking about the principle of whether people involved in medical care should ever go on strike. If she were to apply the proposed measure to medical practitioners, would she introduce the same rule for nurses?
Dr Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman reads new clauses 81 and 82 together, he will see that one of them would require doctors not to go on strike, because they are involved in the clinical decision making across the piece, while the other would make provision for staff across the NHS to be on minimum service level provision. That is something that I maintained under the previous Government as well: I do not think that doctors should go on strike, in the same way that the police and the military do not go on strike.
Medical professionals are key to the functioning of a hospital in a way that means they should not go on strike. Other staff within the hospital provide an extremely valuable and important service, but often several individuals provide that service, so it might be possible to say, “We can have three here rather than five today and still deliver most of the service.” Fundamentally, I do not think that it is morally right for doctors to go on strike, because in effect they are saying to people, “We know you’ve been waiting for your knee replacement for a year and we know your knee hurts, but we’re not going to do your knee replacement today, because we’re going to go on strike for more cash.” I just do not think that that is right. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend has just sat down. I was not sure whether she had finished her speech or was willing to take an intervention.
Dr Prinsley
This is, obviously, a very interesting discussion. I agree—I actually do—that medical practitioners should not go on strike, but the question is whether that should be the law. I would apply the same question to nurses, a point that the hon. Lady has not answered.
Dr Johnson
For generations, it has not needed to be the law: doctors did not go on strike, because they recognised what would happen to patients if they did. Now that we know that doctors will go on strike, the landscape has changed. Consultants—I should say that I am an NHS consultant—have just balloted to go on strike, which will be fundamentally unsafe. The Government have a duty to keep people safe; first and foremost, that is the Government’s job. Doctors going on strike is fundamentally unsafe and should not happen. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket that morally it should not need to be the law, but I think the evidence suggests that it does.
New clause 82 would make it
“an offence for medical practitioners to undertake strike action”,
and would provide for the Secretary of State to repeal any necessary clauses of other employment regulations in order to do so. New clause 81 concerns the minimum service levels provided across the NHS. There are staff who provide an important and valuable service but whose jobs may not be clinical; for example, services may be able to run with slightly fewer porters if they want to go on strike.
I hope that no member of NHS staff would want to go on strike. I hope they would want to make sure that patients were getting care, and I hope they would recognise that, in a universal service, they are essentially causing harm to the patients around them, who are their friends, their neighbours, the people who live on their street and the people who would look after them. However, the evidence suggests that that is happening, so I am afraid that these new clauses are necessary. We need to put a minimum number of staff in place to support the doctors, and doctors should be at work to make sure that patients are safe.
Gregory Stafford
Hopefully, this is a pleasure postponed. I rise to support new clauses 81 and 82, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As legislators, we have a moral duty to ensure that patients are protected during times of disruption in the NHS. Nobody disputes the fact that NHS staff work incredibly hard. They absolutely do. The dedication shown by doctors, nurses, paramedics, midwives and all those who keep our health service running deserves enormous respect. Having worked in healthcare for pretty much all my career, including for professional organisations such as the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, I know at first hand how hard they work.
Equally, we need to recognise that the NHS is not an ordinary service. Working for it is not like being a shop assistant, a bin collector or a tax inspector; in its importance to the health and safety of this nation, it is more akin to being a police officer or a member of our armed forces. It is an essential public service. When people are at their most vulnerable, whether that is because they are waiting for an operation, procedure or intervention or because they are in the process of having those interventions, they must have confidence that the care they rely on will still be there.
The right to strike has to come with responsibilities. In the NHS, the consequences of industrial action are real: cancelled operations, delayed treatments, missed appointments and increased pressure on emergency services. When I raised some of these issues with Sir Jim Mackey when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee, he could not tell me, hand on heart, that people have not died because of these strikes. I suspect that they probably have. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, for someone requiring urgent surgery or for families relying on maternity services, the impact can be deeply serious and potentially even deadly.
There is a moral obligation, both on NHS doctors and on us as legislators, to ensure that we have a universal, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service that is free at the point of use that patients can and should expect to rely on. I therefore support new clause 81’s minimum service requirements and new clause 2’s the removal of clinicians’ ability to strike. We must ensure that our NHS staff are supported, protected, paid appropriately and given the resources they need to do their job, but the corollary is that they should remain on the job to serve our constituents.
Karin Smyth
There have been interesting discussions on these new clauses. I recognise that the intention behind them is to reduce the impact on patients and NHS budgets when doctors take industrial action. That is an objective that we all support, but I do not agree that the new clauses are the best way to achieve it.
I respect the shadow Minister’s professional background and the strong moral case she set out to explain why she does not feel it is appropriate. For a long time, as she says, doctors did not go on strike, but something changed in the industrial relations landscape roughly 10 years ago to start that process, that change of culture and that frustration that led doctors to strike. I listened with interest to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), reflecting on this issue recently—we’re all subject to podcasts these days, aren’t we? He spoke about those relationships at the time, and I think we should learn from that; it is very helpful to have those recollections. But something changed, and this has been the result.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and many others of his vintage, if I can say that—
Karin Smyth
Indeed. They wanted to work with resident doctors to talk through a way to make progress without resorting to strike action, because that is a sign of failure in any system.
On new clause 81, we are committed to reforming trade union legislation to bring it into the 21st century. We want to create an industrial relations framework that is fit for a modern economy, and workplaces that work for everyone. That is why the Employment Rights Act 2025 repealed the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act 2023. The previous legislation created a hostile environment, which was not conducive to good partnership working with trade unions or to settling disputes.
On new clause 82, although strikes are hugely disruptive, a ban on a doctor’s right to strike is not the answer.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer. The driving force behind a significant majority of those industrial actions was not pay; it was often the safety of staff, the safety of sites, bullying managers or the inability to deliver an environment in which members felt they could deliver their best. Does the Minister agree that the ability to take industrial action is not always about money-grubbing or about pay? It is often about health and safety and about delivering the very best workplaces for our workers.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his experience to bear on this matter. I absolutely agree. New clause 82 stems from that resident doctors dispute. One of the first things that we did was to agree the 10-point plan with regard to the management in trusts. I have said before how truly shocking the working conditions are in many trusts not just for resident doctors, but for other doctors and professionals. There is no ability to take a break, have a rest or get away. Some of the equipment that they are dealing with is also shocking, as are the levels of the estate. Those are some of the many things that have driven and continue to drive poor industrial relations, along with the fact that there is no one to speak up for them.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that if doctors want to go on strike, that is a failure of the system. The consultants have just balloted to go on strike. What failure in the system does she think has caused that?
Karin Smyth
I think I said that it is a failure of representatives on both the management side and the union side to agree a solution. That is what I meant by a failure of the system. Ultimately, strike action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield would attest, is a sign of the failure of good, conducive relationships and partnership working. That is why we never want to see it.
Dr Johnson
I understand the Minister’s interest in the balance between trade unions and patient safety. My personal view is that we should focus on patient safety. I am aware—anecdotally, to be fair—of examples of individual clinicians who were asked during previous strikes to come off the picket line to help and did not. I am also aware of many instances in which clinicians did, so it works both ways, but ultimately the Government’s job is to protect patients and put patient safety first. I will therefore press the new clauses to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In their final months in office, the last Labour Government introduced the Equality Act 2010. That consolidated several pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, which was welcome, but it also introduced a new public sector equality duty, requiring public authorities to have “due regard” to preventing unlawful discrimination and fostering equality of opportunity between groups. The public sector equality duty also requires authorities
“to…encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.”
Unfortunately, that has become a vehicle for social engineering. It was designed, I believe, to improve equality of opportunity, but it is being used to gerrymander equality of outcome instead. That can mean discrimination—against different groups of people, but discrimination nevertheless.
That is clinically objectionable, because it means that health and social care staff may be recruited for reasons other than their clinical abilities, which are what we need and are most important. We have parts of the health service spending their time working on cultural learning classes and pushing paper around, rather than on patient care.
We must get the health service back to basic healthcare, ensuring that it delivers the very best healthcare, free at the point of use, to all individuals based on their clinical need, not their ability to pay. We need to focus on clinical need and the best possible staff, not on trying to gerrymander some sort of social engineering.
Karin Smyth
With new clause 83, I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would like to exempt organisations that receive public funding to provide health and social care services from the public sector equality duty. I do not agree with the intent of this measure.
The duty under the Equality Act 2010 was designed to ensure that public authorities
“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity”
and
“foster good relations”
in the exercise of their functions. That includes when designing and delivering services. It is not an unnecessary addition but part of good service design and delivery.
The duty is not there to dictate a particular outcome or set of priorities for the decision maker; it is there to help decision makers understand and take account of the consequences of their choices. It ensures that issues of discrimination, equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups of people are not overlooked during complex decision making. That is why it is important for publicly funded providers of health and social care to have due regard to the duty.
The public sector equality duty should always be applied in a proportionate way. It should not create an administrative burden. If a provider of health and social care is taking a decision that has little or no consequence to equality outcomes, it needs only to note that. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
I wish to press new clause 83 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 98—Response to the Hughes Report: options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh—
“The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish the government’s response to the Hughes Report.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the government’s response to the Hughes Report within 30 days of this Act being passed.
Dr Johnson
The Minister will remember the evidence given earlier in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, in our first sitting. As our longest-serving Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend focused much of his tenure on patient safety, and yet, as he made clear:
“We are the world champion at doing inquiries and reports. Unfortunately we are also the world champion at allowing those reports to gather dust without anything actually happening.”—[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 30, Q52.]
One clear example of that so far is the Hughes report. Twenty-nine months ago, Professor Henrietta Hughes published a report outlining redress for thousands of victims of the pelvic mesh and sodium valproate scandal. Time and time again, I and other hon. and right hon. Members have asked this Government when they plan to respond. Every time, the answer is, “Soon”, “At the earliest opportunity”, or, “We’re working on it”, but warm words are not enough to secure patient safety. Can the Minister confirm when she intends to publish the Government response to the Hughes report?
Many patient safety recommendations prompt questions about the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission, the national care regulator. The former Health Secretary claimed that it was not fit for purpose, and yet the Government have decided to bring HSSIB—Health Services Safety Investigations Body—within the CQC, as well as to add other measures, including events management. We need urgent steps taken to revive the CQC to ensure that it is fit for purpose to uphold patient safety.
I will keep my remarks brief, because we have a lot to get through, but the Government need to respond to the Hughes report. Too many people, predominantly women, but men also, are waiting for the answers. They want to know what the Government are going to do. This Government have been in office for more than two years, with the report published shortly before that. Those people need an answer. In future, new clause 85 would mean that that delay cannot happen again, because the Government would have to respond to any future reports on patient safety issues within a set timeframe of six months, to ensure that we cannot have situations where people are waiting far too long for the answers that they need and deserve.
Gregory Stafford
I declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Patient safety cannot be something that is discussed only after a tragedy has occurred. It requires a culture of accountability, transparency, and most importantly, action. That is why the new clause is such a sensible and important amendment to the Bill. It would not dictate the outcome of every review or every recommendation, but it would require the Government to respond properly. The new clause would create a straightforward expectation that when experts have identified changes that could improve patient safety, Ministers cannot simply leave those recommendations unanswered. The new clause pushes that forward, as recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash. There must be a clear process and a clear timeline.
Such a process and principle are closely connected with new clause 98 and the Government response to the Hughes report on those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Those are deeply serious issues involving people who have suffered life-changing consequences and have spent years seeking recognition and redress. Last week, I think, at the Health and Social Care Committee, I questioned the current Secretary of State on this matter, and his answer was equivocating, dissembling and, I am afraid to say, frankly unacceptable to those patients who have suffered from both those. He could not even tell me whether the response would be published by the end of the recess—we probably have two hours until recess, so unless the Minister is going to tell me otherwise, I suspect it is not coming before the recess.
It seems shocking—perhaps even a slap in the face to those victims—that the Secretary of State could not even give an answer on that issue. However, they received some positive news on Tuesday evening, when the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—presumably the incoming Prime Minister—raised this issue in the House during the debate on the remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I hope the Minister has had the chance to speak to the right hon. Member—unlike the rest of us—so that she understands his priorities and when redress is coming. If her new boss has given his stamp of approval, Labour MPs on the Committee should have no problem supporting these Opposition new clauses.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee again today. The safety recommendations are an important mechanism for improving services and securing better outcomes for patients. We support the aim of bringing greater clarity to the recommendations landscape, and we are already taking forward work in this area.
The Dash review of patient safety across the health and care landscape found that a very high number of recommendations have been made to the NHS that often lack any cost-benefit analysis, which is why the 10-year health plan committed to giving specific responsibility for reviewing, analysing and taking forward recommendations to the national quality board. In line with the Dash review, work is progressing on a recommendations hub that will sit within the Department.
The hub will include a repository to hold all national-level recommendations relevant to care quality, including safety, effectiveness and patient experience. It will provide an efficient system for co-ordinating, prioritising and overseeing recommendations made by the national quality board. The hub will record responsibility for implementing prioritised recommendations and, once fully operational, strengthen transparency and accountability for how they are taken forward, which is something I think we all welcome. This new approach will enable the NHS to focus on the actions most likely to enhance patient outcomes.
Where reviews or reports commissioned by the Secretary of State make recommendations to local bodies, those recommendations will remain subject to local governance arrangements within the overall co-ordination retained by the Department. Our existing plans meet the intention behind new clause 85; in fact, they go further by prioritising national-level recommendations for the NHS in a proportionate way, without being bound to specific timescales. They will provide the greater clarity that the new clause seeks without the need for legislation.
On the specific question, I am sorry to disappoint the many campaigners on this issue and Opposition Members by saying that we will not be announcing anything in the next two hours, but the point has been well made. I responded to a Westminster Hall debate myself, and the Minister responsible for patient safety has previously responded to the commissioner and made public the work that the Government are doing. Due to the cross-Government nature of the work, we cannot give exact timelines.
We have heard the calls for clarity, speed and decisive action, and we have committed to setting this out at the earliest opportunity. I have not had a chance to speak directly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield about this issue, but I am sure many conversations on many subjects will be coming our way soon. As both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister made clear during Tuesday night’s debate on the Hillsborough law, redress and patient trust are important aspects of rebuilding the confidence of the public and those who have been wronged in all parts of the state. We are committed to getting this out as soon as is credibly possible. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
The new clauses ask the Government to respond to recommendations on patient safety, and to say within six months whether they will implement them. As I said, we have been waiting several years for the Hughes report response. All new clause 98 would require is that the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the Bill’s passage, publish the Government’s response to the report. That, in itself, is not immediately soon; it is 30 days after the Bill is passed, and it is still yet to go through the Lords and return to the Commons. The new clause would effectively provide a backstop or legal end date—it is still too far away—after which the Government cannot go any further. I will be very disappointed if the Government are not prepared to do that, so I would like to press the new clause to a vote. These people have waited long enough.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Advice and guidance services were an improvement. Previously, if a general practitioner wanted to refer someone to hospital, a consultant would triage the referral. Sometimes, the referral was not needed, so a message would be written to the GP saying, “I wonder if you’ve tried this” or “Could you give more information, please?” Improving that process was the advice and guidance service, which in many ways is beneficial.
I am, however, concerned by the suggestion earlier in the year that advice and guidance will become a compulsory feature, and that only after advice and guidance has been received will there be potential for referral. Instead of a GP being able to refer to a consultant and a consultant being able to accept that referral, advice and guidance will have to be sought first. That will cause a delay in patient pathways and flow. It may mean that the date on which the person is added to the waiting list for an appointment is a couple of days later. That may slow things down and improve the figures, but I cannot see any clinical benefit from mandating it.
There is also a concern that there would be what is called a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high-volume specialties. I am concerned about that. If someone gets to the point of being given a hospital appointment, that is because the clinician who saw them in primary care used their clinical judgment to decide that the patient needed that appointment, and the consultant triaging the referral used their clinical judgment to decide that the patient needed to be seen.
Dr Prinsley
I wonder whether the hon. Member’s experience mirrors mine. Many years ago, it seemed to be easy for general practitioners to ring me up. I often received telephone calls from general practitioners asking for advice about patients. As time went on, general practitioners became busier and busier and seemed to have less time to telephone consultants. When I started my consultant career, I spoke often to general practitioners, and by the time I got elected to Parliament and had to stop, I found that was a very unusual thing. Has her experience been similar?
Dr Johnson
I think we are all getting busier. As such, it is harder for clinicians in primary care to phone the consultant and speak to them, because both are busy and potentially seeing patients. I am not criticising the ability to have an advice and guidance service, because it is helpful. We do the same with specialists in tertiary centres, for example. One might send them a message asking a question. Advice and guidance is a good principle. My concern is that it would remove the ability for consultants to refer directly, introducing an unnecessary delay in the system. Are we questioning the judgment of clinicians? Why do we want to reduce the number of patients who get put on the list by a quarter?
I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket does, that sometimes referrals could be better directed. There is a mechanism already for doing that, but new clause 86 reflects the fact that general practitioners should still be able to refer patients using their clinical judgment to a consultant. That may be someone who the patient has chosen to see or who the GP believes is right for the patient’s condition.
Dr Prinsley
The other important fact is that more and more hospital referrals were not coming from general practitioners at all, but from other people working in the general practice such as nurses and physician associates, who are less confident in forming a clinical judgment.
Dr Johnson
If they are, they can use the advice and guidance service. The point is that when a general practitioner wants to refer his or her patient to a consultant on the basis of their clinical need, they should be able to. That is the purpose of the new clause.
Karin Smyth
As someone who previously set up a referral management service, I feel the need to join in this interesting clinical discussion while everybody else watches us for the next hour and a half, but I am not going to do that.
Some interesting points have been raised. To add my two pennies’ worth to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the change in practice is partly due to increased specialism among consultants, which makes it harder to refer. When we set up a referral management service in Bristol, two issues were the pressure on general practice and the use of locums, who were perhaps working temporarily in the area and did not know the full range of available community services. That was some 12 years ago, so greater support on advice and guidance is long overdue as we roll this out.
At the end of the day, the aim is to support patients getting the right clinical care in the right place as fast as possible. We want patients to have timely assessment of their care needs and clear next steps in the right settings. GP referrals and support for GPs in making those referrals is crucial.
The advice and guidance model, which allows GPs to seek rapid specialist input into a patient’s care without an initial face-to-face appointment, and the single point of access model, which will be rolled out in October, support GPs and hospital specialists to work together and make the best treatment plans for patients while reducing unnecessary referrals and increasing waiting lists.
Trusts and integrated care boards must ensure that local GPs, GP leaders, local medical committees and interface groups are involved in the design and ongoing refinement of elective single point of access pathways. In my experience, that is important because we gain their expertise and there is more buy-in to making the pathways a routine part of their work. Advice and guidance is already a routine part of much GP practice. GPs continue to be able to make clinical decisions to refer for specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests. Advice and guidance and the single point of access do not alter the clinical threshold for a referral, and a GP’s clinical decision to refer remains unchanged. All requests for advice and guidance will receive a response from a named consultant with clear accountability and oversight.
We are clear that GPs should continue to make a clinical decision to refer to specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests. The model is intended to support decision making, not override it. To be clear to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the intention was never to mandate. There is a difference, which I think was made clear in subsequent guidance on the system. The diversion rate, as she calls it, is an estimate of the potential of patients who are not referred to the right place in the first place. It is not compulsory. What the new clause proposes already exists and does not need to be set out in primary legislation. For those reasons, I ask her to withdraw it.
Dr Johnson
If the hon. Lady is correct, she will not be perturbed by the new clause, which simply says that general practitioners must be able to directly refer patients to consultants when clinical need requires it. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 113—Prioritising British citizens for the UK foundation programme (No. 2)—
“(1) The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) A person is within this subsection if they—
(a) are a British citizen,
(b) have indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Act 1971, or
(c) have settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, and
(d) hold a primary medical qualification from an international branch campus of a higher education institution in the United Kingdom.’”
This new clause amends the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens, people with indefinite leave to remain, or settled status who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places.
Dr Johnson
New clause 87 would amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places. Prioritising British students in the selection process would have been the right thing for the Government to do, but way the Medical Training Act has been drafted places British students who studied at international branch campuses of British universities at a disadvantage.
On Second Reading of the Act, a Member spoke of a constituent who had been given
“a formal guarantee that he would be at no disadvantage if he chose to study at the Malta campus.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 801.]
Another Member said that he had
“representations from all quarters, both in the UK and in Malta, about the impact on Malta of this.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 802.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about
“British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service”. —[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 803.]
The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke of a constituent who was schooled and grew up here and was
“given a guarantee by the university that she would face no disadvantage compared with students on the London campus.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 842.]
These concerns are shared across the House.
Young British people who have trained at a British or London-based university and gone to study in Malta, perhaps in an adventurous spirit—it is a beautiful place to go—and have graduated with a British degree have found themselves at the back of the queue, unable, round after round, to get jobs in the foundation programme in their home country. That will not just be the case for students who are due to start their degree; it is the case for students who have just completed their degree. They have done the five years of training, they have worked really hard and they have passed their exams, but suddenly they cannot get a job on the foundation scheme in their home country to complete their full registration with the General Medical Council.
Our new clause would ensure that British citizens who studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised. I invite Members to do right by our constituents and the NHS and to vote for it.
Karin Smyth
I appreciate the intention behind new clause 87, but the Government cannot support it. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act is designed to support a sustainable medical workforce that can meet population health needs and deliver the best patient care while reducing the UK’s reliance on an unpredictable international labour market. By creating a clear pathway for medical school to speciality training, we also strengthen domestic talent and improve retention.
What matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they were born. Data shows that domestic graduates are more likely to stay in the country they trained in than those trained internationally. Doctors trained primarily in the UK are also likely to be better equipped to deliver healthcare that is tailored to the UK’s population, because they have a stronger understanding of UK-specific epidemiology and NHS practice.
In addition, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. Student intakes and graduate outputs of overseas campuses are not included in our domestic workforce planning. If we prioritised British citizens for foundation training regardless of where they studied, it would undermine our aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring that we do not provide more foundation programme places than we need.
I would like to emphasise—this is an important point—that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. Non-prioritised applicants can still apply for the foundation programme and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers—I understand that is already happening for the 2026 recruitment round. For individuals who do not secure a foundation post this year, there remain alternative routes to pursuing a medical career in the UK. Those include obtaining GMC registration through the established pathways, such as completing an approved internship in the country where they trained and entering the UK healthcare system through a locally employed doctor role or other non-training posts. I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clauses.
Dr Johnson
There are fewer than 100 students who are British citizens studying in Malta this year. Many of them have struggled to get a role on the foundation scheme. The Government have created a situation in which a British student doing a British degree at a British university with an overseas campus is put into the foundation scheme behind a foreign student studying here, or indeed in the same prioritisation group as a foreign student studying at a foreign university. That cannot be right, so I would like to push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 97—Publication of annual dementia care report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and
(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.
(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.
(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—
(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,
(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,
(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,
(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,
(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,
(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and
(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. These two new clauses, the latter of which is in my name, deal with the publication of an annual report detailing NHS and social care provision for dementia care and how the Government are performing against targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services. I would like to thank three important charities working in this area: the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. All three back the two new clauses.
The data requested is imperative to ensuring that the Government can measure and monitor progress against relevant national targets, standards and guidance, including the new modern service framework on dementia, the forthcoming Care Quality Commission statutory guidance and outcome measures that may be set in future NHS operational planning guidance. That is crucial to improving transparency and accountability, allowing systems to see the full picture of dementia provision in England and highlighting challenge areas or inequalities. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of information systems to collect, analyse and publish health and care data that is in the interest of the health service in England. The clause fits into that and would require the collection of data on the provision of dementia services in health and social care.
I do not propose to speak too long, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on the current situation, which sets these new clauses in context. Dementia data is not currently comprehensively or consistently collected, analysed and published. That means that we cannot fully understand the provision of NHS care or social care for dementia, which is the biggest cause of death in the UK; how national targets, guidance or frameworks are being met; and where inequalities and challenges lie.
As well as being the leading cause of death, dementia is a disease that around 1 million people live with. That number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That will, of course, impact many more friends, families and carers who support those living with dementia. More than a third of people living with dementia in England do not have a formal diagnosis. Those who do receive a diagnosis live with the condition for an average of three and a half years before that diagnosis. Post-diagnostic care and support is often fragmented, leaving people affected by dementia without a clear point of contact, co-ordinated care, or access to specialist support for those with complex needs. Recent findings show that only 14% of people with dementia have an advanced care plan in place. That is not good enough for a disease that affects so many people and is the leading cause of death in England.
Dementia puts immense pressure on our healthcare system: one in six hospital beds is occupied by someone living with the condition. Lord Darzi’s investigation into NHS performance highlighted how
“there is an important challenge to improve both the quality and quantity of care for people with dementia.”
The new clauses would go some way to addressing that, and I urge the Government to support them.
Karin Smyth
We largely agree with new clauses 96 and 97 and the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He cited some organisations: Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK; hon. Members across the House have worked with them, and many other organisations in this field, and value the work that they do. The hon. Member rightly notes the work that they do to support the friends, families and carers of people with this disease, which is increasing in prevalence. He also commented on the importance of getting diagnosis earlier, and we are moving forward but we need to do so as fast as we can; I think we would all recognise that. I completely understand the rationale behind the new clauses and the urgency with which people want to have sight of the sort of information outlined in them, but we do not think that the new clauses are necessary. I will highlight why.
Some of the data that would be requested by new clause 96, such as details of research in the NHS and reports of lived experience, is already available and often provided by our charity partners, as well as by others. The new clause would therefore lead to a duplication of work. Provision of the other pieces of requested information and the data collection required to produce the report required by the new clause would likely be very onerous, placing additional stress on an already overstretched sector, and would distract from the core task of improving dementia care. It would be especially difficult to get consistent and comparable information from across the adult social care sector, where data can sometimes be fragmented.
Instead, we think that the modern service framework for dementia and frailty is a more helpful vehicle for setting national standards of dementia diagnosis and care, and will serve to hold the sector to account. Additional reports, such as those requested by the new clause, would distract from that and result in duplication.
The framework is still in development and work is ongoing to review the relevant data, metrics and targets to inform it. The framework will also set new national standards, which will help to inform meaningful analysis in the future—something that we are all very keen to see. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.
Joe Robertson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 97
Publication of annual dementia care report
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and
(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.
(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.
(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—
(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,
(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,
(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,
(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,
(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,
(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and
(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”—(Joe Robertson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under the Government’s preference-informed allocation scheme, when a doctor is applying for a foundation post, they are allocated randomly to a job. They get to express a preference, but there is no work they can do to make them more likely to get where they want to be; there are no certificates they can earn, there is no research they can do, and there are no exam results they can get that would improve their chances. That is fundamentally wrong.
The Government say that many people get their first choice, which is true. That is great for them, but it is not great for the people who do not get their choice and have no control over their future. We had a very good debate on this subject, attended by many people in this room, in January, and there was widespread agreement on both sides of the House that it was the wrong thing to do. The Minister said at the time that the Government would keep the system under review. Has the Minister reviewed the system? Does she believe that we should prioritise medical graduates with the most relevant qualifications, clinical experience and skills? Does she think that doctors should have the opportunity to have control over where in the country they work and what jobs they do? Should doctors be able to work harder, aim for better results or do additional activities in order to get themselves the job they want, or does she think it should all be done by a computer?
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The new clause makes clear our position that meritocracy should prevail and people should be rewarded for the work they do and the results they get, and that we should be hiring the best clinicians who apply for the jobs.
Dr Prinsley
I think the new clause refers specifically to the foundation programme—
Dr Johnson
It would amend the relevant part of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, so that when people are put forward for these jobs in the foundation programme, it should be done on the basis of merit. At the moment, as the hon. Member is aware, it is done on the basis of random allocation—preference-informed allocation—which I think is wrong. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on the subject.
Karin Smyth
This is an area of some discussion, some of which we have heard, but we do not think it is necessary, where we are now, to put such a measure in primary legislation. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act establishes a statutory process for prioritising certain groups for training posts; it is not intended to change eligibility for training or the high standards that applicants must meet. Embedding some of these provisions in primary legislation would leave them inflexible to future workforce needs or standards of education and training. If Parliament wishes to change how recruitment processes themselves operate, that is best done outside legislation through established routes.
The preference-informed allocation system was introduced in 2024 following stakeholder engagement, because the previous system was felt to be unfair and stressful for applicants, with a lack of standardisation across schools. Since its introduction, as I understand it, 82% of applicants have been allocated their first choice of foundation school this year, up from 71% in 2023. NHS England has committed to a review of the system, which will commence later this year. Prescribing the allocation method in legislation would pre-empt that review and limit our ability to make future changes to ensure that the system remains fit for purpose. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
The new clause deliberately says that applicants would be prioritised based on merit, and it gives examples of ways in which merit might be judged. I understand what the Minister says about some people getting the job of their choice, but the people who do not have no control over the process, and no ability to influence it through their own hard work and effort. That is fundamentally wrong in principle. Although I recognise that the current method was brought in as a result of consultation, I feel confident that the same consultation, done now, would reject it. We would like to vote on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
During a Westminster Hall debate in December, a Government Minister said:
“In the coming months, in the first half of next year, I confirm that we will publish the acquired brain injury action plan”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 472WH.]
We are now in the second half of 2026. Members may be familiar with the charity Headway UK, which does phenomenal work to support people affected by brain injury, including people in my constituency. Headway has called for the Government to treat the plan as a priority, reiterating that every delay has real consequences and that survivors need support now. The all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett has done a great deal to support, has called for the Government to take action.
So why is action not forthcoming? Why have the Government failed to deliver another policy on time? It is part of a pattern. The Government spent a year writing a 10-year plan. They spent another year working on a workforce plan, which still has not been published. It is simultaneously “imminent” as of 30 days ago and non-existent today. They are behind on the Hughes report, the modern service frameworks, universal 24/7 mechanical thrombectomy, fracture liaison services and more.
The new clause would simply commit the Government to delivering on their promise to the 1 million people living with the effects of acquired brain injury. I struggle to see how the Assistant Whip can compel Members to vote against that.
Karin Smyth
I think all Committee members can recognise the importance of this issue. An acquired brain injury is a life-changing event for those affected, and for their families and loved ones. Its treatment involves co-ordination between primary, community, secondary and specialist care, and is personalised to the needs and life circumstances of the individual. Its effects are not limited to a person’s health: it can impact their journey through education, their employment prospects and so many other aspects of life. Because of that, they rightly expect coherent, joined-up support from across Government.
Therefore, as we have discussed, we are working in partnership with eight other Government Departments, ABI charities, patient representatives and the NHS to develop an ABI action plan. We also continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum, which is the umbrella organisation for brain injury charities, as the plan develops and moves towards publication.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that work is going on, but as the Minister may remember, work has been going on for a very long time—some Opposition Members may remember that past work. The issue is clearly important to people, so we need to see action—again, it is about how we get to that end. I would like to see some commitment from the Government. I recognise that the Minister is not in charge of the acquired brain injury strategy, but could she help us by referring the issue to the relevant Minister for an urgent discussion?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on and commitment to this issue, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister. I thank her also for her work on the APPG and with organisations such as Headway, to which we pay tribute for its work supporting patients and the public, and for her work with Members of Parliament and the Government on getting this right, which is legion. My hon. Friend has made similar comments in the House. The Minister responsible is continuing to work on the action plan, which I will talk about as we continue our consideration.
The new clause raises the issues of prevention, identification, acute treatment, rehabilitation, long-term support, care planning, workforce capability, data and research, all of which are being considered in the work being done across the eight Departments. The Government agree that there should be a plan, and the relevant Minister, to whom I will of course pass my hon. Friend’s comments, will be working on that.
The question is whether the proposals in the new clause are best placed to ensure that any plan will be robust, sustainable and timely for the patients it is designed to serve. I say gently to the shadow Minister that I think they are not. First, setting an arbitrary 30-day timeline for publication risks causing either an unnecessary delay or a duplicate plan. Secondly, as I hope she will appreciate, we have engaged more widely than with just the three Departments named in the new clause. As I have said, as many as eight Departments are contributing, which reflects the wide range of areas that are impacted by brain injury.
Let me give the shadow Minister the assurance that I believe she is seeking, as are others: a plan will be published as soon as possible. That plan is being developed with the breadth, rigor and pace that the issue demands and is receiving input from across the health system, as well as from other Departments responsible for supporting people with acquired brain injuries and sector-specific stakeholders and organisations. I hope that she will work with us to support the plan once it is published, in the interests of our constituents, who desperately require a new approach to ABI prevention, care and support. I ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
The Minister said that the plan is being developed with the pace that is needed, but it is not. It was due to have been published already, but it has not been. It was due to have been published, then a later promise was made, and now she is making another promise with an uncertain date. I just do not think it is good enough. A theme of our consideration this afternoon has been all the different things the Government have promised but have failed to deliver.
Dr Johnson
Yes, I accept that it has taken too long, and that is the point. I assume that it must be ready to go, because the Minister has been working on having it published by the end of June, and we are in the middle of July. The Minister can inform us whether that is the case. We have reached a point where the Government keep saying “later”, “soon”, “imminent”, “in due course” and “working at pace”, but that is not helping to get this done. The new clause would force the Government to get on with it. That is what I think needs to be done, and that is why I will press it to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 106—Safe and proportionate reclassification of medicines—
“Within 12 months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of—
(a) opportunities to support self-care and prevention through the reclassification of medicines,
(b) barriers to appropriate medicines reclassification within the current regulatory framework,
(c) the impact of medicines reclassification on patient access, NHS demand and productivity, and
(d) steps being taken to support a proportionate and agile regulatory framework for medicines reclassification whilst maintaining patient safety.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment in relation to the safe and proportionate reclassification of medicines.
Dr Johnson
The Government’s 10-year health plan says that reducing hospital admissions is a key goal for the neighbourhood health service. These new clauses could help, because they would require the Secretary of State to support self-care and health literacy in neighbourhood health plans and to conduct a safe and proportionate reclassification of some medicines.
Pressure on GPs continues to grow, with the total number of GP appointments reaching almost 377 million in 2025. The new clauses are designed to relieve pressure on the healthcare system and allow people to take back control of their healthcare. There are medicines that could be considered for reclassification from prescription-only to being available from pharmacists without a prescription, in the way that medication for migraines, for example, previously had to be prescribed but can now be bought with supervision from a chemist. How might measures to increase self-care or pharmacy care square with the Secretary of State’s duty to improve health inequalities outlined in the Bill? In addition, the new clauses might help neighbourhood health centres in rural communities to increase availability of medicines closer to people’s homes.
I will stop there, because I know that we are running short of time. The principle is to give people the ability to take control of their own healthcare and to more easily access medications that are currently under a higher classification, where it is safe to do so.
Karin Smyth
On new clause 105, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to supporting self-care. Community pharmacies already play a vital role by offering accessible advice and, where appropriate, over-the-counter medicines for minor ailments. Through Pharmacy First, patients can walk into a pharmacy or be referred by NHS 111, a GP or A&E for expert support, including access to treatment under the seven clinical pathways. That helps people get the right care quickly while easing pressures on other parts of the NHS.
However, we do not think that it is necessary to specify health literacy and self-care in neighbourhood health plans. The neighbourhood health framework is clear that ICBs and local authorities should work together through health and wellbeing boards to develop locally led neighbourhood plans to improve local population health and reduce health inequalities. The framework sets out what should be included in those plans, and is clear that neighbourhood health plans should be informed by local joint strategic needs assessments.
If local areas think they would benefit from having a greater focus on self-care and health literacy, they are of course free to do so. However, that is for them to decide, based on their understanding of the local area’s needs. That permissive approach recognises that local leaders know their communities best and are therefore best placed to determine how to meet the population’s needs. We are not setting a ceiling on what local areas can deliver, and that approach will drive progress more than dictating an overly prescriptive national approach would. For those reasons, we do not think it is helpful or appropriate to define the contents of a neighbourhood health plan in legislation.
Moving to new clause 106, the Government recognise the important role that medicines reclassification can play in supporting self-care, improving access to treatment and helping patients manage their health more effectively, where it is safe for them to do so. There is already an established, evidence-based, proportionate framework for medicines reclassification in place, which is overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The UK is already a world leader in medicines reclassification, and the MHRA has reclassified more than 140 medicines over the last 30 years across varied therapeutic areas, including pain and inflammation, and continues to approve new reclassifications each year.
The Government have taken proactive steps to support further reclassification. The MHRA has worked closely with industry partners in recent years to streamline and improve the reclassification application process to ensure that it is as efficient as possible for applicants, while maintaining high clinical standards. Creating an additional statutory reporting requirement would not improve the assessment of individual applications, and nor would it accelerate access to medicines for patients. Instead, it risks duplicating activity undertaken in recent years and diverting resources from the effective operation of the current system. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has the reassurance she needs and will not press her new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 109—Hospices revenue funding—
“The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis.
Helen Morgan
New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), will place a duty on ICBs to collect and publish data on the number of patients who died while waiting for end-of-life care. This is a fairly self-explanatory new clause, so I will keep my remarks brief.
We know anecdotally that palliative care provision is very patchy across the country and can be something of a postcode lottery, and that many people who die in hospital would have preferred to die at home with the support of hospice outreach services or in a hospice itself. The new clause would ensure that we understand how many of those people there are and where they are located, so that we can consider whether hospice provision is appropriately provided in the right places.
I hope the Minister will consider the importance of the new clause, which would allow us to have a much more comprehensive palliative care service across the country.
Dr Johnson
New clause 109, tabled in my name, is very simple, requiring hospice funding to be provided in three-year blocks. Hospices are struggling under the weight of the national insurance rise in the Government’s first Budget, so they would benefit greatly from having a bit more certainty over how much their funding will be from year to year. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause.
Karin Smyth
This is a really important subject, as everyone approaching the end of their life deserves dignified, compassionate and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. Hospices provide extraordinary care, and hon. Members are right to highlight the issues the sector faces. That is why the Government are committed to developing a modern service framework for palliative care and end-of-life care. The final framework will be published in the autumn.
New clause 108 would require integrated care boards to collect and report data on people who died while waiting for end-of-life care. It would also require the Department of Health and Social Care to publish that information nationally. New clause 109 would impose a single statutory three-year funding period on hospice funding. Both new clauses are likely to be answered by work already under way or included in the modern service framework.
On funding, we recognise that the sector faces a serious challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee found in March that integrated care board funding ranges from 0% to 80% of an individual hospice’s income, and that commissioning relies on grants and block contracts. There are also wider funding issues, such as the reliance on historic grants.
The Government are acting on those issues, and we have provided around £80 million over three years for children and young people’s hospices, or at least £26 million a year to 2028-29, adjusted for inflation. We have also provided a separate £125 million capital boost for both adult and children and young people’s hospices. That is the largest investment in hospices for a generation.
The MSF will support commissioning away from grants and block contracts to sustainable contracts based on integrated assessment of population need. It will consider contracting arrangements more widely, including a move away from short-term grant funding as part of the more comprehensive reform that the sector agrees it needs.
We are also strengthening data and evidence. We commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s policy research unit to build the evidence base on palliative and end-of-life care, including on inequalities in access and the identification of need.
We also expect the MSF to give us better insight into the performance of the system. Its metrics and accountability framework are being co-developed with people with lived experience and partner organisations from across the sector. It will measure identification, access, quality, outcomes and inequalities.
In the context of that ongoing work, the new clauses are not necessary. The MSF will give the House and the public a far more comprehensive picture of access to care than a single count could. It will also do so as part of improving the entire patient journey for people who need palliative and end-of-life care. Because this is a non-statutory approach, there will be more flexibility to adapt and change over time, rather than the system being required to follow requirements set out in primary legislation. I hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance they need not to press their new clauses to a vote.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to new clause 109 tabled in the name of Dr Caroline Johnson. I call Dr Johnson to move the new clause.
Dr Johnson
I would like to move the new clause. We see hospices in huge financial distress at the moment, and we need to get their funding on a more certain footing.
New Clause 109
Hospices revenue funding
“The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 110—Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of armed forces veterans—
“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—
‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of armed forces veterans
(1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of armed forces veterans within its area.
(2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by veterans,
(b) prevention of deterioration in veterans’ physical and/or mental health,
(c) the need to ensure veterans are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support.
(3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area provide veterans with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing.
(4) In preparing a neighbourhood health plan under section 24 of the Health Act 2026 an integrated care board must include—
(a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of veterans within its area,
(b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for veterans, and
(c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by veterans.’”
This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of armed forces veterans.
New clause 111—Duty to provide medical records on discharge from the armed forces—
“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records to be provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.
(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person's consent.
(4) In this section—
‘health body’ means—
(a) in relation to England—
(i) NHS England;
(ii) an integrated care board established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006;
(iii) a National Health Service trust in England;
(iv) an NHS foundation trust;
(v) primary care providers;
(b) in relation to Wales—
(i) a Local Health Board established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
(ii) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, other than a cross-border Special Health Authority;
(iii) a National Health Service trust in Wales;
(iv) primary care providers;
(c) in relation to Scotland—
(i) a Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
(ii) a Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of that Act;
(iii) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service;
(iv) primary care providers;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland—
(i) a Local Commissioning Group appointed under section 9 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c. 1 (N.I.));
(ii) a Health and Social Care trust established by virtue of Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/194 (N.I. 1)), other than the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust.
(iii) primary care providers;
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘service medical records’ means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty’s forces during the person's period of service.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.
Dr Johnson
Under the previous Conservative Government, the NHS constitution was updated with a commitment to guarantee that
“those in the armed forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area they reside.”
The previous Government also introduced the veterans’ strategy action plan, committing NHS England to providing millions of pounds for specialised support services. Ministers also introduced a single point for veterans to access mental health services and support. The previous Conservative Government also created an armed forces covenant duty. Today, we need to see the principles the covenant brought to life at all levels of Government.
Only last week, I received an email from a constituent who has moved around because of her husband’s service in the armed forces and who was struggling to access specialist services for her child’s health as a result. That is why we need new clause 112, which would require the Health Secretary to report on how they are meeting the duties under the covenant. Members will know that I am cautious about mandating any more paperwork, but veterans are being let down. We need some accountability. That report would hopefully achieve that, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
On new clause 110, the Government are proud of the courage and dedication of our armed forces. We must all play our part in upholding the armed forces covenant, including for our armed forces veterans. The original covenant was under a Labour Government; I was proud, as part of my commissioning duties in Bristol, to work with the Royal British Legion to implement that more than a decade ago, and the work continues. I am therefore sympathetic to the intention to promote the health and wellbeing of our armed forces veterans, but I can assure hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary.
The Government’s vision for veterans is clearly set out in the veterans strategy, which recognises veterans as one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Furthermore, the existing armed forces covenant duty already places a legal obligation on integrated care boards to give due regard to the unique obligations and sacrifices of the armed forces when carrying out their statutory duties.
Helen Morgan
In terms of ICBs and their responsibilities to veterans, there are specialist veterans’ services around the country. One exists in my constituency, at the orthopaedic hospital in Gobowen, which has an excellent veterans’ centre. Yet the commissioning and payment for those services between ICBs is complex, messy and unnecessarily difficult. Would the Minister consider using the measures at her disposal to ensure that those things can happen more smoothly in the future?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for referencing that service in her constituency. I am not aware of the complications in the funding, but I will commit to getting back to her to understand that better, and I will see what the responses are from the commissioning function—I suspect it is a specialised one that falls between many different people. I am sure it has a long history, but I am afraid I am not directly aware of it, but I commit to getting a satisfactory response to her.
The covenant duty is underpinned by two core principles: first, that disadvantages arising from membership of the armed forces community should, where possible, be removed; and secondly, that special provision may be appropriate for those who have given the most, such as the injured and bereaved. Beyond that, ICBs have a range of inequalities-related duties relevant to the circumstances of veterans. They include a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between persons in accessing health services and in outcomes achieved from those services; a duty to have regard to the wider effect of decisions, including inequalities relating to health and wellbeing and to the benefits obtained from the provision of health services; and the public sector equality duty, with which all public sector bodies must comply.
Therefore, there is already a range of legal duties on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of veterans as part of the community the ICB serves. It is precisely because those duties already apply that we do not consider it necessary to replicate them in relation to neighbourhood health plans.
On new clause 112, a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty would be wholly unnecessary. Legislation already requires the Secretary of State to lay a covenant annual report before Parliament each year covering the effects of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces on service people in the fields of healthcare, education, housing and the operation of inquests. Under that legislation, the Ministry of Defence must obtain the views of relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, when preparing the report. Any annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty produced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would cover precisely the same subject matter and would be a duplication of information already publicly available.
New clause 111 relates to providing service personnel with their medical records within one month of discharge. The Government agree entirely that it is important that a patient and their care providers have access to their medical records. Primary healthcare for serving members of the armed forces is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and is provided by the Defence Medical Command. As a result, such care would be outside the scope of the amendment. There are established processes to allow for the safe transfer of relevant medical information to the service leaver and their new GP when that person leaves the armed forces. Service personnel receive a medical care summary, and are advised to register with an NHS GP and share the summary with their new GP.
Existing data protection legislation also allows an individual to request their full record on discharge. We recognise that, in some instances, the process does not work as well as we would like, which is why the Defence Medical Command is already working towards greater interoperability with NHS systems and the electronic transfer of medical records from Defence Medical Command to NHS GPs.
As hon. Members know, the single patient record will, wherever possible, draw on and connect relevant information in source records, such as GP IT systems and hospital electronic patient records, and allow the patient to see their record in the NHS app. That innovation further renders the measure unnecessary. For those reasons, and because the objectives are already being delivered through existing duties and ongoing reforms, I ask that the new clause is not pressed to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 68, page 47, line 27, leave out from “to” to the end of line 28 and insert “the affirmative procedure”.
This amendment ensures that all secondary legislation as a result of this bill is subject to the affirmative procedure.
Helen Morgan
Amendment 77 is a probing amendment in the light of our previous discussions in Committee about the extensive powers that the Bill transfers to the Secretary of State. It would make all secondary legislation under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns that we have raised during these proceedings about the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking on board.
Gregory Stafford
I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesperson say that she will not press the amendment, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for it if she did so. This important amendment sums up a number of our concerns about the Bill, and the commencement amendments to follow are also appropriate.
As the hon. Member will not press her amendment, however, I will not speak for long, save to say that I have enjoyed the past few weeks on this Committee. I hope that the Minister is still in place when we return in September. If she is not, I wish her very well and thank her for all her hard work, not just in this Committee, but in her role over the past two years.
Karin Smyth
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but first I will address clauses 68 to 72, as well as amendment 77, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire.
Clause 68 will allow the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision that is consequential on this Bill. Amendment 77 would amend that provision. The Government recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the significant changes proposed in the Bill. While the Bill contains some new regulation-making powers, the majority are existing powers that have been amended in the light of the abolition of NHS England. They will therefore be uncontroversial and consequential, so we consider it proportionate for the same parliamentary scrutiny arrangements to continue to apply in respect of those powers.
However, where we are introducing new regulation-making powers, we have carefully considered what parliamentary scrutiny arrangements should apply. For example, any regulations that are made to facilitate the single patient record will be subject to the affirmative procedure, because we understand the importance of debating that issue in both Houses. Furthermore, any statutory instruments made under clause 68 that amend, repeal or revoke provisions made by primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will need to be debated and passed by both Houses. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire agrees that a blanket requirement for the affirmative procedure would be disproportionate. She said that she will not press amendment 77 to a vote, but I hope that what I have said provides her with the reassurance she was seeking.
Clause 69 is a standard clause that appears in Bills that provide for the expenditure of public money. It simply provides for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State as a result of changes made under the Act, once it has received Royal Assent, to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
Clause 70 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill. While most of its provisions extend only to England and Wales, some are UK-wide. The clauses in the Bill largely apply to England only, and in previous sittings we debated the consequences for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and any issues relating to devolution, as and when they have arisen. Amendments to other legislation made by this Bill will have the same territorial extent as the legislation that will have been amended.
Clause 71 sets out when provisions in the Bill will come into force once it has received Royal Assent. As is usual, the clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to commence the majority of the Bill’s clauses on a date to be set out in regulations. It may also be appropriate to bring different provisions in the Bill into force at different times, and the powers in clause 71 will allow for that. The powers will also enable the Secretary of State to make saving or transitional provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision, which will enable the commencement of the Bill to operate smoothly and efficiently.
Under clause 63, as the Committee has heard, the Care Quality Commission will be able to take action to bring proceedings against a health and social care provider for a serious breach of regulations. However, that provision will apply only to new offences. To ensure that we can act to prevent cases falling through the gaps, we are committed to bringing in the measure as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while respecting the routine two-month window, as is set out in the Bill.
Clause 72 is self-explanatory and provides that, once passed, the Bill may be cited as the Health Act 2026. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Before I conclude, I put on record my thanks to you, Ms Lewell, and to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), for guiding this Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also thank the Clerks for everything that they have done behind the scenes. This is the first Bill that I have taken through a Public Bill Committee, and the work really is quite legion. The Clerks’ expertise is second to none and a delight to see closely.
Equally, I thank the officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and the lawyers, some of whom have worked on several Committees over the years. Again, I have learned so much from them and their expertise. It is a dedicated team, and their hard work and expertise on Bills over many years is good to see. I thank them for their support in making this Bill go forward.
I thank the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham for their kind comments and good wishes. I also thank members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions over the past few weeks. Despite the heat, I, too, have enjoyed our discussions. I think that we have given the Bill a very good airing and there has been constructive engagement and scrutiny. They have given us lots of food for thought, which we have taken careful note of, regardless of whether we have taken up the amendments.
Dr Johnson
I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Clerks, House staff and others, as well as members of the Committee. Leaving aside the heat, I have also enjoyed our exchanges. I hope that the Minister has a good recess and that she does well in the upcoming reshuffle.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments. As the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, recognised, I have been on the other side when considering a previous Bill. Opposition is hard work—the process is quite hard work on this side—and I commend Opposition Members for conducting that important scrutiny. I thank Members for their contributions and I think the Bill is stronger for those efforts.
Helen Morgan
May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments and thanks to everybody who has been involved in working on the Bill? I have also enjoyed my time on the Committee, despite the heat. I hope that the Minister remains in place when we come back on Report, because she is a hard-working and thoughtful Minister and it is a pleasure to stand opposite her in the House in my place as my party’s spokesman.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Extent
Amendment made: 80, in clause 70, page 48, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) Section (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”.—(Karin Smyth.)
This is consequential on NC92.
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Commencement
Amendments made: 81, in clause 71, page 48, line 25, leave out “Section 63” and insert “The following”.
This paves the way for Amendment 82.
Amendment 82, in clause 71, page 48, line 26, at end insert “—
(a) section 63 (Care Quality Commission: time limit for bringing proceedings);
(b) sections (Regulations: reference to agreements and standards), (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements), (Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations), (Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure), (Medical devices: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations).”.—(Karin Smyth.)
This provides for the new clauses listed to come into force 2 months after royal assent.
Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.
(3B) The conditions are that—
(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document"); and
(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the “workforce transition plan”).
(3C) The operating model document must include—
(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;
(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;
(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and
(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.
(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—
(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;
(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and
(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.
(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.
(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We now come to the final Question I must put—that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House. Normally, at this point, Members say nice things to each other, but we have already done that, so we can move on.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.