Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 4 September (HL2266), what specific regulatory mechanisms or market-concentration limitation rules will be established to NHS acute trusts and private corporate bodies through Multi-Neighbourhood Provider contracts.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
I refer the Noble Lord to the answer provided on 4 September in response to Question HL2266, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below.
The Government is committed to expanding integrated neighbourhood services through better use of existing resources, alongside reform of how services are commissioned and delivered.
The proposed Single Neighbourhood Provider (SNP) and Multi-Neighbourhood Provider (MNP) contracts are designed to support more joined-up, person-centred care by bringing together services that are often commissioned and delivered separately, helping providers to work towards shared outcomes for local populations.
It is proposed that the SNP contract would enable locally determined neighbourhood services and funding to be brought together within a single contractual framework, while the MNP contract would support coordination and integration across multiple neighbourhoods, reducing fragmentation and improving consistency of care.
These proposals are not based on a requirement for new national funding. Rather, they aim to make better use of existing resources by aligning incentives, strengthening accountability for outcomes, supporting the shift of care from hospitals into communities, and enabling providers to work more collaboratively around the needs of people and populations.
These proposals are also currently subject to consultation, which makes clear that MNPs would be expected to work closely with single neighbourhood providers, general practices, community health services, local authorities, civil society organisations, and wider public services to support the delivery of neighbourhood health services.
The Government will continue to engage widely with providers, commissioners, local authorities, and other stakeholders as it considers responses to the consultation, develops any final proposals, and makes decisions on their implementation.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 28 August (HL2592), what specific national body will be responsible for formulating and issuing evidence-based national recommendations to reduce avoidable mortality for people with a learning disability, following the conclusion of the national LeDeR annual report.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Integrated care boards (ICBs) have a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities within their local area. LeDeR is a service improvement tool for ICBs to identify opportunities to reduce health inequalities for people with a learning disability, and ICBs are responsible for identifying learning from reviews and implementing local actions to improve services. The ICB board is responsible for ensuring that the ICB is meeting its statutory duties, overseen by NHS England which has powers of intervention is the ICB is failing or at risk of failing to meet its statutory duties. NHS England, working with my Department, will continue to consider national-level actions to reduce health inequalities, including avoidable mortality for people with a learning disability.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government who is responsible for approving the operating model changes which the Frontline Productivity Programme's senior responsible owner has said fall outside their powers; and by what date they expect those changes to be approved.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England has accepted the findings of the recent Gateway Review and is taking forward the agreed actions as a priority. The review identified the need for a clearer, integrated articulation of how the Frontline Productivity Programme’s investments and delivery activities combine to achieve the productivity outcomes set out in the approved business case. The framework will be completed by the end of October 2026, and will establish a consistent end-to-end view of delivery, benefits, ownership, and reporting across the programme, supporting the management of dependencies, reducing the risk of duplication, and strengthening future investment decisions.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to establish an integrated benefits framework for the Frontline Productivity Programme, given the latest gateway review's finding that no such framework currently exists to demonstrate delivery of the productivity benefits set out in its approved business case.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England has accepted the findings of the recent Gateway Review and is taking forward the agreed actions as a priority. The review identified the need for a clearer, integrated articulation of how the Frontline Productivity Programme’s investments and delivery activities combine to achieve the productivity outcomes set out in the approved business case. The framework will be completed by the end of October 2026, and will establish a consistent end-to-end view of delivery, benefits, ownership, and reporting across the programme, supporting the management of dependencies, reducing the risk of duplication, and strengthening future investment decisions.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the 50 per cent cut to integrated care board running costs and the wider restructuring of NHS England on regional capacity to deliver the Frontline Productivity Programme; and what additional support they intend to provide to regions whose capacity has been reduced as a result.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England has accepted the findings of the recent Gateway Review and is taking forward the agreed actions as a priority. The review identified the need for a clearer, integrated articulation of how the Frontline Productivity Programme’s investments and delivery activities combine to achieve the productivity outcomes set out in the approved business case. The framework will be completed by the end of October 2026, and will establish a consistent end-to-end view of delivery, benefits, ownership, and reporting across the programme, supporting the management of dependencies, reducing the risk of duplication, and strengthening future investment decisions.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 10 June (HL392), whether regulations establishing the Single Patient Record operator as a data controller will restrict its powers strictly to direct patient care, or whether central processing will be permitted for secondary purposes, research, or commercial access without local GP data controller approval.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Under the Single Patient Record (SPR), patient information will still be held in the system where it was originally created, such as in a general practice (GP) surgery or hospital. These bodies, GPs and hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring health data is handled securely, lawfully, and accessed for valid reasons only.
The Department is currently undertaking a national programme of deliberative engagement events with GPs and practice managers to help shape implementation of the SPR, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including clinicians, to understand how best to support them in using the data in the record effectively to improve outcomes.
As set out in NHS England’s guidance on amending patient and service user records, current policy already enables patients to request amendments to their health record. This will continue to be the case for the SPR. We will agree a protocol with health and care professionals as to how information will be updated, and the SPR will provide a technical basis for rectification of errors in line with this policy.
Regulations made under the powers in the Health Bill cannot affect the ability of clinicians to make decisions about patient care and cannot make any provision relating to secondary uses of data. The regulations can only make provision relating to data being shared with patients, or with professionals involved in patient care.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 10 June (HL392), what operational mechanisms will ensure that patient requests for data rectification under Article 16 of the UK GDPR which are processed centrally by the Single Patient Record operator are automatically reflected in local primary care electronic health records without compromising record integrity.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Under the Single Patient Record (SPR), patient information will still be held in the system where it was originally created, such as in a general practice (GP) surgery or hospital. These bodies, GPs and hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring health data is handled securely, lawfully, and accessed for valid reasons only.
The Department is currently undertaking a national programme of deliberative engagement events with GPs and practice managers to help shape implementation of the SPR, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including clinicians, to understand how best to support them in using the data in the record effectively to improve outcomes.
As set out in NHS England’s guidance on amending patient and service user records, current policy already enables patients to request amendments to their health record. This will continue to be the case for the SPR. We will agree a protocol with health and care professionals as to how information will be updated, and the SPR will provide a technical basis for rectification of errors in line with this policy.
Regulations made under the powers in the Health Bill cannot affect the ability of clinicians to make decisions about patient care and cannot make any provision relating to secondary uses of data. The regulations can only make provision relating to data being shared with patients, or with professionals involved in patient care.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 10 June (HL392), what assessment they have made of the legal and administrative resources required by individual GP partnerships to negotiate and manage joint data controllership arrangements under Article 26 of UK GDPR with the Single Patient Record operator.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Under the Single Patient Record (SPR), patient information will still be held in the system where it was originally created, such as in a general practice (GP) surgery or hospital. These bodies, GPs and hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring health data is handled securely, lawfully, and accessed for valid reasons only.
The Department is currently undertaking a national programme of deliberative engagement events with GPs and practice managers to help shape implementation of the SPR, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including clinicians, to understand how best to support them in using the data in the record effectively to improve outcomes.
As set out in NHS England’s guidance on amending patient and service user records, current policy already enables patients to request amendments to their health record. This will continue to be the case for the SPR. We will agree a protocol with health and care professionals as to how information will be updated, and the SPR will provide a technical basis for rectification of errors in line with this policy.
Regulations made under the powers in the Health Bill cannot affect the ability of clinicians to make decisions about patient care and cannot make any provision relating to secondary uses of data. The regulations can only make provision relating to data being shared with patients, or with professionals involved in patient care.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 10 June (HL392), where will primary statutory data controllership and legal liability rest in instances where a clinical decision resulting in patient harm is made based on incomplete, inaccurate, or delayed source data rendered through the Single Patient Record.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Under the Single Patient Record (SPR), patient information will still be held in the system where it was originally created, such as in a general practice (GP) surgery or hospital. These bodies, GPs and hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring health data is handled securely, lawfully, and accessed for valid reasons only.
The Department is currently undertaking a national programme of deliberative engagement events with GPs and practice managers to help shape implementation of the SPR, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including clinicians, to understand how best to support them in using the data in the record effectively to improve outcomes.
As set out in NHS England’s guidance on amending patient and service user records, current policy already enables patients to request amendments to their health record. This will continue to be the case for the SPR. We will agree a protocol with health and care professionals as to how information will be updated, and the SPR will provide a technical basis for rectification of errors in line with this policy.
Regulations made under the powers in the Health Bill cannot affect the ability of clinicians to make decisions about patient care and cannot make any provision relating to secondary uses of data. The regulations can only make provision relating to data being shared with patients, or with professionals involved in patient care.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many of the 10 published NHS federated data platform case studies were drafted, contributed to, or reviewed prior to publication, by NHS England officials or external communications contractors acting on their behalf, rather than authored solely by the featured NHS Trust or integrated care board.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
I refer the Noble Lord to the text on the NHS England website explaining how the case studies in question were drawn up, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:
“Our case studies showcase how NHS organisations are using the NHS Federated Data Platform to drive innovation and improve care. While NHS England supports their production, the views and content presented are those of the individual trusts or integrated care boards featured.
Each case study focuses on a specific challenge, the solution implemented, and the measurable impact for patients and staff. Whether it’s increasing theatre efficiency, reducing cancellations, or enabling faster diagnoses, these examples demonstrate the power of data to support better decision-making and service delivery.
Explore the case studies and see how the NHS Federated Data Platform could help solve challenges in your area.”