Health Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Before I start, I must declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, as well as someone who has been moved to the back of a waiting list, after asking for a consultant review for the third time, and finding that I still do need it but it will have to wait a bit longer.

Churchill once said:

“Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have”.

Good health is perhaps the most important asset that any individual can have, and I am sure that across the House, we all want the very best healthcare and the most efficient NHS for our constituents. As such, I am confident that this Bill has been brought before the House with the very best of intentions, but does it achieve its goals?

In general, organisational restructure involves some sort of assessment of where we are now, followed by a vision of what the future should look like, and then a focus on how to get smoothly from A to B. The Government started with a review of the current system. They called it the “Independent investigation of the NHS in England”, although the House should note that it was independently conducted by a former Labour Minister. In his report, Lord Darzi said that

“a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and Integrated Care Boards is neither necessary nor desirable”.

The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), seemed to agree. In September 2024, he was reported as saying that a top-down reorganisation was the “last thing” he wanted to do. Within six months, he seemingly changed his mind, which he is allowed to do, but it is regrettable that, having begun the last thing he wanted to do, such little progress has been made on his promised first acts, such as the roll-out of fracture liaison services. So many other promises are delayed, undelivered or, in the case of the promise to double the number of medical school places, somewhat bizarrely denied.

Another of the Government’s stated objectives is improving the patient experience. At the moment, we have Healthwatch—an independent organisation that listens to patients and provides feedback. More than 300,000 people a year share their experiences with their local Healthwatch to improve services, and that feedback has led to positive change. The Government cited Healthwatch data in their King’s Speech publication. Against the backdrop of rising clinical negligence claims, concerns about maternity care and even reports of abuse in hospitals, it is clear that more must be done to listen to patients and address the problems, but this Bill abolishes Healthwatch England and effectively ends local Healthwatch organisations. The Government plan to replace it with a patient experience directorate within the Department of Health and Social Care. As Councillor Dr Wendy Taylor of the Local Government Association has warned that this

“risks organisations being seen to mark their own homework.”

There is another concern. Facts are stubborn, but statistics can be pliable. How can the public ensure that they are getting reality and not spin from the Government? Ministers keep celebrating falling waiting lists, when in fact patients are being removed from the list without treatment because their appointments have been cancelled, because they missed an appointment they were not told about, because they have not filled in a form, or because they were called several times asking if they still needed an elective operation and agreed to see a consultant to check.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made a passionate speech about the importance of HSSIB. This Bill seeks to abolish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It provides a safe space, modelled on air accident investigations. Through the avoidance of blame and liability, it can get to the truth and prevent future tragedies. The Bill abolishes HSSIB apparently to simplify the patient safety landscape and reduce the number of organisations. In response to criticism, the Government have attempted to provide reassurance by saying that HSSIB will retain autonomy within the CQC, but the Government cannot have it both ways. Is HSSIB being abolished, or is it being hidden within the CQC?

Either way, the new unit within the CQC will face a number of challenges, such as the undermining of confidence in safe spaces, because it will be within a regulatory body. Its independence will be undermined, because Ministers have now signalled their intent to direct the vast majority of investigations and because the national quality board will prioritise any recommendations that they make. We will also have a CQC board without full oversight of what it is accountable for and, somewhat bizarrely, a risk that if the regulatory part of the CQC wants information from the safe space, and the other part of the CQC does not want to publish it, we could see the CQC suing itself. We have all this upheaval to have one less—or at least the illusion of one less—organisation. How on earth does that improve patient safety?

As many have said, including my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), the single patient record is a good idea in principle. Patient information is currently fragmented across different parts of the healthcare system, and bringing it together could save lives, save time and improve prevention. However, the introduction of such a system must be well executed.

First, there are practicality concerns. Do patients want their full medical records, including sensitive conditions and perhaps including sexual health records, visible to every health professional? The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about the difference between a single patient record that is all of the same type and one that is part of a federated platform. The Secretary of State talked about linking up people’s ability to see the current system, but there is huge variety in systems. Even within one hospital, there might be a different system for maternity, A&E, blood results, historical notes and current clinic appointments. Will NHS staff be required to learn all those systems for all over the country, or will data be transferred to a new system? Either move has its downsides, but I am not clear which the Government intend to do.



Secondly, there are security concerns. As has been said, the NHS has the most valuable health dataset in the world. The Government must provide clarity in relation to who controls the data, who is responsible for maintaining its accuracy, and how it will be kept securely. Hackers are already trying to gain access to it, knowing that even if it is encrypted, quantum computing will be able to unpick encryption in the years to come. The Government must ensure that they are quantum-ready. What role is the National Cyber Security Centre playing in this regard?

Life, in all things, is a balance. If arm’s length bodies are in control of things for which Ministers are nominally responsible, we have a democratic deficit, and it is understandable that the Government want to recoup that, but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the powers in the Bill for them to take control of everything risk the creation of a politicised service in which those who shout the loudest get preferential treatment. Those with very rare conditions such as corticobasal degeneration, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, Lafora body disease, Friedrich’s ataxia and many more such conditions may not have as well-funded or celebrity lobby groups acting on their behalf as those with other conditions. How will the Secretary of State ensure that clinical need drives the provision of services, rather than the resources of lobby groups or access to Ministers or, indeed, the Secretary of State?

As the NHS is undergoing a massive reorganisation, I am mindful of what the Minister once said:

“The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 680, c. 809.]

It also stalls progress and takes a lot of staff time, which may be why we have a 10-year health plan that took a year to write, why the workforce plan has still not been produced, why the so-called “rapid” national maternity investigation has not been completed, why waiting lists are up for patients referred for admission in several specialities, why we have a glacially slow roll-out of fracture liaison services, why the mechanical thrombectomy service promised for stroke victims by April is not available, why there is no response to the Hughes report, why there is a denial of the promise of an increase in the number of medical school places, and why doctors have announced their 16th strike, costing millions of pounds in appointments. The Government promised results, but all they have delivered is disruption, delay and disappointment.

I feel for the current Health Secretary. His predecessor was more focused on unseating the Prime Minister, and he is left to pick up the pieces. However, despite our political differences, I do have hope. Previously, he insisted that trans women were women, but I understand that he has now changed his mind. He has listened, and he has accepted that biological women are distinct and require single-sex spaces, in line with the law, biology, and common sense. I am therefore hopeful that the new Health Secretary will also listen to concerns about the Bill, and that we can work together in Committee to improve it. As I said at the beginning, we all want the best possible health service for our constituents.

Health Bill (Second sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will first hear oral evidence from the NHS Alliance and the Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Gentlemen, I will be grateful if you would be kind enough, from left to right, to introduce yourselves for the sake of the record.

Sir Ciarán Devane: I am Ciarán Devane, chief executive of the NHS Alliance.

James Blythe: I am James Blythe, chief executive of the Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Q60 Good afternoon, gentlemen. My first question is to the NHS Alliance. In a survey published last month, your organisation found that two thirds of trusts and integrated care board leaders are likely to need to cut or reduce patient services to meet their financial plans. Given the financial pressure that ICBs are clearly under, what do you make of their ability to become more strategic commissioners and to innovate?

Sir Ciarán Devane: First of all, the ICBs have had their 50% cuts and they are in the middle of reorienting themselves and joining up, so there has been a degree of distraction. The second thing, though, is the idea that the ICBs should be strategic commissioners, working well to commission plans that genuinely reform services. I think we all support that, and the move to give them GP commissioning, pharmacy provision and so on. All of that is good.

The challenge will be that the baseline for the current year is not necessarily the outturn of last year, because there were some one-off savings in that, so our members across the NHS are saying that this is the year when the trade-offs have to be made. Some of those trade-offs will be good, in the sense of we can reconfigure this service, move some services into the community and do some good things—I am sure we will hear about some of those—but some of them will require difficult decisions to do with whether we shut down the service in this hospital and double down on the one over there. Making those decisions will need political cover locally as well as nationally, so we are in a tricky place.

What we are saying is that we all understand the state of the public finances and suchlike, but we need some capital to allow places to reconfigure and redesign their services, whether that is new IT, AI or diagnostic services. Those are the things that will allow the transformations to take place, which is where the productivity and the money will come from. What we and chief executives, finance directors and chairs across the NHS are saying is that there is only so much heavy lifting that asking people to run around the hamster wheel a bit quicker can do. We have to make some of those big decisions.

[Dr Johnson]

Q The ICBs and trusts are going to operate under the spectre of direct intervention by the Secretary of State, who is taking much more interventional powers in this Bill. What effect will that have on the health system?

Sir Ciarán Devane: We are unclear and concerned about what the nature of those interventions could be. In theory, we fully understand that the Secretary of State and the Government need the ability to say, “In the unlikely event an ICB goes rogue, we have to have the right to sort it out,” but we need to guard against the alternative of a Secretary of State who is intervening too much and making decisions on particular services, commissioning decisions or reconfigurations. We want the legislation to prescribe the circumstances in which the board of an ICB can be overruled. That should be transparent, it should be published, and intervention should be rare. We recognise that that backstop needs to be there for the sake of good governance, but we need checks and balances. The powers are needed if somebody is operating outside their licence, but we need to guard against the Secretary of State or the regions or the new departments reaching in and second-guessing local decision making. If this is really about empowering strategic commissioners to do what is right for their populations, working closely with local authorities, interventions that second guess their decisions need to be very rare.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Mr Blythe, what value does your council of governors add to your trust?

James Blythe: Councils of governors across the NHS have added significant value since they were instituted and brought into foundation trusts. The foundation trust councils of governors play two roles. The first relates to the appointment and holding to account of the non-executive directors on the board. The second relates to securing public and patient involvement and voice in the organisation and the management of our services.

Since councils of governors were instituted, we have developed increasingly sophisticated ways of getting public and patient voice into services. If you look at innovations such as maternity and neonatal voices partnerships, which really involve service users in how services are developed on the ground and are very close to the teams that are running them, that gives us different ways of involving patients and the public in services where possibly councils of governors have not been able to do in the past. Councils of governors have played a really important role in foundation trusts, but certainly in terms of that patient and public voice function, we have moved on as a system and developed more sophisticated ways of doing that.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Q To pick up on Sir Ciarán’s comments about experiences being extremely rare, the changes in the Bill sit alongside changes to the national centre and clarity for ICBs, with very little change to providers. What would make the biggest difference to providers and commissioners to improve things?

Sir Ciarán Devane: The biggest difference should be that the local providers and ICBs are incentivised to get together to make collective commissioning decisions. That means that, whether you call it a neighbourhood, footprint or local authority area, they make those decisions based on population evidence, which is why the single patient record is important, and they have the autonomy to do that with a lighter-touch centre that is set in guidance saying, “Look, this is broadly what we’d like you to do.” That guidance should be developed in conjunction with the people who have to do the job on the ground. That is what it should be; if the Bill allows that, that is fantastic.

The second bit is that the mechanism—it is not necessarily a legislative thing—by which the NHS is managed day-to-day will still need to exist. Who is going to be keeping an eye on things 24/7, 365 days a year? What happens if there is a fire—maybe even a literal fire—in a hospital? How is the NHS going to be corralled and brought in to help out a trust where something like that happens? That management function—the day-to-day operational management—needs to remain strong enough in the target operating model, as it is called, in the Department. If it is not, that could prove very difficult. Not necessarily day to day or in the short term, but in the long term, that bit has to be got right. One of the big risks of the legislation—there is not a legislative solution to this risk—is how day-to-day management works. We all have views on the relative strengths of the regions, of NHS England and so on, but how is that going to work in the new world? If one loses “grip”—that word is used a lot—then the risk to service delivery is quite high, and the risk to financial control is even higher.

James Blythe: Put simply, as an NHS organisational leader I think there are always a lot of things from which you can take your guidance on what you should be prioritising and focusing on as an organisation. If the result of this legislation is that we as organisational leaders have a really tightly defined set of priorities to deliver, articulated as far as possible as outcomes for local people and our population as a whole in terms of waiting times, quality and improving population health, I think that will allow us locally to get on with the partnerships that we already have as a day-to-day part of running local public services. We can focus on that very small set of things and do them really well.

Over the last year, there has been a sense of increasing clarity about those priorities as NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care have worked more closely together. The NHS has delivered on those priorities to a large degree, but it all comes down, as my colleague says, to how senior officials and Ministers operate the system, because there is to be significantly more freedom to set priorities, and to design and run the system that essentially delivers them for the NHS. How that is done, retaining clarity about the things that we want to have delivered through the system and empowering local systems to do them will be really important.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Patients Association, Together for Short Lives and Healthwatch England. We have until only 3.10 pm for this panel of three people. Would you be kind enough to introduce yourselves for the record? Let us start from the left.

James Cooper: Hello. I am James Cooper, associate director of external affairs and membership at Together for Short Lives.

Sarah Tilsed: Hello. I am Sarah Tilsed, head of partnerships and involvement at the Patients Association.

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Good afternoon. I am David Croisdale-Appleby, chair of Healthwatch England.

[Dr Johnson]

Q My first question, which is about specialist commissioning, is for James. Your charity is involved with palliative care for children. What effect do you think the changes in the Bill will have on the commissioning of very specialist, low volume and high complexity services?

James Cooper: I think that there are both opportunities and threats for families of seriously ill children and the professionals and services that provide them with palliative and end-of-life care. When we talk about seriously ill children, we mean children with life-threatening conditions, life-shortening conditions and severe medical complexity. They have a range of emotional, psychological, social and physical needs that need to be met across health, education and social care services.

Part of that care involves specialist children’s palliative care, which is predominantly provided at a regional level by teams led by specialist paediatric palliative care consultants. They often have Grid training, and there are not many across the UK—there are only about 24 whole-time equivalents. They are often based at children’s hospitals or children’s hospices and are often co-located across both. These specialist teams also comprise senior nurses and other specialists involved in emotional, psychological and practical support for families.

Our issue is that these services are often quite patchily commissioned at the moment; even though there has been a specialised children’s palliative care specification from NHS England since 2012, we think that money and commissioning has flowed to these services to only a very limited extent. For example, we have a successful service in the east of England, which provides 24/7 end-of-life care at home for seriously ill children, supported by nurses and these specialist consultants. But the provision is really patchy across England.

The Bill presents some opportunities through the additional powers for the offices for pan-integrated care board commissioning—the OPICs—to mandate ICBs to work together to commission these services. We would like to see that. However, because of the small numbers but highly complex needs of these children, the services often need to be planned and funded at a regional level, although they often are not.

We are concerned by the increased devolution to ICBs because of the extent to which other children’s palliative care services—the core services—are being commissioned at the moment. We have a range of evidence that shows that it is possible in some areas for that care to be commissioned well—for example, 19% of ICBs currently commission end-of-life care for children at home 24/7, provided by nurses and specialist consultants. However, at the moment ICBs are not taking on their full functions and implementing national guidance.

I would like to see much more rigour and accountability from the centre, the Government, to make sure that such specialised commissioning works for this particular group of complex children and families.

[Dr Johnson]

Q My second question is for Professor Croisdale-Appleby. The CQC has been reported to be in a relatively difficult place, facing challenges at the moment. It is being asked to take on event healthcare supervision and roll the HSSIB within it. Is that asking too much?

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Obviously, I am not here to speak on behalf of the CQC, although I am a non-executive director of the CQC. You are quite right that it has been in a challenging position, from which it is taking very substantial steps to recover, principally in changing back to a system of having chief inspectors who are very knowledgeable about their particular area of expertise that they can apply. The Department has asked the CQC to take on additional responsibilities in its regulatory capability and, to some degree, in an inspectorate capability. I cannot really agree that it is too much for the CQC to take on, but a substantial amount of work is certainly being added to the CQC.

[Dr Johnson]

Q What are your thoughts on the abolition of Healthwatch? Does Healthwatch have teeth? Does it influence people? Is it influencing the decision makers? Could it be reformed or should it be abolished?

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: It is quite interesting to think that we have had 52 years of independent organisations representing the patient voice, as well as that of the carer. I think everyone here will be aware of it, but there was a step change in impact after the Mid Staffs situation, when Healthwatch—both Healthwatch England and the 153 local healthwatch bodies—was set up. We have produced over 20,000 reports; if anyone is interested in accessing any of them, we can certainly provide access by the end of the week.

Since I joined Healthwatch in 2023, in my view it has been very successful in reaching out to those communities often referred to as “difficult to reach”—diasporas and so on, where we all know the health inequalities are often the deepest. I think Healthwatch has been very successful in ensuring that we have not just listened to the easy-to-reach groups but deliberately sought information and views from those other parts of our society, which form an increasing part of it.

The research being done with those communities has recognised that there is quite often an investment of some six months for one of our people go into a particular community—whether a cultural community or an ethnic community—and win the confidence of the people so that they actually talk to us about the problems. I have to ask how that depth and focus is to be replicated under the arrangements suggested in the Bill. That is my extended first point about Healthwatch.

I think we have had a lot of impact, and I use the word “impact” as a researcher myself. Impact is measured by the change that you make. When we produce reports, whether national or local, we include recommendations. The important thing is that we always follow up on those recommendations and ask, “Are they being implemented? Are they being listened to?” Each year, we produce a report that says, “What change has occurred as a result of the recommendations that we make?”

I think that is extremely valuable, because it is about independence and holding organisations to account. Clearly, those organisations report in line function to the Department of Health, NHSE or local authorities, but we are not only the ears of the patient and the carer; at times, we hold feet to the flames over whether something sensible is being done. We do not give up on this; we pursue it down the rabbit hole.

[The Chair]

Q Ms Tilsed, you have been very patient. Before I call the Minister, do you want to add anything to what has already been said?

Sarah Tilsed: Professor Croisdale-Appleby said absolutely everything that I was about to say, so I will make just a few points without going back over everything.

The main thing is that we need to make sure that this does not divert attention from the main priorities, which obviously relate to patients: timely access to care, clear communication and involvement in decisions about their treatment. As the professor said, we need a truly independent patient voice. Abolishing healthwatches creates a fragmentation of patient engagement responsibilities across ICBs and local authorities. The evidence we see every day consistently shows that patients are not feeling informed, involved or treated as equal partners in care.

We need to ensure that any replacement model is, as Professor Croisdale-Appleby said, genuinely independent, transparently accountable and resourced equally across the country, to ensure that we do not lose sight of the people it is supposed to serve. Trust is really important here, and patients trust independent organisations. I feel that that trust might be lost in local communities.

Lastly, this is, as Professor Croisdale-Appleby said, about reporting. We need to consider the way that patient feedback data is reported, and ensure that that is not getting lost. Themes and demographics still need to be included to make sure that we know who we are listening to, and that services are provided for those who feed back and those who do not—usually, it is those who are not feeding back who we really need to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. We shall now hear oral evidence from the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, and South East London ICS. We have until 3.50 pm for this panel. Could you identify yourselves for the benefit of the record, please?

Maria Higson: My name is Maria Higson. I would like to state for the record that I am here to bring to the panel the experience of a director of transformation within the South East London ICS. I do not represent the organisation, but hopefully I bring that experience.

Councillor Wright: I am Councillor Megan Wright. I am the vice-chair of the Local Government Association health and wellbeing committee.

Sally Burlington: I am Sally Burlington. I am chief executive of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which represents directors of adult social care in England.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Does removing local authority representation from ICBs weaken the link with local elected representatives, or is it beneficial?

Councillor Wright: I assume that was directed at me, as I am a representative in local government. We feel it is going to weaken it. Having someone on the ICB is useful to help shape health strategy and ensure that the wider determinants of health are taken into consideration when planning health. We would like to see some kind of structure where local authorities and other partners involved in determining health from a wider perspective have a voice within the NHS delivering health locally.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you. Maria, how do you think the Bill and all the changes around ICB funding will affect local services? To what extent does the process in itself cause disruption—or not?

Maria Higson: Whenever we introduce these changes into the system we have to remember that we are talking about a group of professionals who are trying to deliver for the NHS, citizens and patients. This Bill was first announced back in March 2025. It would be fair to say that since then, for an awful lot of people, there have been organisational and personal unknowns. The best intentions to deliver against the agenda and the three shifts can be hindered by that uncertainty. As with everything, implementation is absolutely critical.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you. Sally, what would be the impact of the removal of the pooling of better care funding among local authorities and ICBs?

Sally Burlington: The better care fund is a really important source of funding for statutory core services. It funds about 80% of social care—in terms of the use of the better care fund by social care, 80% is statutory. While the ability to use it differently could be really valuable, we would be worried about diverting it from those core services into other functions. We have also benefited from the fact that the better care fund is uplifted at the same rate as NHS funding. If we lost that, it would be significant, because social care is systematically less well funded over time compared with some other services.

[Dr Johnson]

So you are losing a protection with the Bill.

Sally Burlington: Exactly.

[Karin Smyth]

Q Councillor Wright, the Bill will essentially abolish NHS England. Do you have any comments about how that works at the moment in terms of local government? How can we unlock some of the potential in the Bill, with the changes to NHS England, with regard to local government, particularly on health and wellbeing boards and the entire place agenda?

Councillor Wright: The main problem the abolition of NHS England has caused is upheaval and uncertainty with our health partners. Many of the health partners at our health and wellbeing board meetings or our place committee meetings are almost saying to us, “I don’t know if I will be here at the next meeting.” Such turmoil in the changeover creates instability from a lack of being able to plan what will happen next. That is one of the challenges that we feel. We are working with our health partners and getting assurances that there will be continuity, but it is quite hard when the person we are working with is changing.

We are really excited about neighbourhood health sitting under health and wellbeing boards. We love the idea of neighbourhood health looking at the wider determinants of health and having a very localised health response to the issues that that community needs to help it. One of our anxieties is that a lot of ICBs have become bigger and have less connection with the place. They are also shrinking; I think NHS England is losing 30%—

Maria Higson: Larger geography, fewer people!

Councillor Wright: Exactly. We have had a letter from our ICB giving us the heads-up that they might not be able to guarantee that they can send the right person to our health and wellbeing committees, which will obviously make it difficult to plan neighbourhood health.

The other challenge we find in neighbourhood health is that local authority boundaries might not necessarily match neighbourhood boundaries. I will give an example from Bracknell, where I live. Bracknell is very clearly a neighbourhood, but the south of the borough, which is within the Bracknell Forest council area, probably sits within Bracknell and Wokingham and a little bit within Reading. It will be hard to bring in true neighbourhoods with the current structure, but that is something we are working around, and we are hopeful that we will be able to sort it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you all very much for joining us.

[Dr Johnson]

Q My first question goes to all of you. In principle, the single patient record offers opportunity, but people have expressed reservations, as have each of your charities. What are your thoughts on the single patient record?

Paul Farmer: From the perspective of older people and people with long-term conditions, the single patient record will be, broadly speaking, welcomed. I will explain very briefly why. If you are an older person with multiple long-term conditions and you find yourself in hospital, you often have to explain your experience and health needs, time and again. That is often because of a lack of join-up between the current data systems. Single patient record means the individual patient does not need to repeat their stories or lived experience—and, more importantly, it allows clinicians to have a clear overview of an individual patient’s health records. There are issues that need to be considered, particularly around making sure that people are not digitally excluded, and I am sure that we will get into those, but at a high level we would welcome the introduction of a single patient record.

Kath Abrahams: There are some very similar themes for us. A lack of shared patient record is a particular issue in pregnancy and maternity. You are being seen by your GP, early pregnancy unit and maternity unit. You might have other conditions that affect pregnancy or could affect the outcome of your baby being born. At the moment those systems are very disjointed. The other piece in maternity, which will not come as a surprise to you, is that, if you have lost a baby, you end up having to retell your story over and over again and that can be very traumatic. Sometimes that can lead to people disengaging from care, but also in many cases being retraumatised.

We broadly welcome the single patient record, but with lots of caveats around people feeling able to trust the data and trust that their data is safe. Overall we are very supportive.

Emily Holzhausen: Again, similarly to my colleagues, we are supportive. When we ask unpaid carers what matters to them, sharing of information is really critical, but we have a slightly different perspective here.

First, carers would like to have access to the record, with the right permissions. That is not on the face of the Bill, but it is suggested that that may be covered in regulations, and we would like to see some assurances of that. It would change things, again, because of not having to retell information, which carers call “triggering” and “exhausting”. They will be more able to spot errors or things that are not quite right, which is important for the person they are caring for. As an unpaid carer, when you are responsible for caring for someone, that is a huge weight on your shoulders and you really want to make sure that it is being done right. Finally, most of us care remotely—we do not all live with the person that we care for. This could really help to transform carer’s lives and the pressure they feel.

I have one statistic for you: just under one in eight carers spend over 40 hours a month on NHS admin. If the NHS app and the single patient record can reduce that, that would change things. The only other point I would like to make is that where this tips over into social care, this is something that we need to build with social care and all those people who go across all these different services.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I have a question for Emily about digital exclusion and the app. What can be done to help people not to be digitally excluded? How do you see this working in areas of the country with poorer broadband connections, for example? Also, what about the record? Sharing your medical records is not an all-or-nothing thing, is it? It may be that someone is happy to share their current illness or current medical circumstance with their carer, but may perhaps want aspects of their history to remain a secret. Have you had any indications from the Government on how that might work?

Emily Holzhausen: Yes. That is a lot of different questions. It has to be done with the right permissions, with the patient being in control of their data—that is a very strongly held principle within the NHS. There will be situations where people do not have capacity and their primary carer, who might be their partner, their son or daughter, might need access. We have lasting power of attorney in England, which could be used as a mechanism, or other assurance mechanisms.

As for digital access, that is an issue that I am sure Paul will want to come on to. Especially when digital access costs money and we have people in poverty, we have called for that to be supported by Government to ensure that everybody has digital access. People have to feel confident about it. While we have seen a doubling in the number of carers using the NHS app to manage their own health and care in the past two years, there are key groups that are being excluded: older carers, people on lower incomes and people who feel less confident with technology, for a whole range of different reasons.

Some of this stuff is delivered very well through voluntary and community services—I know that Age UK has helped my family locally, for example, but I will stop there, because I am sure Paul will want to come in on that.

[The Chair]

Paul Farmer, you have been given the floor.

Paul Farmer: I would very much like to come in on this subject. We see probably the greatest risk and the greatest opportunity here, in the context of digital exclusion and digital inclusion. The risk of digital exclusion is that older people in particular, although it is not exclusively an older people’s issue, will lack the access to their own care record, as it is electronically based. We need to bear that in mind when we think about the roll-out of that and the availability of the content of that patient record to people who are digitally excluded.

I do think, however, that this is a significant opportunity. It is part of a much broader question about digital inclusion more generally, and inclusion into accessing public services more generally, which is a key theme of the work we are doing at Age UK. We had funds from DSIT to support the work of our local Age UKs, where we run a number of digital champions programmes—Members are very welcome to come and visit them at any time. We worked with 8,000 older people in a two-month period; we engaged more than 1,000 of that group into our digital champions programme, and two thirds of people took up the offer of engaging in a training module on accessing the NHS app.

In particular, we were able to enable people who are partially digitally excluded. We are publishing a report later, which we will share with the Committee in time, about the opportunities for people who are not fully excluded, but partially excluded. We think people are able to go on that journey, but it does need support. We encourage the Government to think about putting a really thorough programme of digital inclusion alongside the implementation of the single patient record, to support older people, people with long-term conditions, people with learning disabilities and other conditions who might need extra help and support to access the NHS app. There is a risk here of people being excluded, but also an opportunity for inclusion.

Mrs B, in Lincolnshire, was helped by Age UK Lincolnshire. She was a carer to her husband, who has had a stroke; she had a home visit from the local Age UK and they were able to set up the NHS app for her. She said she would not have been able to do that without that extra help and support.

[Dr Johnson]

Q As a Lincolnshire MP, I am delighted to know that that is operating, if not necessarily in my constituency, then certainly in the county. I have a question for Kath: how does the single patient record apply to maternity in terms of safeguarding and access to that sort of information? As an aside, this Bill allows the Secretary of State to set targets. How would you see that working in maternity care?

Kath Abrahams: On digital exclusion, the same risks apply, although there is a different age demographic. If you have somebody who has a particular disability, has English as a second language, or has difficulty reading, we need to ensure that alongside the single patient record we are not excluding people without meaning to. Having said that, there are real opportunities to reduce inequities as a result of this change, such as by ensuring that everyone’s information is there, and that people do not have to retell their story if they find it difficult to speak to their clinician.

What the single patient record will not do is solve all the problems found in the national maternity and neonatal investigation. An action plan will come out of that investigation, and it must be looked at really seriously. A single patient record does not replace compassionate care or somebody really being looked after well, but it can potentially provide a safer environment—I am very happy to go into detail on that.

The national maternity ambitions have expired, but we are pushing very hard for them to be restated. There is potentially an opportunity to use the data at a broader level to measure progress. If it was possible to use the single patient record to understand how things were going towards improvement, that could be very helpful.

[Karin Smyth]

Q I will follow on from Dr Johnson’s questions. You have all expressed support for the single patient record, which is great, but that is not universal. Obviously, the Bill has to be enacted for that measure to go forward. It would be helpful to hear about your current experiences in your different areas—older people, maternity and carers. Your examples gave a bit more detail on why not to have this, Ms Abrahams—let us not assume, because although the process of the Bill is to make this happen, we have heard some concerns today from people who do not want that. What is happening in your world that this will help with?

Kath Abrahams: Right now, the situation is really tricky and people are being failed in their pregnancy and maternity care. Women report constantly having to retell their story—highly sensitive or traumatic experiences of loss—and that repetition can happen across the early pregnancy unit and maternity services. There is a common misconception that the NHS is one system, so when they find that people in another bit of the system do not know something, that can be really frustrating and annoying, because they assume that it exists.

There is also a lack of continuity. A clinician can be completely unaware of a sensitive or traumatic experience that somebody has had, and there can also be genuine dangers in outcomes. We know from the reports into Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury and Telford that the lack of joined-up sharing of information and good communication between different parts of the system has led to some really difficult outcomes, particularly if somebody also has gestational diabetes, for example, or another condition and they are taking a particular medication that could cause harm to an unborn baby.

There are lots of situations in which not having the complete history is preventing people from getting not only really good, compassionate care, but the safe care they need. If someone is in an emergency situation and they are bleeding out, or their baby is not moving as much as they should, there is not time to start from scratch; they might not be in a position to explain what is happening to them and what their history is. They might not even know all the relevant bits of their history. Having that complete record, if it was done really well, would give clinicians the information that would allow them to make really timely decisions. Maternity can often be high risk—I do not need to say that to you; you know that—but these are often fast-moving situations where time is absolutely of the essence.

Emily Holzhausen: To build on what I said earlier about the amount of co-ordination and admin that people do, I will just refer to some carers’ words. One said that if they had to phone, they would end up in a long waiting queue or having to travel to the GP in person. There are people juggling work and care, so this has real, everyday impacts on their lives and their time.

When I refer to errors, I mean things such as medication errors or diagnosis errors. When you care for someone with very complex conditions, you can have health appointments every week—sometimes twice a week—and it is so hard to stay on top of it. When I say it is so hard, and talk about unpaid carers, we know that caring is a social determinant of health: in itself it is a single factor for poorer health outcomes. We know that 600 people a day give up work to care.

We have done a report on the tipping point: what tips carers out of work? One such thing is social care; another is how they are treated in the health system. If we reduce the pressure on carers and put information at their fingertips to help them to manage care, we improve outcomes for everybody: the health and wellbeing of the carer and the safety of the person that they care for. People are trying to do their best in quite a difficult situation.

One of our members, Norman Phillips, has talked about that a lot. He was in contact with more than 24 professionals, knitting up care around his wife who had advanced multiple sclerosis and dementia. That is an incredible amount of co-ordination of care. You can see how a single patient record, as it is envisaged in the future, could really help to support people who provide care. It is critical, given that we have an ageing population, that we recognise and support families in what they do.

Paul Farmer: I would start by talking about people with long-term conditions. Let us bear in mind that by the time we are 65, 82% of us will have one long-term condition, and half of people aged 70-plus have more than one long-term condition. Most of those long-term conditions are diagnosed within primary care, but of course they have a huge impact on access to secondary care services. For a clinician not to be able to see that whole picture and for the individual to have to explain again and again their physical health issues, and potentially their comorbid mental health issues, creates a huge challenge for people in getting access to the right help and support in a timely manner.

I would build on that to think about two areas that particularly affect older people: frailty and dementia. In this context, we know that assessment for frailty can make a big difference to ensuring people receive the right kind of help and support. That should be done in primary care, but often, sadly, people with frailty will present in hospital with a range of conditions. Understanding the frailty assessment score and what help and support is needed is key. For people with dementia and their family carers, having access to the right information for the clinician and for the individual concerned can make a huge difference. A disjointed experience just exacerbates what can often be a very challenging time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you all for joining us. Again, I apologise for the disruption.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I should say that I also work as an NHS consultant paediatrician. The single patient record offers a great opportunity for doctors, clinicians and patients to all be much more joined up, but I have a quote from the Secretary of State on Second Reading:

“rather than data being transferred from where it exists at the moment to a new system, it will remain where it is—in GP surgeries, hospitals and so on—but it will be linked up so that one person, including the patient, can see all that data”.—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 890.]

How easily will that work in practice? In the trust that I work in, we have different systems for blood results, results, tracking patient appointments, maternity and A&E. Is it realistic to expect someone to be able to log on from one part of the country and to understand all the different systems in all the other parts of the country, or do you think that it needs to work in a different way?

Dr Imam: About a month ago, we published some NHS England guidance on best practice for frailty. Included in that are examples of shared care records, where people who are living with frailty who have been assessed by health services can actually view one record. The way those work is to take information from multiple different records and place it into one shared care record, in order for clinicians from various different backgrounds and multidisciplinary teams to work together.

[Dr Johnson]

That would be moving it on to a new system.

Dr Imam: That is in a separate shared care records system.

Dr Byrne: As I understand it, the architecture is not yet decided, so how we solve those technical challenges will be determined by the choice of architecture.

Dr Cocker: Similarly, I believe that the technical solution for how that will be delivered has not been finalised. When we did the maternity-based pilot in the north-west, the wireframe prototype that was developed pulled information from all the separate systems—the maternity system, the hospital central electronic patient record system, the GP system. The pilot was based on pulling it from each individual system into one place where it can be viewed, but that is a future aim. The focus is on phased implementation, so it would not all be immediately available like that, but that is the vision.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Of course, it would need to be viewable across the whole country for people who travel around. What about the security of this data? Lots of people have expressed concerns about the security of the data, both from people who are a bit nosey and who want to have a look, and from people who would wish to do the country harm, hacking large volumes of data. How do we keep it safe?

Dr Cocker: That is a pertinent question. I know that that has been the focus of a lot of concern since the Bill was publicised. I believe that the structure of the SPR would be recognised as a critical national infrastructure-type of project, so it would have access to more resource to protect it. But there will always be inherent risk, when you have something centralised, that it is a single target rather than multiple targets that could be attacked—for example, in a cyber-attack.

Role-based access would be important—for example, having an understanding that the information should be accessed only for the provision of clinical care. How it would be delivered on a technical level would have to be finalised; that was not the type of the prototyping work we did, because it was more about a proof of concept than those more minute technical challenges.

Dr Byrne: I am glad that Dr Cocker took that question first, because he has given you a helpful technical answer. As National Data Guardian, my mission and concern is primarily around public and professional trust. Trust in whether this system can be relied on in terms of people’s confidentiality is something that concerns me very much, as well as people’s trust and confidence in secondary purposes, how the system will be used and what the safeguards around it will be. I would be happy to answer from that perspective when it comes to people’s confidence.

I think you have heard a lot about the potential benefits of this system, but it is important to bear in mind that if people do not trust it, the programme will fail, however great the potential benefits are. As a clinician, I would share the excitement, and I am very supportive of the ambition, but people will not trust it if they perceive the risks to the security of their data and confidentiality to be too great.

With that in mind, I want to draw attention to two things that concern trust. I want to emphasise that trust is not simply important—I know that the word “trust” has come up repeatedly today—but absolutely foundational to the success of this. The question about how demonstrably trustworthy the system is should be the primary foundational question; all other questions, including the technical ones, flow from that one question.

On the confidentiality aspect, I think there is a provision under clause 47 that potentially has very significant unintended consequences. I understand that that is not the intention of the drafting, but I have concerns about it and I have a potential solution to suggest. In clause 47, proposed new section 250E(3) creates the power for the Secretary of State to remove the duty of confidentiality for any processing in the SPR in line with regulations. I need to register my concern about that wholesale lifting of the duty of confidentiality from the entire system.

At a system level, there are two risks. One is to patient and professional confidence in the confidentiality of the data once it is accessed or in a system. Confidentiality is absolutely the cornerstone of all clinician-patient relationships. It means that people are comfortable to share the most sensitive information about themselves and often loved ones—it is not just information about ourselves on our records; it is often also information about our loved ones. If people do not trust that that confidentiality is a constant ethical constraint for anyone accessing the record further on, they may be less able to share information about themselves or their loved ones. Clinicians may also be less likely to document that information if they have ethical concerns about who may access it further on if it is particularly sensitive. That will negatively impact on care and the quality of data for any secondary purposes in future.

The second point I will make about that confidentiality provision is that I understand that the drafting intent is to remove any ambiguity in terms of people’s concerns about duty of confidence when allowing access to their data at an organisational level. However, as currently drafted, the provision could be interpreted to remove the duty of confidentiality for not just direct care but secondary purposes. Secondary purposes in future could be dealt with by regulations. That lack of clarity poses a risk.

The solution I suggest is to redraft that provision, drawing on the precedent already set in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Section 259 prevents disclosure of data from an organisation from being a breach, so people could allow access at an organisational level with confidence. You have removed that ambiguity, but it does not remove wholesale that duty of confidence—that ethical safeguard for the data in the system itself. I think that that is important for people’s own direct care, and, as I said, it is particularly important if there are any questions around secondary uses in future.

Dr Imam: That was a comprehensive answer; I have nothing to add.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Does it surprise you that the Bill is being brought forward before it has been properly and completely designed? We have tabled some amendments to clause 47; I appreciate that you will not have had a chance to look at those yet, but we would be interested in your thoughts if you could provide them to the Committee afterwards.

We keep hearing that it is difficult for people to have to repeat their story. I understand that stories can be traumatic and repeating them can be unpleasant, particularly if it must be done many times, but is there sometimes a clinical value in asking people to go through their story? If so, what is it?

Dr Imam: My specialty is frailty, which is a medical condition characterised by a loss of independence. Although it is associated with ageing, it is not an inevitable part of ageing. The treatment that I deliver as a clinician is called a comprehensive geriatric assessment. It is evidence-based and we know that it improves patient outcomes and maintains independence. What it describes is a multidisciplinary team approach to a holistic assessment that focuses on what matters most to the patient.

One of the issues that we have right now, however, is that the NHS does not consistently identify people who are living with frailty right across the system from community to hospital. If we are identifying people and diagnosing them with a condition, you would expect treatment options to be offered, yet we do not consistently do that across the country. That is essentially driving ineffective and inefficient care. Sometimes, therefore, when a crisis sets in—we have seen this in other reports around corridor care—that can ensue in older people living with frailty.

In my day job, where I look after people in a busy A&E department, I see people who have may have had a fall or become confused, or where there has been a breakdown in their social situation. My practitioners and I are spending hours trying to piece together information from multiple different sources. Those could be paper-based, digital or telephone—we could be trying to phone people to get up-to-date information. As you can imagine, sometimes they do not pick up the phone, so we are sometimes working from incomplete information and things that are not up to date.

Once we have done that, we try to create a care plan for a patient that allows them to be looked after in the community. However, that care plan may not follow the patient, because everyone uses different electronic patient record systems. Some important partners in that care, like social care or ambulance services, cannot actually see the care plan that I have developed for my patient.

Unfortunately, if a patient with frailty then succumbs to a crisis of some kind, the default setting is, in many cases, to trigger an admission to hospital. If a patient does not need to be in a hospital environment and they are frail, they can end up becoming more frail and weak, and lose their independence. That means that they will need even more social care than would otherwise have been required.

Where the solution comes in is that a nationally rolled-out single patient record system could fundamentally reshape this form of care, because we would be moving it from the fragmented, reactive model that I just described to one that is proactive, co-ordinated and truly centred around a patient. Another thing about frailty is that there are so many different people involved in that person’s care, so we need to try to restore the continuity of care for that type of patient, which has become eroded over time. The SPR addresses that with a single up-to-date view of a patient. It enables earlier risk identification, faster clinical decision making and that whole-system integrated response I have been describing, which is lacking at the moment.

There is often duplication; one of the other issues is that assessing patients in this manner can take a long period of time—up to two and a half hours is often quoted by the British Geriatrics Society. You can imagine that if you had an electronic record that could be auto-populated or could rely on the most recent, up-to-date plan done by someone else, that would avoid reassessment as we would be working from contemporaneous information.

Over time, you can see how, for frailty and many other conditions, that could lead to a more preventive approach that is more community based, that reduces the need for admissions, and that provides a better overall experience for staff and patients. Importantly, there needs to be a shift towards neighbourhood working on frailty, and this allows the multidisciplinary team to work towards one plan. You have also heard today about patient voice and carer voice, and this type of care plan also gives them the opportunity to become partners in looking after themselves.

Dr Cocker: The brief answer to the original question would be that communicating and getting a history from a patient are the cornerstone of the patient-doctor relationship. I do not think that the SPR is ever intended to replace that. Where I see its value within maternity, although I am sure that this is the same across all specialties, is that it would form a reliable means of cross-referencing information and being able to get information that—as we have alluded to previously—is often held on many separate systems. As a clinician, you will often not have the ability or the credentials to access that.

For example, in maternity care at my trust we use a certain piece of software. If you do not work in maternity, although you might be able to get generic access to it, you might not be able to navigate that system. The idea of the SPR is that it would pull out those key bits regarding current concerns about the pregnancy or what follow up has been arranged—all those kinds of things. That would not rely on the ability to use lots of different systems; instead, the information would be available. If there is information that requires cross-referencing or checking, it would also give you the ability to do that rather than replacing the process of taking a history and working out what is wrong with someone.

Dr Byrne: It is a terrific question. Healthcare is a relationship; it is not simply a transaction of facts. At its best, it is a working relationship between a clinician and a patient, but that is also why it is so hard sometimes. Our stories are a combination of two things: the facts and the interpretation of those facts. We heard a moving example earlier of someone saying that they had had five miscarriages and those facts were then not known and how distressing it was that they were not. That is a good example of why getting the facts from conversation to conversation could be really helpful.

Our life story changes over time, however, as does the interpretation that comes up in a conversation. As a doctor in the moment with a patient, I am sometimes as interested in what they are choosing not to tell me at a particular time as what they are choosing to tell me. For all of us, the story changes and is fluid. I think that is a potentially helpful distinction to make.

[Karin Smyth]

Q My questions around the benefits that you might see have been really well answered, so I will not go back to that issue. Dr Cocker and Dr Imam, in your work on maternity and frailty, what early lessons have you picked up on how this might work for you?

Dr Cocker: Having seen the maternity-focused prototype that NHS England developed in the north-west, we learned that it is technically difficult because there are lots of systems. There needs to be a level of interoperability that allows you to pull the data or it is not going to be much use as a reliable system.

The other thing was about trying to ensure that we design those systems for the patients most in need. That might be social or medical need, and there are many different facets to that. That was one of the other challenges. A lot of the focus went into trying to determine a set of theoretical patients who were very high need, and ensuring that you have encompassed all those possible needs, so that if you design the systems for those in most need, they will cater for as many people as possible.

Dr Imam: To expand on Dr Cocker’s point about the identification of problems, people living with frailty often have multiple under-identified issues. In the prototype we have been shown, the SPR has the potential to analyse the wealth of data on a person and summarise it in a manner that makes sense to the clinician logged into the record. It can also piece together a timeline of what has been happening with a person.

As I said earlier, we often follow a manual process to try to understand what has been going on recently for a person. The SPR will not only enable the automation of that process, but give us the ability to know who the key individuals involved in that person’s care are, so when that person is in a crisis or emergency situation, we know exactly who to call and who the last person to touch the patient was.

There are other important functions. It is not only about sharing information across an entire pathway and having the whole-system approach that I described—from community to hospital, and vice versa. Importantly, many people living with frailty require multiple different referrals and the involvement of multiple different people in their care. The SPR will be able to streamline some of those processes and make recommendations for certain referrals that a clinician, who, under an earlier version, would have logged into the record, may not have otherwise thought about, so it may even improve outcomes for patients by providing solutions to improve their care that we would not have come up with otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley]

Q I would love to amend the figures in my bank account—I would like to be able to go into my Lloyds bank account and add a nought to the end of the balance figure—but I cannot, because the bank controls that. But I am the one who has access to the data.

Dr Byrne: I totally support that ambition. Patients and the public having more agency in their care, strengthening that relationship, and them being able to access their information through the NHS app is a great thing. That is hugely helpful, and there is real potential with the SPR to strengthen that. We have landed on agreement.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Do you have any thoughts on the separation of elements of the record such as safeguarding records and sexual health records? We have heard about carers being able to see parts of the record. Surely there are circumstances where we may want people to see parts of the record but not others, or people may wish to share some parts and not others. Are you aware of any provision being made for that?

Dr Byrne: At the moment, I think it is too early to say. Those are absolutely important questions that will have to be addressed in the design. At the moment, I am not sure how the programme intends to deal with those questions, but clinically, that needs to be thought about. There are complications that need to be thought about very carefully in terms of the record and the access. Sometimes that is clinically complicated, but I am not aware of what the plans are for that.

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you. You are nodding, Dr Cocker.

Dr Cocker: I was just going to say that we did do some exploratory work in relation to safeguarding, because that is quite a key part of safe maternity care, but because of the issues with confidentiality for other involved parties—say, a mother’s partner or someone else in the family—and the risk of that information being pulled through to someone else’s single patient record, it was felt that we could not include any information that contained information about anyone else. That aspect has been considered, but as Dr Byrne said, it would need careful consideration of all those different sources and whether there would be any option to change what feeds in. The only one I am aware of that we have looked at specifically was safeguarding, and it was primarily due to confidentiality issues for other involved parties.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Presumably, the obstetrician may need to be aware of previous pregnancies, but the patient may not want their current partner to know about them.

Dr Cocker: Yes, and those are concerns with the existing systems. There are multiple sources of information we record on a clinician-facing basis that might be deemed sensitive or confidential that are not available from a patient-facing perspective. It might be sexually transmitted infections or previous pregnancy history that a mother does not want someone else to be able to access on the patient-facing aspect of the record. Being able to provide that is very important in realising the end product of the SPR.

[The Chair]

Dr Byrne, Dr Imam and Dr Cocker, thank you very much indeed for your patience and for affording us the benefit of your experience and wisdom. The Committee is most grateful to you.

Examination of Witness

Jon Restell gave evidence.

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Managers in Partnership. We have until we have exhausted ourselves—I will say that for the moment—for this session. Would you be kind enough to introduce yourself for the record?

Jon Restell: I am Jon Restell, the chief executive of Managers in Partnership.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Good afternoon, Mr Restell. When the NHS has been reorganised in the past, it has become more centralised or less centralised. Which do you think this Bill does?

Jon Restell: There are lots of different ways to answer that. Obviously, some functions of NHS England moving into the Department, with powers going to the Secretary of State, feels like a centralising measure. I know that the ambition of Government is to give local NHS bodies more freedom and autonomy, but the Bill is very careful and goes into a lot of detail to leave powers with the Secretary of State to intervene in the running of those local bodies. On the whole, it is probably more of a centralising measure.

Another way that some changes outside the Bill process are centralising is through the merger of ICBs and, arguably, quite a lot of providers. Whereas before you might have two or three ICBs covering an area, you now have half the staff covering much bigger geographies. I would argue that that centralises decision making to a higher level than formerly.

[Dr Johnson]

Q What effect is that having on managers and their ability to do the day job and deliver care? Presumably, a lot of time, effort and energy, and perhaps a lot of worry, are going into the process of reorganisation. What effect does that have on the delivery of services and the development of new ones?

Jon Restell: This, for us, is the crux of what is going on. The Bill is the Bill, but there is a finite management resource in the health service. I think that, internationally, it is considered to be quite low. Certainly, Lord Darzi, the Institute for Government and Institute for Fiscal Studies have all pointed to a shortage of management being one of the potential weaknesses of the NHS, so what is going on right now is knocking another big hole in an already limited resource of managers in the health service. That has the potential to create very large workloads for people in the new system, such that, inevitably, certain things will not get done or will not get done well enough. It certainly feels like we have gone into an environment where we are cutting a management cost without thinking about the management capability the health service needs to innovate, deliver reform, and do basic safety and resource management.

[Dr Johnson]

Q That does not sound very good. The Government said that they were going to regulate NHS managers. What impact do you think that would have?

Jon Restell: Our members have been on a bit of a journey on this one. I think that they would broadly support the regulatory proposals that the Government will bring forward after the consultation. I think the real impacts will be very limited, covering a relatively small number of people and being used in very exceptional circumstances, so I do not think that they will transform management culture and deal with the management capability issue we have. They are a very personal form of professional regulation that will have very limited impact.

[Dr Johnson]

Q We have heard a lot today about things not being quite finalised yet; we are not quite sure where the destination is. Is it difficult for managers to be asked to transform from a current service to a new service if there is no well explained vision and understanding of what “new” looks like?

Jon Restell: That is probably driving most of the anxiety and uncertainty that people are experiencing, and it is why, for some members, this is becoming psychologically very difficult. You have a change programme that started in March last year with the announcement by the Prime Minister of the abolition of NHS England and the halving of the staff of NHS England and ICBs. For 18 months, that process has dragged on, with lots of design decisions still to be taken about how the organisation will look, what functions it will have, what will be going to the Department and what might be going elsewhere, and what will potentially go to trusts from ICBs and from ICBs to regions. Despite all that uncertainty, people are being told to make decisions about voluntary redundancy and the future where they do not understand where that future potentially sits for them. That is undoubtedly driving a lot of people to feel psychologically unwell and distressed, and they are leaving. People are beginning to leave, because they need to protect themselves.

There is another part to this. Obviously, that is a very personal issue for our members, but the other thing is that they are really worried about the service to the public, the safety of the changes and what will happen to various functions that they are responsible for, if teams get halved and responsibilities are taken to a higher level in that more centralised model.

For example, we have a lot of members working in ICBs who have really hands-on roles in the care of individual children, particularly where providers fail. Those kinds of concern are not being properly addressed in terms of risk and continuity of service to those people. We are going to survey our members—we will share the results with the Committee—in the next week or so about what specifically is worrying them about the way that change is being managed. With due respect to the Minister, this was all announced without a plan, and we are now waiting for a plan to emerge, 18 months into the process.

[Dr Johnson]

Q We do not have a plan of where we are going, but you have been asked to go somewhere.

Jon Restell: Obviously, we have the 10-year health plan, which most people broadly see as a good vision for the service, but there are too many key design questions around the new department, the role of the department’s regions, what ICBs will be doing and what trusts will take on as part of this reorganisation. Behind it, there is a lot of capacity and resource organisational memory being taken out of the system.

We do not talk nearly enough about the work of the commissioning support units staff, who are providing internal consultancy and a huge range of business services to the health service, including overseeing child immunisation programmes in some cases. It is really unclear what the future of those functions is. We are taking out a lot of staff who have skills, expertise, organisational memory and commitment, but we do not quite know yet what the precise form of those organisations will be. It is a very difficult change to manage.

[Karin Smyth]

Q It is always good to have a doctor from the NHS supporting managers in the NHS, having been one. I declared my interest earlier that I am a member of Managers in Partnership.

We had a lot of change with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the Bill seeks to reverse that in terms of the architecture of the NHS. We absolutely appreciate as a Government that that is very difficult for staff working in it. I appreciate that the operating model and so on is coming forward, but could you say a bit about people’s feelings about the Bill? There will be more clarity to the centre and the role of providers is not changing, while the real change is around commissioning functions and, as you said, commissioning support organisations. We heard earlier that everything is being reorganised. That is not true, but there is a big change in the geography and the functions of ICBs and commissioners, and the Secretary of State’s role will clearly be different. What might people’s approach to that be?

Jon Restell: Clarity, definitely. No one wants to start with the system that came in in 2011 and 2012. Successive Governments started to correct it almost as soon as it was put in place. I think most people would welcome sorting out the clarity around commissioning there, but I do not think that is the same thing as cutting 50% of those organisations’ staff and running costs. You are clarifying the relationship between the centre and ICBs, commissioning and providers. You still need enough managers with enough skills working in the right system to deliver. That is the nub of what we are doing.

For us it is not really about how the Bill will eventually pan out; it is about the cut and how that is being administered by NHS England, the Department and ICBs. The whole system of management is under strain across the health service. You say that providers are not changing but they are also being asked to take out quite significant amounts of management resource. They are merging to form bigger, potentially more centralised units that may be less responsive and less innovative. I think that organisational form is really important, even if the headline of the Bill might tidy up and clarify those relationships, which would be welcome.

A point made by a lot of members, particularly those in ICBs, is that they do not think that the model design—where we started with ICBs, then went to regions and we are eventually going to get to the target operating model for the Department—is being done at a time where you can see the proper connections that need to be made between those organisations. When the system is up and running, how well will it work together to share information, share risk and so on? It feels like the Bill is very high level and the detailed design of the organisations is being undertaken in a completely fragmented way. People see that as potentially requiring the next round of reorganisation. You are a former NHS manager, Minister; you know how often reorganisation is reached for as the solution. I genuinely feel that people have got to the point where enough is enough. That kind of continual change will create more and more problems for doing the things that the public actually want to see: innovation, improvement in the quality of service and happier staff—all the things that managers should be focused on, not the merry-go-round of organisational change.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We shall now hear oral evidence from Sir Andrew Dilnot. Sir Andrew, for the benefit of the record, could you identify yourself, please?

Sir Andrew Dilnot: I am Andrew Dilnot; it is great to be here.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Good afternoon. Social care is one area that is absent from this Bill. To what extent is it possible to make the health service more efficient without tackling problems in adult social care?

Sir Andrew Dilnot: It is largely absent from the Bill—indeed, when I was asked to come and give evidence to this Committee, I was initially somewhat puzzled, since it is so largely absent. The question you ask is absolutely to the point: certainly, we can improve the efficiency of the NHS without doing anything about social care, but we cannot really address many of the fundamental problems facing the NHS if we do not sort out social care.

That is partly because not having a good social care system means that we are not achieving the levels of human flourishing that are the objective of the health service and the social care system. It is also the case that the social care system is now under such pressure that it is leading to direct challenges for the NHS. We hear a lot about delayed transfers of care, which are an important part of this, but it is not just those; it is people who end up needing healthcare because they have not had appropriate social care support.

The short answer to your question is that we can make the NHS a bit more efficient without reforming the social care system; but until we address social care we have at least two hands, and probably one foot, tied behind our back. It seems pretty astonishing to me that we have a 10-year NHS plan but no real plan for social care.

[Dr Johnson]

Q We have heard evidence today that the Bill weakens links between local authority working and the ICB. Does that help social care, or could that actually make it worse?

Sir Andrew Dilnot: I would not claim to be expert here, but I have read the Bill and the briefings. The role of local authorities in social care is a very interesting one. If we were to stand way back and honestly answer the question, “Why is social care managed by local authorities at the moment?”, we would say, “Because it was forgotten in 1948, when the rest of the modern welfare state was created.” At that stage, social care was a pretty small activity, and it was just left with local authorities. What has happened since then is that it has grown and grown, and it is now putting enormous strain on at least many local authorities.

I think we should draw a clear distinction in something that is definitely appropriate—that is, care being provided within a local context. The kind of care that is appropriate in Camden will be different to the type of care that is appropriate in the highlands of Scotland. Local delivery seems relevant, but whether local financing makes sense in 2026 is a very big question. That is the context.

On its own, it is hard to see the potential reduction in the role of local authorities in ICBs making things better. It will not necessarily make things significantly worse, but I do not think it will help local authorities and the NHS in trying to integrate these two essentially non-integrated functions.

[Karin Smyth]

Q As you say, the Bill does not deal with social care, but it is great to have your expertise here. Do you think the Bill should or could have included social care at this stage?

Sir Andrew Dilnot: The question of the fine details of how legislation should be passed is certainly outside my skillset, so I have to be agnostic about whether the Bill should have addressed the wider questions of social care. On the question of whether we could address social care or not, the answer is definitely yes. After all, several Governments over the last few years have promised to do so. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when he was the shadow Secretary of State during the election two years ago, promised that he would do it. Such measures have received Royal Assent twice, but they have still not taken place, even though they were promised by the then shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, before he became the Secretary of State.

Yes, we definitely could do it. The amounts of money involved, while of course significant, are small relative to the aggregate costs of the NHS or the uplift in spending on the NHS that, with my full support, we have seen in the last couple of years. I think it is a genuine puzzle and a black mark for all of us, including me, that all these years have gone by and we have done nothing. We have a social care system that is supported by millions of wonderful informal carers and about 1.5 million formal carers, benefiting hundreds of thousands of people, but it is creaking under intolerable strain. It really makes no sense to me, and I really do not know why or how we have managed to go for so long without addressing it. We should do so, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is now so bad that it is doing direct, instrumental damage to the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Q Hospital pressures on the Isle of Wight are particularly severe, and part of the way of dealing with so-called corridor care is for the hospital and local authority to look at discharging some frail patients to the mainland, including those living with dementia, which is plainly not a solution by anyone’s normal interpretation. Is there anything in this Bill, notwithstanding that it does not deal with the fundamental problems of social care, not only that can help to resolve those sorts of situations, but that could help to resolve them if it went a little further? I am looking for opportunities to use the Bill to try to do a little more in and around discharge and social care.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: That is a very good question, to which I do not have a very immediate answer. Well, I do have an immediate answer, which is that, as far as I can see, it is nothing very substantial.

The single patient record offers some prospects here, and it is terribly important for people receiving social care, which again reflects how much longer we are living. There is much more multiple morbidity now. Many of the people who can and are benefiting from social care will have quite complicated medical experiences and histories. That is the kind of group that could particularly benefit from a single patient record, so that we are not having inappropriate prescription and so on. That is going to help, but it will be a second-order issue.

Let me be very blunt. There are two fundamental challenges facing the social care system. The first is that the means-tested bit of it, where we say, “If you don’t have any resources of your own, the state will look after you,” must be a minimum for any humane society. Essentially every year for at least the last decade, the Treasury has announced emergency funding for that in year. That money then does not get spent well. Honestly, if you are announcing an emergency package every year for 10 years, it is not an emergency package. You should wake up, pay attention, have a mature response and fund that system properly. That is the minimum.

The second is that the only big risk we all face that is not pooled is social care. Our risk of healthcare is pooled by the state, our risk of having a car accident or our house burning down is pooled by private insurance. This is the one risk that is not pooled, and the reason is that the state does not, and the private sector cannot. The reason the private sector cannot is that it is too far ahead for a private insurance market to deal with it, so only the state can pool the risk. If there is any area where the case for social insurance is absolutely clear, it is social care; the case is even more powerful in social care than it is in health.

At the moment we have a situation where often people will feel that the best thing that can happen to them, if they think they might have a social care need, is that they die before too long. It is a bit like standing in the middle of the road with a lorry driving towards you and hoping that the best thing that might happen is that you die before it hits you. That is not a good way to be running any kind of society or country. Those challenges—the lack of adequate funding of the means-tested system and the lack of any risk pooling for the population as a whole—lead directly to the kind of experience that you are describing in the Isle of Wight, where there is simply excess demand and so we are trying to ship people across to the mainland. It is a reflection of the fundamental challenges that we have ignored for 35 years.

[Dr Johnson]

Q You have talked a lot about adult social care in terms of the very elderly and frail and people with dementia, but it also affects younger people. For example, Swallow Lodge, which is a facility for working-age adults in my constituency, is under threat of closure. I and others have made the arguments about how it is a lifeline that allows the families to have a break and the individuals using the service to flourish and enjoy life, but there is an economic argument too. How well do you think that is understood? Closing such a place could lead to higher costs for the NHS in mental health or physical health support, further social care admissions and the like.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: You are absolutely right to emphasise the importance of non-elderly adult social care, which is roughly half of all of the expenditure and growing. One reason that we see particular pressures in the elderly care sphere is that the less-elderly need has grown very dramatically, again because of the scope for increased human flourishing.

On the whole, as far as I can see, there is very little understanding of the integrated nature of these costs between social care and the NHS, so I think there is very little thinking in budgetary terms about the consequences of the squeeze on social care leading to increased expenditure and needs elsewhere in the NHS. That is not easy to resolve. Moving to a system that properly integrates those trade-offs will be difficult, and it requires a different sort of funding regime, but while we do not, those costs exist. My sense is that they are second order at the national level, but where they are certainly not second order is for the individuals concerned and their families, for whom this kind of thing is an eruption of anxiety and grief, in the context that families are already under pressures that most of us would find hard to imagine.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed, Sir Andrew, for affording us the benefit of your considerable knowledge in this area, and thank you again for your patience. We are most grateful to you.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: Thank you. I am delighted that you are thinking about social care in the context of this Bill.

Examination of Witness

Karin Smyth gave evidence.

[The Chair]

Minister, for the sake of the record, would you identify yourself, please?

Karin Smyth: I am Karin Smyth, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Minister, you have previously said:

“The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 809.]

In response to a written question this week, though, which asked what assessment you have made of the disruption of development of new services caused by the abolition of NHS England, you said:

“The abolition of NHS England is causing no disruption to the development of new services.”

I wonder which of those statements you agree with the most and whether you want to change your mind in the light of any of the evidence you have heard today.

Karin Smyth: I do not know exactly what year you are quoting from, but I am happy to take that full on. Of course, change, reorganisations and changes in legislation have consequences at different times depending on what they are. That will determine changes to some services at local level.

I think that quote probably relates to the 2012 changes, which, as I have often said, brought me into Parliament. The entire infrastructure of the health service was destroyed and changed in order to bring forward that legislation. I can never find anybody—I think I have heard Lord Lansley say this—who thinks that was a good thing. I am very happy to say that part of the rationale was the fact that, despite lots of warnings about the damage to that infrastructure, that lesson was not learned. We will not go through the history of the passage of that Act. It even had to be paused mid-way through to enact other ways of making things work.

I am sure that you will come back in your second question to decisions about some of the provisions in this Bill. It is true, and a matter of record, that as an incoming Government we did not intend to abolish NHS England as an organisation; in our determination to change the outcomes of the health service, that decision was made some eight months into our being in government. Today, we have not heard a single person suggest that that decision is wrong. Dr Johnson is from the Opposition. The Bill was not opposed in principle on Second Reading. There is overwhelming consensus on the major provision in the Bill—the abolition of NHS England—and on the single patient record.

I am mindful, on a personal level, of the consequences for individual people’s jobs and of trying to get that right. I accept much of the criticism from Mr Restell about how it would be better to do it much more quickly, and about making sure that it is done in a different way, but the consequences of abolishing NHS England are some of the things that we are seeing.

[Dr Johnson]

Q May I press you on the answer to my first question before I move on to the next? In the light of what you have heard today, do you want to correct your statement this week, in response to a written question, that the abolition of NHS England is “causing no disruption”—yes or no?

Karin Smyth: In terms of service delivery—I think the written question was about delivering services— I stand by that.

[Dr Johnson]

Q My next question is about the vision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston spoke earlier about his reforms of the past, and there was a coherent vision to those, but today we have heard that there is not really a plan. On the single patient record and other aspects of the Bill, lots of decisions have yet to be made. You are asking people to move from here to there without specifying where “there” is. Is this ready? Are you trying to get to a landing place that you understand as a coherent vision, or are you just trying to unpick things that somebody did before and that you did not like?

Karin Smyth: Do you mean the future state of ICBs?

[Dr Johnson]

No, I mean the system as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston spoke earlier about how ICBs were designed to link in with upper-tier local authorities, and he gave a reason why. Under these reforms, Lincolnshire ICB, which was part of a mayoral authority, will now link in with Derbyshire and with Nottinghamshire, which are part of another mayoral authority but not a complete mayoral authority. You have things jumbled up. I wonder whether that is because, rather than having a vision, you have started to unpick somebody else’s work because you did not like it. Likewise, with the single patient record, we have heard that lots of necessary decisions were not made before the Bill was introduced, so people are being asked to deliver things that have not been properly considered. Is that fair?

Karin Smyth: I think they are two separate things. On the provision made in the Bill, abolishing NHS England brings with it a lot of technical detail to ensure that the legal responsibilities and duties are placed, rightly, on the Secretary of State and into ICBs. It clarifies the landscape on very technical matters such as licences and foundation trusts, and there is a large chunk of detail on the consequences of abolishing NHS England.

Alongside that, there is a move to give ICBs a larger footprint, in parallel with the Government’s agenda on devolution. I accept that that is a lot of change in all our constituencies and for all our areas. We are making sure that we make the most of mayoral authorities to allow mayors to be on ICBs, as they are largely determiners of a lot of economic development, transport and indeed the wider determinants of health. We are still going through some of that change; you will recently have been written to for your views on it as local Members of Parliament, along with local government. We need to make sure that that is embedded as quickly as possible so that we can stabilise that side of the system.

On the single patient record, the Bill will provide enabling powers to bring it forward in regulations. There will be further detailed consultation both with clinicians and with patients and the public, as we have heard, because building trust is critical. That will come next, which is usual in parliamentary terms: as legislators we understand that primary legislation makes provision and secondary legislation sets out regulation. I thought Dr Byrne was very helpful earlier on the point about bringing public trust with us and explaining the two stages of bringing this forward.

[Dr Johnson]

Q We have heard a lot about independence: the independence of HSSIB, its ability to independently investigate and independently recommend, and Healthwatch’s ability to independently describe patient voice without interference from those whose homework it is marking. Do you have any reflections on the Bill and what it contains in the light of what you have heard?

Karin Smyth: There is a fundamental philosophical, and perhaps political, difference in the approach that this Government are taking compared with what has gone before, in terms of the notion of responsibility and accountability for both commissioning and delivering services, and the position of independence. We talked earlier today about perception and reality.

The system has not worked. To my earlier question— I think I said this on Second Reading—we have had what is called an independent voice in some of these bodies for over 50 years, and we have had numerous recommendations. I disagree with Jeremy Hunt on this. Under his stewardship of the new NHS England, we had a plethora of recommendations and new organisations, and layer upon layer of bureaucracy, totally remote from any kind of democratic accountability or oversight. That is not working, and I do not think that anybody is really defending that.

It is the job of the NHS—both providers and commissioners—to include patient voice and patient experience in their work. I think Ciarán Devane from the NHS Alliance said that getting boards right, in terms of their managerial, clinical and patient experience work, is their responsibility. Outsourcing lots of that work to other bodies has not worked, and I think it is outsourcing that responsibility. We have to make boards work at a local level; they have to step up to the plate, and I think they want to. They are certainly equipped to be able to do that—not taking into account that people will need some skilling in some of these areas. There is a debate to be had about independent organisations, and I think we will have a good debate on it in Committee.

As a final comment before you come back, this is a bit of a bugbear of mine, and perhaps as I am speaking on behalf of the Department I should not say it, but I will: none of my constituents are hard to reach—not a single one of them. We know exactly where they are; we largely know what is wrong with them; we largely know what their health outcomes are going to be; we know their ethnicity, demographics and so on. What are hard to reach are the remote organisations that have not served them well, and that is what we are determined to put right. Putting that right in this Bill is the start of doing that.

[Dr Johnson]

Q The question was really about trust, and how people can be trusting of figures. For example, with Healthwatch, if you internalise patient experience into an organisation, do people then trust you when you say that it has got better? They will have only their own experience and the experience of their own family to work on; that will be the lens through which they look at things. We know that the waiting list numbers have come down, and there is not widespread trust in those numbers, for all sorts of reasons. If the numbers for patient experience are governed by the Department of Health, or the ICBs themselves marking their own homework, will the public trust them? Whether they should trust them is one question, but will they trust them?

Karin Smyth: I will come back to the waiting lists, but you are absolutely right about trust. In saying that I expect this to be the board’s job, I think it is its job to get this right, and we need to support it to do that. We heard a bit from Penny Dash about the national quality board and the patient experience directorate inside the Department of Health and Social Care reporting directly to the chief executive and the permanent secretary. That has to be part of the wider architecture, which is of course outside the Bill, so we need to be able to tell that story to the wider public.

We know from all the recommendations, reviews and the support that we give as Members of Parliament to our constituents that trust is really important. Getting that right and bringing people on that journey with us will be really important. Independence helps with that, and that it is why it is good to debate it as we consider the Bill—it is good to be able to air some of it—but I think people accept that things are not working and have not been working.

I think your question about waiting lists is about the data and the information that says where we are at. It is really complex. To follow NHS England’s data, of which there is a lot—I commend the amount of data that is available—you need to be quite clever at spreadsheets, and at finding and articulating data, in order to bring it back to your own constituency and local place. These things are complex. It is complex to record, track and recognise how people move through a waiting list, for example.

It is good that we are transparent about that. One thing that I am keen to push out is data on performance in trusts. Making so-called league tables is controversial, but the more information that we have out there, and the more we have honest debates about how complex and difficult it is—I am happy to take your questions around how that moves in order to for us to explain that—the more that helps to build trust.

[Liz Twist]

Q Minister, we have talked a lot today about ICBs, the local government Healthwatch and the single patient record, and we have heard some interesting comments. Can you summarise why you believe it is important that we look at this legislation now?

Karin Smyth: I will come to the single patient record because I think it is a gamechanger. We have heard today from some fantastic experts about the work they are doing to identify how it might work and how we might bring patients and the public with us. Again— I do not think we should just bank this—we have not heard anybody object to it.

We did have some evidence highlighting how things have gone wrong in the past. I worked at a primary care trust and clinical commissioning group at the time when care.data was brought forward. We can all point to where it has gone wrong, but nobody has said that this is not the right thing to do. That is good, but there is still a lot of detail to go through.

We need to keep highlighting the benefits. We heard from Peter Prinsley about whether patients have more control—we do think this is about empowering patients. That was what we said in the 10-year plan. The 10-year plan is about empowering patients in this very large system, for which they are now paying £200 billion of their taxes.

We heard from the excellent clinical panel. I defer to clinicians about what they need, both if they are dealing with chronic long-term conditions—we heard that it can sometimes take two and a half hours for an assessment—or if they are working in a busy emergency department. The fact that this is needed will be controversial. There will be a lot of questions about it and a lot of concern about privacy, data, cyber and so on. We need to hold on to those benefits, which are huge in clinical terms and for patients.

Another point we heard, which is also true, is that people think this already happens. People do not understand why, when they turn up at an A&E in Whitby, as we heard, or somewhere else, and then go back to central London, the systems cannot talk to each other. For me, that is about people’s trust and belief in what is a public service. It is a really important part of that.

On abolishing NHS England, I do not think anyone has come to one of my constituency surgeries and said, “Please do this,” or talked about it in great detail, but people do understand. My experience in opposition and so far in government is that MPs are perplexed when they try to intervene on behalf of patients, or to get an answer locally as to why on earth chief executives of ICBs or trusts sometimes do not respond even to a Member of Parliament’s requests for meetings. I find that shocking, but it does happen. How on earth is a patient or somebody struggling through the system expected to get a response? Getting it right is not black and white, and it is not easy to get the balance right between the Secretary of State’s democratic oversight and autonomy at a local level, but the Bill starts the process of doing that, and it is fundamentally important.

Regarding the other provisions, I accept that great work has been done by many people in Healthwatch and its predecessor organisations, and by people working in the patient safety landscape, but again it is not working. I think that those bodies have been allowed to abdicate responsibility for the core role of patient experience and patient voice. That is not their homework; it is their actual job. It is not something that should be outside, and that is why I think this Bill is really important.

Health Bill (Third sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Clause 1 formally abolishes NHS England as a statutory body, which is one of the key aims of the Bill. The current structure, with its two centres, has led to layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, duplication and unclear lines of accountability, and has come with significant cost, with the centre growing significantly in size since 2013. Through the Bill, we are simplifying the organisational landscape of the NHS and removing unnecessary complexity and overlapping roles among NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. The reform will enable leaders and staff to focus on delivering care, rather than on navigating bureaucratic hurdles. Importantly, it will also restore Ministers’ central role in national oversight and setting strategy, which the public rightly expect as part of a democratic system. The creation of an arm’s length body of this size was a mistake, and we seek to rectify it.

Clause 2 is integral to the orderly abolition of NHS England. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes, which will provide a structured and transparent means of moving property, rights and liabilities from NHS England to the Department of Health and Social Care, the integrated care boards and other relevant bodies. This robust legal mechanism is required to ensure a responsible transfer of NHS England’s assets and staff. It ensures that all necessary legal powers and permissions for the transfer are in place, preventing uncertainty or loose ends for staff, patients, service users and partner organisations as NHS England is abolished. The clause allows provisions to be made similar to those under TUPE to ensure the protection of employment rights for staff who are transferred from NHS England. In addition, the clause allows for the shared ownership or use of property, ensuring that assets can be distributed and used in a way that supports service continuity for patients and the broader health system.

Clause 3, at its core, provides a power for His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure through regulations that transfers from NHSE to the DHSC, ICBs and other bodies are delivered smoothly and on a tax-neutral basis. In particular, it allows HM Treasury to make adjustments to how existing tax legislation applies to transfers of NHS England’s property, staff and liabilities in a scheme made under clause 2. That will ensure that no tax charges arise, and that neither NHS England nor the transferee organisations end up with a different tax position due to the organisational changes. Importantly, the scope of the power is tightly constrained: it applies only to specified existing taxes and only for the purpose of ensuring tax neutrality in relation to transfers made under clause 2. Without the power, there would be a risk that transfers could trigger unintended tax liabilities that would divert public money away from frontline services and undermine the policy intent of the legislation. Clause 3 therefore protects value for money and ensures that organisational change does not come with avoidable fiscal costs.

Without the changes made by clauses 1 to 3 we will not be able to meet the ambitions set out in the 10-year health plan. The abolition of NHS England, delivered in an orderly, proportionate and considered way that safeguards the interests of staff and taxpayers, is a necessary precondition for an NHS that is more effective for patients, delivers better outcomes across the country and achieves the ambitions that the public expect of us. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare a number of interests. I am a consultant paediatrician working in the NHS, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Like the Minister for Secondary Care, I got into politics after working in the health service. I am sure she agrees that what you see when working in the health service stays with you when working in the House, and that it benefits the House to have people who have done all different jobs working here.

The NHS constitution says that health services should

“improve, prevent, diagnose and treat both physical and mental health problems with equal regard”,

yet in my work as a doctor—and I worked across several hospitals during my training—the gap between the vision of what should be delivered and the reality of what is being delivered has become apparent to me. The answer frequently given seems to be top-down reorganisation. As I will talk about in a minute, such top-down reorganisation has been done so many times but does not seem necessarily to have delivered in practice what it promised. Indeed, to an extent, we seem to be changing things from how they were to how they are to how they were, backwards and forwards. This Government have decided, in pursuit of better outcomes and cost savings, once again to reorganise the health service, and they seek to do so with this Bill and particularly clause 1.

Clause 1 formally abolishes NHS England. The clause may have very few words, but they represent one of the biggest changes to our health service in decades. Abolishing NHS England is not just a decision about organisational structure or trimming bureaucracy, but a break with the direction of travel the health service has been on since its inception.

Prior to the creation of the NHS in 1948, health services were fragmented: some people used contributory workplace schemes, people who could afford it paid out of pocket, and everyone else relied on very limited state and voluntary provision or went without. In the aftermath of the second world war, the national health service created a state monopoly provider. The Minister of Health had a duty to provide a comprehensive health service free for all at the point of use and a bureaucracy was created to manage it.

There was a tripartite split between hospital services, local authority services and independent practitioner services. The hospitals provided secondary care for those with serious disease and those requiring emergency response. The NHS also took over many cottage hospitals in rural areas that had previously been run by GPs, and larger hospitals that used to be run by local authorities and the voluntary sector. At that time, hospital staff were managed by hospital management committees appointed by regional hospital boards. Those boards implemented Government policies and oversaw the budget. Meanwhile, teaching hospitals kept more independence, directed by their own boards of governors.

Councils, operating as local health authorities, had a duty to provide several personal health services including health centres, maternity care, home nursing, immunisation and ambulance services—some of those are now provided by NHS England. They also had substantial powers to prevent illness and to care for the disabled. Independent practitioners—GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians— delivered services to local communities under contract from the health service. Now they deliver under contract from NHS England and the ICBs.

The health service underwent significant reorganisation in 1974, not long before I was born. The main objective at that time was to create a unified, integrated system. Community health services previously operated by councils moved into NHS control. These functions were put under the control of new area health authorities, which took control of most NHS hospitals. Some larger area health authorities had their own distinct management teams, which managed services on the ground—we can look at the current process and ask how it is similar and how it is different. The majority of teaching hospitals lost independent governance, in the way that we, too, are seeing that go back and forth. Above the new area health authorities sat regional health authorities, which were responsible for planning and allocating financial resources. Their members were appointed by the Secretary of State.

In the 1980s, Ministers recognised that the system had become very bureaucratic—perhaps similarly to today—and in 1982, area health authorities and district management committees were scrapped in favour of new district health authorities, with the aim of reducing what was in effect a three-layer structure to two layers. The thinking was that the new district health authorities would be closer to local populations, but primary care was left mostly unchanged. Once again, there are parallels with what is happening now.

From its inception to the end of the 1980s, the NHS had gone through several waves of rationalisation, but the model remained that of a centrally planned public service. However, during that time, there was an intellectual change—the concept of choice. Previously, people had been happy just to get a health service, which they had not had access to before, but that changed and people wanted choice. We now see the benefits of giving patients choice, and we will hear about how the Government’s changes through the Bill will apparently improve patient choice.

Of course, individuals have different values and preferences and live their lives in different ways, which makes it impossible for there to be a single public interest for the Government to pursue. Against that backdrop, the new public management approach to Government administration emerged, advocating for the introduction of market mechanisms and performance metrics—we have heard about the targets that NHS England follows—in public institutions. In theory, if elements of the state could operate more like the private sector, perhaps Ministers could achieve both cost savings and better outcomes.

In 1991 the Government introduced market logic into the health service. They created an internal market by splitting the purchasers—mainly, at that time, the district health authorities—from the providers, which were the hospitals. The Secretary of State gained the power to create NHS trusts—hospitals with the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of assets; make bids for capital directly to the NHS management executive, in the way they might for NHS England; borrow money within limits; develop their own management structure; and employ their own staff with their own terms of employment. Within three years, almost all providers had become trusts. GP fundholding was established, enabling larger practices to receive budgets to buy secondary care on behalf of their patients, but that was short lived and was shelved in 1999.

When new Labour came to power in the late ’90s, one might have thought that things might swing back the other way, but in some respects the trajectory was similar. Initially, the Labour Government talked critically about the internal market. In 1998 the then Health Secretary told Members that the Government were

“sweeping away the internal market”—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 314.]

and the NHS plan published in 2000 claimed that

“the internal market introduced competition but failed to bring improvements.”

However, the policy choices of that Government furthered, rather than dismantled, the marketised aspects of the health service. They were saying one thing but, to some extent, doing another. There are similarities with this Bill: we have talked about decentralising power but, as we heard in evidence on Tuesday, many people feel it is more of a centralising Bill than a decentralising Bill.

It was clear that the new public management approach had been adopted across the political divide. The NHS plan promised patients more choice about how to access the NHS—a good thing. It promised a system of inspection, accountability and far greater local autonomy. It said:

“For the first time the NHS and the private sector will work more closely together not just to build new hospitals but to provide NHS patients with the operations they need.”

When GP fundholding went, the Government introduced primary care groups, which meant that GPs, nurses and other staff came together to commission for local populations. Those groups then evolved into primary care trusts, which by 2002 were responsible for spending 80% of the annual NHS budget—a budget that is now distributed by NHS England.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Very well. I call Caroline Johnson.

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I will be grateful if the Minister clarifies at the end, because she seems to be suggesting that Lord Darzi’s report was wrong in some way. He was assessing the NHS at the same time that she was, with the experience of having been a Minister, and made the counter-suggestion.

It is not just about what one does; it is about how one goes about it. As we heard on Tuesday, there is in general a plan of what is going to happen, but so many decisions have not been made yet in relation to this. In particular, one of the witnesses from the union talked about how unsettling that was for staff and how difficult it is for staff to be asked to go from the current location to a destination unknown. It is very difficult to make transformation in a direction when it is not clear where one wants to be.

In March 2025, the Government announced that NHSE would be abolished. The largest healthcare union described the handling of the announcement as “shambolic”, coming only days after the announcement of a 50% cut to staffing levels at the centre. In the days and months since, Ministers have provided only some clarity about what they are trying to achieve. According to the Government, the restructure will cut red tape, save money, devolve power and improve accountability, all with a view to improving patient outcomes. Those are not new objectives; they are the same objectives that underpinned the creation of NHS England. How is it that the same objectives require dismantling the institution created to deliver them? Again, I just do not understand what has changed the Government’s mind.

Let us look at cutting red tape. As a Conservative, I welcome the ambition to make the health service more efficient. My constituents do not want to pay for staff in the Minister’s Department duplicating the work of those in NHS England, particularly when thousands every day are subjected to care that could certainly be improved. On Tuesday, we heard from the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), that

“the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 33, Q58.]

However, that bureaucracy is not confined to NHS England and any medical practitioner will explain that bureaucracy exists across the entire health system. Can the Minister explain how the changes will improve that?

Lord Darzi’s independent investigation said that, taken together, there are nearly 80 people employed in regulatory and headquarters functions for each NHS provider trust. Can the Minister say how many people will be in such roles once the abolition of NHS England is complete? Can she talk about how abolishing NHS England will review the volume of paperwork on patient safety, some of which is helpful for patient safety and some of which is not. That was identified by Dr Dash in her report.

I remind Members that abolishing NHS England is not a prerequisite of undertaking a robust cost-benefit analysis before introducing changes. We have had difficulty in getting answers on numbers. We have been told that this will save money—£1 billion a year, I believe—but no sums have been produced for us to scrutinise to explain where that will come from. Indeed, when asking questions about where it might come from, it has been quite difficult to establish that. We have heard that the redundancy package will be worth £1.1 billion to £1.3 billion. It does not seem clear exactly where that will come from or how it will benefit patients. It is also not clear how many of those staff will end up re-employed by the new organisation, having received redundancy from the first, and what effect that will have on the country’s finances.

More than a year on from the Government’s announcement that they will abolish NHS England, how much progress have Ministers made? In March 2025, Lord Scriven tabled a question about the legislation required to abolish NHS England. In her response, the Health Minister in the other place, Baroness Merron, wrote:

“Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to determine the structure and requirements needed to support the creation of a new centre for health and care.”

One year later, in March 2026, the Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, tabled a question asking what functions had been transferred over since the announcement was made. In response, the Minister for Secondary Care wrote:

“Work is progressing at pace to develop the design and operating model for the new integrated organisation, and to plan for the smooth transfer of people, functions, and responsibilities.”

One does not need to enlist the services of Hercule Poirot to see that, one year later, that work has not been done. The Government have no comprehensive plan for how they will abolish NHS England. They can write a line in the Bill to abolish it, but how that will happen, to which clauses 2 and 3 relate, is, as yet, really uncertain.

--- Later in debate ---

While I welcome the aims and what the Minister has said, I caution against excessive optimism in this place that simply doing away with NHS England will naturally give rise to savings and reduce doubling up of jobs and slightly unfathomable decision making. I will also take this opportunity to say that some of the institutions and frameworks that will continue, such as ICBs, are being subjected to cuts while being asked to take on more responsibility. I do not agree with some of those responsibilities being shifted, such as merging Healthwatch and the patient voice, but that will come up later in the debate on this Bill, so I will not say more on it at this time.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend talked about how the ICBs have merged. There are lots of different types of reorganisation going on at once: the abolition of NHS England, the changes to local authorities, the introduction of mayors in some areas, and the changes and cuts to ICBs. What effect is that having in his part of the country?

[Joe Robertson]

The shadow Minister points to a much wider issue entirely relevant to the Government’s plans here: the more reorganisation we do, the more we shrink the bandwidth to deal with smaller and more operational problems because so much of the resource has been pulled in. In my area, although it is probably true everywhere, reorganisation of Department or Government responsibilities causes endless frustration that while Governments and politicians—I take some responsibility for my own side’s actions at times in the past in very limited ways—talk about reorganisation when so much can be done on what might be termed low-hanging fruit.

I worry that the Government are missing out on opportunities here to make a much more meaningful difference day to day and much more quickly than this huge reorganisation will achieve. Everything is about priorities. Plainly, no Government can do everything they want to do all at one time. It slightly surprises me that reorganisation of the NHS and doing away with NHS England has become such a major priority, considering it did not feature in the Labour party manifesto just two years ago. I do not seek to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but the gist of her evidence to this Committee was that within eight months of this Labour Government coming into power, they realised that NHS England had to go. Eight months is eight months, but it seems a short timeframe in which to decide to do away with a fundamental way that health is organised and delivered in this country.

Going back to priorities, I recall that before the election, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—then the shadow Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Ilford North, talked about introducing a national care service. That was the Labour party’s big priority. Although Conservative Members and, frankly, the majority of the public were slightly sceptical of his intentions, we all agree that social care needs reform and that ultimately, the success of the NHS will be delivered only if we deal with the long-standing crisis in social care, which extends back three decades or more, as it is entirely dependent on that.

Before the election, the priority was the national care service, but since the not-so-random date of 5 July 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State, he ceased to refer to reform of social care, and it seems once again to have been put on the back burner. I wonder whether the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England has gotten in the way of equally large, and perhaps even more substantial, reforms, which might ultimately have made a much more meaningful difference to the delivery of not only healthcare but health and social care, as well as to the overall wellbeing, including financial wellbeing, of so many people in this country. Social care refers to people living with frailty or dementia, and the family carers, and families more widely, on whom that has an impact. Every decision made is a decision not made, given the resource and bandwidth of those whom any Government ask to implement change, such as the civil service, advisers and the hundreds or thousands of people who are relied on to deliver in their day-to-day job.

I and, it seems, all the other Committee members do not disagree with the fundamentals of what Government are trying to do; their reasons for doing this are broadly sensible, so who could disagree? However, because of the manner in which it is being done, I urge caution and a check on being too optimistic—just doing it and expecting all the good things to flow. It will take an awful lot more than simply passing the Bill to make the NHS the success that, to take the Minister at her word, she intends, wants and will do her best to achieve.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

Using one dataset to decide funding from one pot of money, and another for another pot of money seems quite arbitrary—or at least not joined up. If that happens within one Department, there is greater scope for it happening across different Departments—indeed, it is certain that it will. By my reading, that is what amendment 30 is designed to address. Whether this is the right place for that, and whether it will actually achieve anything, I am not sure, but it is certainly a debate that needs to be had. It may well be that here is better than anywhere else in terms of including it somewhere in law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak to clause 4 and this group of amendments. Health inequalities are commonly defined as the systemic differences in health status and distribution of health resources between different population groups. There are limits to how far the state can equalise health in a free society, but I am sure all Members would agree that the service should not preside over differences in access to health resources. Unequal access runs contrary to the vision of the NHS as a comprehensive service, available to all and based on clinical need, not ability to pay. Those principles are violated when people without fixed addresses struggle to access general practice, or patients in rural areas, such as my constituency, miss out on treatments—for example, specialist cancer treatments—that are available in more urban areas.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 inserted section 1C in the National Health Service Act 2006, placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the need to reduce inequalities in the benefits that people obtain from the health service. As the explanatory notes to the 2012 Act made clear, the intention of that was to

“include consideration of the need to reduce inequalities in access...and the outcomes”.

Clause 4 of this Bill takes that which was understood and makes it more explicit.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that I support updating that duty—she is smiling. The word “benefits” in the original section is a nebulous and subjective term. The wording introduced by the clause is less imprecise and requires the Secretary of State to consider the whole health pipeline. None the less, I have some questions about the lens that clause 4 and its predecessor, section 1C of the 2006 Act, invite the Secretary of State to look through, particularly in relation to other statements made by the Government.

In the Government’s policy paper “ICBs as strategic commissioners”, they say that increasing the commissioning responsibilities of integrated care boards will result in them being

“better placed to support innovation”

and

“design new models of care”.

Innovation can produce disparities; that is true in healthcare as well. If one ICB decides to innovate and produces a better service, that area will have a better service than another, and the Secretary of State will have the job of undoing that. That could be done by spreading the innovation across the whole of the country, but if the innovation is expensive or difficult to roll out, it could in effect be quashed. Does the Minister recognise that empowering health leaders to innovate and do things differently could widen inequalities, at least in the short term? Is she willing to accept that?

A problem with using inequalities as a stand-alone metric is that it does not really tell you whether things are getting better or worse; it must be taken into consideration alongside a wide range of other metrics. An often forgotten fact is that disparities can be reduced by levelling down as well as by levelling up. Fixating on determining the size and cause of disparities can, in some cases, come at the expense of eliminating them. I recently tabled a written question to ask the Government if and when they plan to

“set an explicit target to close the Black and Asian maternal mortality gap.”

I note that the Minister stood on a manifesto pledge to close that gap. The Government response to my question indicated that they are waiting for Baroness Amos to finish looking at the drivers of inequalities before they do anything. It is possible to produce tomes on the nature of disparities; I suggest that energy would be better spent on addressing them.

Amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to consider health inequalities arising from differences in general health determinants. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, as statistically, those with lower earning capacity, limited access to green space or unhealthy lifestyles have comparatively worse health outcomes, but would placing a duty to take stock of that on the Secretary of State make the health service any better for such groups, or for the population as a whole?

What would be the practical purpose of the amendment? As somebody said to me yesterday evening, do we have a section in education legislation stating that the Education Secretary has to consider that their job is to ensure that people are educated? Do we have clauses in defence Bills saying that the Defence Secretary must consider the defence of the realm? I cannot be sure, but the amendment seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious, so what effect would it have? Does the Member who tabled the amendment think that the Secretary of State will not consider those factors—essentially, that he will not do his job properly? Do they not have confidence in him or in future Secretaries of State?

Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would need to consider inequalities arising from people’s employment, environmental conditions and lifestyle choices, which his Department has little to no control over. If poverty is the problem, the solution is employment and welfare policy, which is not in his gift. If poor environment is the problem, the solution is environmental policy. If a well-informed adult chooses, despite knowing the detriment it may cause them, to consume unhealthy food or an excessive volume of alcohol, or not to exercise, what can and should the Minister do about it in a free society?

Amendment 13 would risk distracting from the focus of clause 4, which is, as I see it, to ensure equal access to health resources regardless of a person’s standing in society. What is the practical effect of making it a duty on the Minister to do these things? Will it cause a whole load of bureaucracy? Will the Minister have to produce impact statements for every new hospital? If, for example, one opened on the Isle of Wight—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East was talking about that—would we need to consider what effect it would have on smokers, people who do not exercise or people who have a lower earning capacity, and produce an endless list of assessments? It would take a lot of money and effort and not really add anything. The amendment would also risk the Government getting bogged down in litigation, as people who disagreed with the Government’s or the ICB’s decision would spend their time litigating the question whether something that may or may not even be relevant was considered properly.

Members will not be surprised to hear that my thoughts on amendment 29 are similar to those on amendment 13. I do not doubt for a minute that its supporters have the best intentions, but this type of public sector equality duty language does not do anything to improve public services. Too many arms of the state have been so concerned with disparities that they have become incompetent at getting on with the job that they are actually meant to be doing; they are distracted by trying to measure all these different equalities.

Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to involve all Departments in reducing health inequalities and take all reasonable steps to ensure that all other Departments

“consider the impact of their policy proposals on health inequalities.”

Is this spreading the bureaucracy and the impact assessments more widely? If the Government decide to buy a new submarine, do they have to consider what effect it would have on people who smoke on the Isle of Wight? It does not make sense to me. It is a statement of the obvious that members of the Cabinet and Government have to work together to deliver better health for the country. Of course that is true, but what would be the practical effect? The Minister may be able to tell us.

New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to publish a health improvement and health inequalities strategy within six months, and an annual report thereafter. Again, that would invite more glossy brochures from the Government, using the precious time of civil servants. The new clause seeks a cross-Government approach by mandating that all Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the strategy when carrying out their functions. Again, it is basically stating what their job is.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Although all these amendments come from a very good place, they are so obvious that they should already be happening, and are too obvious to be enshrined in some overriding duty in a Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. The amendments include, in many cases, a statement of what someone’s job is. Does the Member who tabled them think that the Secretary of State is not doing his job and therefore needs to be told what his job is? That could create a whole load of bureaucracy detracting from the actual job in hand.

Amendment 34 concerns transport access. I understand that that is a problem for many people in rural areas, such as my constituency. They often have a harder time, as the distance they need to travel is longer and public transport services are infrequent. Healthwatch, which will be cancelled by this Bill if the Government get their way, has heard from patients who struggle to book transport online, and whose transport turned up several hours early or was cancelled with little or notice at all. Those problems are well documented.

I visited Lincoln county hospital, which has a unit for renal dialysis, where I heard that although transport is provided for individuals having dialysis, which is good, it often does not turn up when it should or does not pick people up at the time that it is supposed to. More concerning is the fact that if they need a transplant and transplant assessments, most have to go to Leicester to have that done, which is several hours’ drive from some parts of Lincolnshire. Most disturbingly, I heard concerns that some people would choose not to go through the transplant programme, and a factor in that decision would be the ability to get to the transplant centre to have the significant amount of testing and follow-up that needs to be done. Clearly, that is not equal access, so I urge the Minister to look at that.

Imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider reducing inequalities is a good thing, but it does not magic up the resources necessary to fix them. In exercising his functions, it is a problem the Secretary of State is already capable of addressing. I am sure the Secretary of State, like the Minister, is a good person and wants people to be able to access the services. If Members believe the Government are failing in that regard, I would advise that adding another legislative duty is not likely to bring about the change desired. If we are being honest with the public, we must challenge the premise that every disparity is evidence of a policy failure. The duty placed on the Secretary of State should be to ensure that care is of an equally high standard across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Patient involvement and choice

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—

“(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must act with a view to enabling patients to make choices with respect to aspects of health services provided to them, including to make choices as to the provider of those services.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that patients who are referred for a service to be provided outside a hospital setting (‘out-of-hospital services’) are offered a choice of provider of that service from among the providers available in their integrated care board area and, where relevant, in neighbouring areas, in accordance with regulations made under section 14Z45B.

(3) Regulations under section 14Z45B must provide that, where an out-of-hospital service is to be provided to a patient, the integrated care board must—

(a) offer the patient a meaningful choice of at least two providers capable of providing the service, which may include NHS bodies and independent sector providers approved to provide that service under arrangements with the integrated care board;

(b) provide the patient with information to support an informed choice, including for each available provider—

(i) indicative waiting times;

(ii) the location at which the service would be provided;

(iii) the quality ratings or outcomes data applicable to that provider for that service where such data is available; and

(iv) whether any costs would be incurred by the patient in travelling to or receiving the service at that provider;

(c) not exclude from the list of available providers any provider approved solely on grounds of commercial interest or organisational type; and

(d) take all reasonable steps to give effect to the patient's choice within a clinically appropriate timeframe.

(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘out-of-hospital services’ means services—

(a) provided in community, primary care or ambulatory settings rather than in a hospital inpatient or outpatient department; and

(b) which the Secretary of State specifies by regulations as being within the scope of the choice obligation under subsection (2),

and may include diagnostic services, audiology and hearing aid care, podiatry, dietetics and nutrition, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and such other services as the Secretary of State may specify.

(5) In specifying services under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the potential for the expansion of choice to reduce waiting times for the relevant service;

(b) the availability of sufficient independent and NHS providers to make genuine choice meaningful; and

(c) the desirability of ensuring access to choice for patients in all parts of England, including in rural and deprived areas.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, within 12 months of the date on which this Act is passed, a statement setting out—

(a) the out-of-hospital services for which choice obligations under subsection (2) will initially apply;

(b) the timetable for extending the choice obligation to further services; and

(c) the support that will be made available to patients, in particular those with limited digital access or literacy, to exercise the choices to which they are entitled under this section.

(7) The Secretary of State must review and update the statement required by subsection (6) at intervals of not more than two years.”

This amendment strengthens the new patient choice duty inserted by Clause 5 from a general aspiration into a specific, enforceable right to choose between providers for out-of-hospital services.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

This group is about how patients can exercise choice. When the national health service was founded in 1948, patients could select their own GP, but it was difficult to change things and exercise choice elsewhere in the system. The health service has come a long way since then. Successive Governments believed that they could make state institutions more responsive by treating the public, to some extent, like customers. Today, patients can choose their GP, hospital, consultant and different types of end-of-life care and mental health service, but choice is about more than just selecting among providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman puts forward. He is essentially saying that, by allowing the private sector to carry out operations and procedures, we are somehow making the NHS unsustainable. The follow-on from that logic is that we remove all private sector providers and practice so that every single doctor, nurse and therapist is working in the NHS. I do not think that he is arguing for that situation, but it is the logical progression of his argument.

[Dr Johnson]

When I met surgeons, they said that one reason they like working in elective independent sector hospitals is that they can do more operations on a given day. The shadow Secretary of State visited a provider of cataract treatment yesterday. It is able to perform more treatments on a given day, partly for organisational reasons. The NHS, which is quite frustrating for surgeons, could learn from that. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I do not want to go down the cataracts route, but she and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have both mentioned them. Clearly, cataracts are a relatively low-complexity, high-volume type of operation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that some providers can do five or six operations per list, while other places are doing two or three. That is often about the private sector being able to move more quickly, which is obviously better for patients, as well as for clinicians, who want to do the surgery that they have trained for.

Unlike the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I think that competition can play an important role in driving improvement. When providers must attract and retain patients, they have a stronger incentive to deliver timely, high-quality services, and to innovate in how they provide care. In that sense, competition is not an end in itself but a means of improving outcomes and responsiveness for patients. If both sides of the Committee support clause 5, because we are interested in choice and competition, amendment 59 is the logical extension of that.

The amendment is also clear about where the new obligation choices would apply. It covers a range of out-of-hospital services, including diagnostics, audiology, hearing-aid care, dietetics, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and so on. By clearly defining the services in scope, it provides a realistic and workable road map for implementation.

As I said, the amendment is not about ideology—I think we all agree about choice and competition—but about ensuring that patients receive timely care and have a meaningful choice about where that care is delivered. By fostering healthy competition, making full use of the capacity in the system and putting patients at the centre of the decision-making process, it offers a practical route to improving access and raising standards of care. For those reasons, I support it and commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Promoting innovation

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 58, clause 6, page 4, line 10, leave out from “promote” to end of line 11 and insert—

“(a) innovation in the provision of health services and in the arrangements made for their provision;

(b) take steps to ensure the timely adoption and spread of clinically effective innovations across the health service in England;

(c) identify and seek to remove barriers to the uptake of innovation by NHS bodies, including procurement barriers, regulatory barriers and cultural barriers to change;

(d) promote access to innovation so that patients in all parts of England, and patients from all socioeconomic backgrounds, have equivalent access to effective new technologies, medicines and care models; and

(e) have regard to the economic and industrial benefits to the United Kingdom of developing and deploying healthcare innovation in the NHS.”

This amendment would further define the meaning of promoting innovation in health services in England.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

In healthcare, as in many parts of life, innovation is the way in which new ideas, products and services are developed to solve problems and improve patient outcomes. Here, the entire country has a record to be proud of that goes back a long time. Dr John Preece, a GP and research fellow at the University of Exeter, was the first general practitioner to use a computer in a patient consultation. He co-designed a model with IBM in 1969, and his work led to the creation of the electronic patient record, the forerunner of the electronic patient record that we will discuss later. Innovators working with NHS England have also been seeking to reduce single-use plastic in gastrointestinal procedures, improving outcomes for haemodialysis patients, as well as improving the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley]

Does the shadow Minister accept that, in order to encourage innovation within the health service, we need to do whatever we can to support clinical academics? It is within the academic departments of universities, where people are working in hospitals and teaching in medical schools, that we see the most fruitful innovations.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but there are pressures and challenges for clinical academics, which he will be aware of. I am sure the Minister, in summing up, will tell us what she is doing about those.

We need to support innovation in all parts of the health service, not just in university hospitals. One of my concerns is that there has been a drive towards a hub and spoke model. There are good reasons for that, and there have been some good outcomes for patient care, but in some cases it restricts innovation in the peripheral parts of the model; it can disincentivise innovation and make it more difficult. We need to consider how we support innovation in all areas of the NHS.

[Helen Morgan]

One of the challenges of recruiting staff in Shropshire relates to exactly that point: some areas of the health service are perhaps less exciting to work in than others. Ensuring that innovation is driven across every NHS site and every region will help us understand the recruitment and retention problems that have plagued some of the country’s more rural areas.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was a very junior doctor, whether one wanted to work in a small hospital in the countryside or a large teaching hospital in a big city mostly related to whether one wanted to study a specialist, narrow field of medicine or a wider, broader field of medicine with a variety of different conditions. During my career, I have seen consultants make choices that meant they had to move from their district general hospital to a teaching hospital in order to make progress—in one case, a consultant was told he would not get a professorship unless he moved. The hon. Lady is right: we need to carefully consider how we support innovation.

I have concerns with the clause as it is drafted. Section 13K of the NHS Act 2006 gave NHS England the power to award prizes in support of innovation. Clause 6 ensures the Secretary of State has that power, but there is a big difference between an arm’s length body of technocrats awarding prizes and a political office holder awarding prizes, because then the prizes come out of taxpayers’ money and Governments are particularly short of that—not because they are not taking higher rates of tax, but because they are squeezing the economy.

There is a risk that those awards, and funding for innovation more broadly, become exposed to political cycles. When Governments face a fiscal straitjacket, Ministers are often quick to slash discretionary spending, even though it provides a long-term return on investment. There is also a risk that prizes will be awarded on the basis of who shouts loudest. Certain charities will want the Government to focus on awarding innovations in cancer care, for example; some unions will want the Government to focus on awarding innovators who achieve greater equity in service delivery. There is little doubt that Ministers will have a tough time batting away lobbyists calling for more funding to incentivise this or that type of innovation.

Clause 6 also gives the Secretary of State the power to set up a committee to provide advice on awarding prizes. It is right that the Health Secretary should solicit expert advice when determining which trusts, teams or individuals deserve incentive payments, but does that require the power to set up what is effectively a whole new quango? The Government created more than 25 arm’s length bodies and advisory councils in their first six months. Does the Secretary of State require the power to pay members of the advisory committee when there are many experts in their field who can give their time charitably? I notice there is no requirement for any prize committee to include the chief scientific officer or representatives from ICBs. It is ultimately an unchecked spending power.

[Gregory Stafford]

What my hon. Friend describes is the real nub of the Bill. If we are to abolish NHS England and move most of its functions to the ICB level or to the Department of Health under a Secretary of State, it would be utter madness for us to, at best, move one set of bureaucrats from NHS England to the Department of Health and therefore gain no extra efficiency, or at worst, as seems to be the case in this clause, not only transfer the NHS England bureaucrats, but create a whole new set of bureaucrats and committees to continue the functions already performed under NHS England.

We need to understand whether the Bill is really about making our NHS more efficient by removing levels of bureaucracy, as was the stated intent of the Minister and the previous Secretary of State, or whether it is simply a political power grab where we keep all the bureaucrats and the inefficiency of the current system.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend, as ever, puts things very succinctly. Much of what is said about the Bill is different from what it seems to mean in practice. We have heard the Government talk about the decentralisation of power so decisions are made locally, but in the oral evidence session, even the union rep said that the Bill is more of a centralisation of power. I agree that creating new bureaucracy to replace old bureaucracy—particularly if that involves redundancies—does not help to save money or to make the system more efficient.

I tabled amendment 58 to make the duty on innovation more robust. It would make clause 6 specifically require the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of services, ensure that innovations are spread and adopted across the NHS, tackle barriers to innovation and consider the wider economic benefits of innovation. That is important, because when we talk to people in the life sciences industry, they tell us that one of the biggest challenges is the roll-out of innovation. They can develop innovations in the UK, but it can take a long time to get them on to the shop floor, which is a disincentive to innovating in the United Kingdom. That process needs to move more quickly.

As currently drafted, the clause does not make it clear what innovation is for or whom it is meant to benefit. Amendment 58 would make it clear that innovation should be to benefit patients, no matter their location or socioeconomic status. I welcome the principle of keeping innovation on the statute book, but innovation is an organic process, and it does not begin in the Department of Health and Social Care or in NHS England—that is a fundamental principle that I think the Government fail to understand across many areas. Innovation begins with the frontline workers: the scientists, the technologists and the people who have ideas about better ways to care for patients. I am encouraged that the Minister understands that.

The Government’s vision for ICBs is that they will have more responsibility and more freedom to innovate—although we will discuss whether the legislation actually delivers that later in the Committee’s consideration—and I hope that vision extends to other areas of health policy. The clause is not disagreeable, but it must be made more robust. If Committee members agree, I hope they will support amendment 58.

[The Chair]

I gently suggest to all Committee members that it would help me tremendously if they could stand at the beginning of the debate on a group if they wish to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is describing something a little like “Dragons’ Den”, which is a very good TV programme—perhaps it will be televised or livestreamed. How will the Government ensure that there is no conflict of interest?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend’s point is correct. There is so little detail in the clause about how these prizes will be awarded and how the committee that will award them will be set up that we have no idea how conflicts of interest will be dealt with. That is another reason that the Minister needs to explain to the Committee how this is going to work. My hon. Friend mentions “Dragons’ Den”. I see her as the Deborah Meaden of our Committee, so I look forward to seeing that play out—I will not say what that makes me.

What I see from amendment 58, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham— I hope I am not misrepresenting her—is once again an attempt to codify, clarify and strengthen what is fairly woolly wording within the Bill. In particular, her amendment rightly emphasises the importance of

“timely adoption and spread of clinically effective innovations”.

Timeliness is so important to patients. We need innovation quickly. Again, it worries me that the prizes could be given for innovations that could have happened weeks, months, years or decades ago, according to the wording. We also need to ensure that innovation is not in isolated pockets, either in terms of geography or type of service. We need something that is consistently delivered across the healthcare system.

By highlighting the need to address things such as procurement, the regulatory sector and cultural barriers, my hon. Friend’s amendment would support a more proactive and enabling environment for innovation to flourish, not one that shuts it down, as some Labour Members have suggested. Crucially, paragraph (d) of the amendment represents a significant and commendable commitment to fairness and inclusion by prioritising equal access to new technologies, medicines and models of care regardless of geography or socioeconomic background. It would help to tackle long-standing inequalities and move decisively towards ending the postcode lottery that we often see in care quality.

The focus of the amendment would ensure that innovation benefits all patients, not just those in the most advantaged areas. It would ensure that rural and coastal communities are aligned with the urban. As someone who represents a semi-rural seat, I see those inequalities in service delivery, quality of care and innovation. The large towns in my constituency receive far more money and get far better services than the surrounding villages.

I have many concerns about the clause as it currently stands, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the Opposition’s questions. I entirely endorse amendment 58.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. We heard about the excitement in our constituencies around innovation—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned Newcastle University at the start and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned her visit to Imperial College. Those visits are inspiring. Other universities and centres of excellence are available, but they made the case for why this is so important to the Government’s approach to innovation. I will talk about that and then turn to the amendment.

The Government are fully committed to innovation. It is absolutely central to our ambitious priorities to digitise health and care, support prevention and early diagnosis, and enable a shift to neighbourhood care, to growth in our economy, and to regaining our place in the world as a centre for innovation, which was lost under the Conservatives over those 14 years. That is why clause 6 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of health services, including in how services are arranged and delivered.

The clause also incorporates the Secretary of State’s existing power to incentivise innovation and research through the payment of prizes, as we have discussed. That is a flexible tool that will allow him to stimulate breakthrough ideas and reward innovation across the life cycle, including an early-stage report.

On some issues that have been raised, the Conservative party knows that Ministers have to act reasonably as this transfers from NHS England, and we would obviously want to tailor a committee to the matter in question, including membership. The clause will allow that flexibility. The equivalent duty was on NHS England; I understand that it has not actually been used over the past five years, but it was previously suggested as a way of promoting innovation.

In practical terms, the Secretary of State already supports innovation in a number of ways, for example through the work of the Health Innovation Network, supporting workforce developments in schemes such as the clinical entrepreneur programme and providing funding support for developing and evaluating promising innovations.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister talked about the flexibility of the committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon explained why it is helpful to have some direction. Could the Minister explain why there is no stipulation for the chief medical officer or the chief scientific officer to be part of the committee?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady if I am not correct in this, or if there is another reason, but in the existing duty and under NHS England, the committee’s membership needs to reflect the matter in the question. If there is anything to add to that, I will certainly come back to her. We are also committed to spending more on innovation, raising the NICE threshold to ensure that patients have access to more innovative medicines on the NHS. That is action, not just words.

The Government commend the intent behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, and she spoke well about that. As a clinician, I recognise her support for innovation, but we recognise that barriers remain to the systematic spread of innovation. That is a long-term problem that existed under previous Governments as well, and we seek to rectify it. The ministerial foreword to the “Life Science Sector Plan” published last year says:

“We are clear-eyed about the challenges. For too long, the journey from discovery to delivery has been too slow, too fragmented, and too often held back by outdated systems.”

That is why we need to remove barriers at every stage of the journey; however, the amendment is the wrong way to do that.

The experience of supporting innovation in the NHS suggests that we need flexibility in our approach to tackle emerging barriers as they arise. Specifying several areas of focus in the Bill would limit that flexibility; those are better set out in published strategies and guidance, which is what we are doing. The amendment could also cause unintended consequences. It would create a one-size-fits-all approach, requiring all of England to have equivalent access to innovations. While tackling unwarranted variation is of course vital, we should continue our focus on providing access to innovation that best meets local needs.

Instead of over-defining what we mean by innovation in legislation, we are taking practical measures to drive it on the ground. We are already building the 10-year health plan and the life sciences sector plan to deliver an ambitious set of actions, which address the areas raised by the amendment including procurement, aligned regulation and the alignment of our NHS innovation policy with sector growth policy. That echoes our approach elsewhere in the Bill of devolving power to local levels and giving more opportunity to systems and organisations to innovate, and more agency to use their resources to do so.

The NHS has a strong record of developing and adopting new treatments, technologies and models of care. The clause will build on that record, signalling the Secretary of State’s clear commitment to promoting innovation, and it will do so in a flexible way that will allow us to respond to challenges as they emerge. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her amendment, and I commend the clause the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I rise to support clause 7 and amendment 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Having worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that education and training, especially mandatory training, is absolutely necessary. Some may argue that health staff have too much training, particularly mandatory training, but this amendment specifically concerns training

“in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.”

We may have staff, especially those working in mental health, who have training in some of those areas, but staff in A&E, where patients first present, may not have that training, and may be missing that curiosity. We have heard many incidents involving families living in mouldy houses or people exposed to air pollution. It is important that staff have the curiosity to consider where a patient has come from when they turn up at A&E, or, when planning a discharge, where they are being discharged to.

In the last few years, we have seen many internationally trained healthcare workers join our health sector who may not be familiar with the social and housing situation in this country. Whether this is to be a part of their initial training as nurses or doctors, or through mandatory training at work, the amendment is important because it could help to prevent illnesses and identify them earlier through professional curiosity. I support amendment 33.

[Dr Johnson]

I declare an interest as a member of the NHS workforce and an NHS consultant paediatrician. In England, around one in every 17 working people is employed by the national health service. That is quite a shocking statistic. It is the largest employer in the country and, indeed, in Europe. It has grown significantly over time, in part because the needs of the population have changed. Life expectancy is longer, which is something to be cherished—that is a good thing—but it brings challenges to the health service, as people are more likely to be living with multiple chronic conditions rather than easily treatable ailments. They require more tests, medicines and clinical care. Demographic change requires a larger NHS workforce, particularly in secondary care.

The previous Conservative Government not only recognised the scale of that challenge but took swift action to increase staffing levels across the board, adding more than 42,000 doctors and 55,000 nurses, health visitors and midwives. Conservative Ministers also supported the pipeline responsible for producing the next generation of medical practitioners. They funded 1,500 additional medical school places and opened five new medical schools, including in Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford and Canterbury, and one just outside my constituency in Lincoln. Emergency care became the fastest-growing specialty, with the number of emergency care doctors doubling. That is what support for the NHS workforce looks like.

Conservative investments in the workforce helped to improve survival rates for cancer, increase the number of GP appointments and deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that there is an effective system for planning and delivering education and training to current and potential staff. Health Education England has been rolled into NHS England, so it is ultimately NHS England that has the duty to ensure sufficient and appropriately trained staff to meet NHS workforce needs. Now that NHS England is to be abolished, it is right that this duty is to be given to the Secretary of State through clause 7, although to some extent it is a statement of the obvious that that is part of his job.

The job of members of this Committee is to improve the Bill, not just wave it through, and that means recognising that the existing legislation had some inadequacies. Clause 7 states:

“The Secretary of State must exercise functions…with a view to ensuring”

several things about the workforce. It is not a cast-iron requirement; the Secretary of State must just think about it, but actually he should not just think about his job; he should get on with it. I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about legislation that creates obligations that are easy to proclaim and that are virtuous but are difficult to measure. Such legislation makes legislators feel good about themselves because they are writing nice things into legislation, but they are not really robust. What does

“sufficient people with appropriate education”

mean? What is “sufficient”?

One reason concerns are particularly acute is the Government’s shambolic record on workforce planning. They came to power saying that they had a plan, but their workforce plan has still not been published, almost two years since they came into office. I heard the Minister say “imminently”, but I had a written answer last week, I think, saying “imminently”. I appreciate that “imminently” is probably better than “soon”, but what does it really mean, and how soon can we expect the plan to be published? Does she mean that it is coming this week or next? Can she guarantee that it will be published before the summer recess? Has the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday put all this up in the air once again?

The Royal College of Radiologists has said that the shortfall in clinical radiologists has grown from 29% to 32% since 2024, and the Royal College of Nursing has released data showing that the growth in the nursing workforce slowed last year to its lowest level in eight years. Newly qualified midwives are finding themselves with no jobs to go to in the health service, despite the fact that there is a maternity staffing crisis in some areas. Will the Minister explain the reason for the delay? She said earlier in this sitting that it was not NHS England, but what is causing the delay?

We were told that stakeholders wanted more time to have conversations, test ideas and work together. One would think that after the many months of deliberation, Ministers would have put together an exceptional workforce plan, but the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, of which I am a member, Unite the union and several other organisations wrote to the Health Secretary earlier this month to urge for the plan, which they have but which has not been published, to be “paused”, because they are

“concerned that the current direction falls significantly short of the scale of workforce growth required to meet patient need and relies too heavily on assumptions about the current state of NHS services, productivity and technology that are not borne out of frontline experience.”

I recently tabled a question asking who had been given advanced sight of the workforce plan, and I received confirmation that the royal colleges and unions have been involved. As I mentioned, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We now have a situation where a workforce plan is being delayed, and it has been brought before other organisations for discussion rather than elected Members of this House. It is taking far too long. In the meantime, things are going backwards. It is simply not good enough. Ministers are now about to roll out a plan that has mortified seemingly everyone who has seen it, while expecting members of the Committee to rubber-stamp a rather flimsy legal duty.

In May, the Financial Times reported that plans drawn up under this Government would see recruitment cut back. The article reads:

“A workforce plan being finalised by health officials says the NHS in England will have to use technology to get by with hundreds of thousands fewer staff than envisaged under the previous Conservative government.”

Is that clinical staff? Are we going to have fewer doctors? It is not clear because we have not seen the plan and it has not been published. A draft of the plan seen by the newspaper said that the NHS

“does not need anything like the…numbers…set out in its 2023 workforce plan.’

Will the Minister confirm whether those press reports are accurate? She previously said that her plan

“will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills for patients when they need them”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 737-738.]

Does that mean fewer people and more AI?

Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

“(4) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years.

Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must exercise functions under this section with a view to ensuring that managers in the NHS, who have appropriate clinical training, must also undertake clinical care.

(5) The Secretary of State must record the proportion of direct clinical care provided by those with professional qualifications both in terms of the proportion of their areas and full time equivalent by pay grade, and the Secretary of State must increase the proportion.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS managers who are clinically trained must continue to undertake clinical care.

Clause stand part.

New clause 44—Medical training places—

“The Secretary of State must double the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32.”

This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to double the number of medical school training places.

New clause 45—Data collection: clinically trained staff—

“(1) The Secretary of State must collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of NHS staff are qualified to deliver nursing and clinical care who delivering nursing care, or clinical care of any kind, and those who are not.

(2) Information under subsection (1) must be collected according to HCAS pay scales.

(3) Information under subsection (1) must include numbers of nursing and midwifery staff.

(4) Information under subsection (1) must be published quarterly.

(5) The NHS and ICBs are under a duty to comply with any requests from the Secretary of State for data for this purpose.

(6) Information under subsection (1) must include the proportion of time spent delivering clinical care as a proportion of the individual’s total working hours.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of clinically qualified staff who are delivering clinical care, broken down by HCAS pay band.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Before the lunch break I was saying that, in essence, clause 7 states what the Secretary of State’s job is. It moves the function of planning the workforce from NHS England to the Secretary of State, which is a reasonable thing to do. I talked about the previous Government’s record on opening new medical schools and how that has helped with the number of clinical staff.

We also talked about workforce planning. The Government are due to produce a workforce plan, but it is not clear when it is due to come out. It was due to come out at the end of last year, but it did not; it was then due to come out in the spring, but now it is the summer. Given the Prime Minister’s resignation, it is not at all clear when it will come out. Will the Minister let us know whether it will come out before the summer recess, this week or whenever?

I quoted some of the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, of which I am a member, and others. Those concerns include the workforce plan. Those organisations have seen what we have not seen, so they have been asked to comment on something that we have yet to see. That brings me to new clause 44, which is in my name.

Before the general election, Labour promised that it would double the number of medical school places. The now Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to double the number of medical school training places, as did the now Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. Once the general election had passed and Labour was in government, the promise was reiterated. At oral questions in October 2024, the now former Health Secretary said:

“This Government are committed, as we were in opposition, to doubling the number of medical school places”.—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 683.]—

but there has not really been any progress.

During a debate this year on the junior doctors’ foundation programme, I asked the Minister for Care whether the Government’s intention was still to honour that pledge. He said:

“Yes, that is the Government’s intention.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 133WH.]—

only to later submit a written correction stating that the Government had never committed to doing so. Are they going to, or not? It is not clear.

Labour promised to double the number of medical school places, but now that pledge appears to have been airbrushed out of history. Can the Minister please explain why she and her colleagues deemed the workforce pledge essential before the election but not after it? Can she tell us whether it is Government policy? In essence, my new clause 44 asks Members on the Government Benches to vote for what they promised before the election and have promised since.

New clause 44 is very simple: it stipulates that the Secretary of State must double the number of medical school training places by 2031-32. That is what Labour promised, so it should be fairly easy for Labour Members to vote for it. I hope that the Committee will support the new clause, which only requires Ministers to do what their party promised before it came into government.

If the Government are not keen on committing to clear targets, they can at least commit to full scrutiny of their workforce plans. Of course, there is a risk that the House has been misled. Either the promise was made or it was not. The Minister for Care said that it was promised and then submitted a written correction to say that that was inaccurate and that it was never Government policy, but if it has been stated by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, representing the Government, then it is Government policy. Can the Minister help to clarify that point? If the House has been misled by either her former boss or the Minister for Care, perhaps she can clear that up for us. Perhaps the vote will help.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that if we doubled the number of medical students, we would simply not be able to accommodate those people as young doctors unless we also doubled the number of training places? After five or six years, those medical students become young doctors. If we are to correct any problem with the medical workforce, it is insufficient to simply state that we will double the number of medical students.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. When all the new doctors that the Government have promised have been trained, they will need jobs and postgraduate medical training, and there are issues with that. Nevertheless, the Government asked the public to vote for them on the basis that they would double the number of medical school places. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues produced little videos to that effect, which can be viewed on Twitter. They toured the newsrooms saying, “Please vote for us, we’re going to double the number of medical school places.” They suggested that there would be a revolution in Government to make sure that there were enough doctors. This is important—more doctors would help.

All new clause 44 does is ask the Government to commit to doing what they have said that they will do—or to say that they will not. Either way, we have had the Secretary of State saying one thing and a Minister saying the opposite and then correcting it, so we need clarity. The public deserve that. The Minister herself said that they would double the number of medical school places so that we have the doctors that our NHS needs. If they do not double the number of medical school places, it follows that they will not have the number of doctors that the NHS needs. Presumably that is in their workforce plan, but it needs to be cleared up.

Amendment 50 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS workforce every five years. The logic is straightforward: if the Government believe that their plans are sufficient, they can be compared to an impartial assessment of the workforce. The previous Government published a workforce plan in 2023, setting out how to tackle existing and future workforce challenges over several years. That included doubling the number of medical school places. Yet three years later, this Government are on course for a new plan that is reportedly far less ambitious—we will find out in a minute.

The workforce affects whether patients can be seen on time, maternity wards are safely staffed and elderly patients get the dignity they deserve. It is the difference between the NHS meeting the challenge of an ageing population or slipping into decline. If Labour Members are confident that the Minister’s workforce planning is robust, I expect that they will support my amendment, which requires an independently audited forecast. If they are not willing to support it, that suggests that they know this Government cannot be trusted to deliver the workforce that patients need.

Amendment 54 and new clause 45 were also tabled in my name. Amendment 54 would require the Secretary of State to look at the amount of clinical work that NHS managers undertake. As a clinician, I have increasingly noticed that highly qualified clinical practitioners come in, become the person on the ward who can be relied on, and then go off because they get promoted to a nine-to-five job that is easier and pays more, but does not deliver clinical care.

The chief medical officer, for example, still delivers clinical care, and the amendment probes the Government to consider how many nurses and clinicians in hospitals are delivering clinical care. I asked that in written questions, and the Government did not know the answer. It is materially important information, particularly when looking at the Dash report, which talks about an explosion in the number of people who are clinically trained but not providing clinical work—instead, they are creating guidelines and monitoring whether other clinicians are doing the work. If more of those people were engaged in clinical activity, that might improve the quality of both the guidelines and care, because more junior staff would have senior staff around to help them.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I strongly support the argument that clinical staff, even if they progress into a senior role, should carry out some sort of clinical practice. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is what went wrong over the past few years, especially when NHS England was created? Many senior clinicians who were moved into management posts had no contact with clinical areas. That is what this Government are trying to fix by abolishing NHS England.

[Dr Johnson]

I am talking predominantly about clinicians working in trusts who are trained and very experienced, but then move to work in the same trust but in a more managerial role that does not involve clinical care. I am not saying that every single person needs to be delivering clinical care—there may be exceptions, of course; people do have career changes—but I encourage the Government to reflect on the number of posts being created that take people away from the clinical arena, and on the effect that that has. When the Minister is presented with the number of nursing or midwifery-qualified staff working in a particular department, that may not reflect the number who are delivering clinical care and, by their own admission, the Government do not know which is which.

Amendment 33 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the workforce is trained on the wider determinants of health, such as housing standards, air pollution and the use of harmful substances. In my many years as a paediatrician, I have yet to meet a nurse, doctor, surgeon, porter or care co-ordinator who does not know that damp and mould are bad for people’s health, and I have yet to meet a fellow employee who does not know that air pollution causes asthma, or that tobacco use increases the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and a whole host of other ailments.

Considering the many pressures on NHS workers, I do not believe that mandating a new programme on health determinants is a good use of time. I fear that it is rooted in the agenda of creating more and more mandatory training, and I would actually encourage the Minister to look at rationalising mandatory training to that which is absolutely necessary. Control of the curriculum for such staff is dealt with separately, so I object to amendment 33.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 7 says—I abbreviate:

“The Secretary of State must exercise functions…with a view to ensuring that…there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service, and…there is an effective system in place for the planning and delivery of education and training of people to meet those needs.”

That is all very nice—who couldn’t agree with that?—but amendment 50, tabled by the shadow Minister, would add a means by which the public, in the interests of transparency, could make an assessment of that by requiring the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years. That seems entirely sensible, it is something that I am sure any Government would want to do anyway, and it would add meaning, assessment and transparency to what is already in the Bill.

New clauses 44 and 45 would do something similar in relation to the number of medical school places. As the shadow Minister said in response to an intervention, new clause 44 seeks to do only what the Government have already said they want to do. Hopefully, the Minister can give us some clarity on whether that is still the Government’s intention and, if it is, what aversion she has to including it in the Bill.

Separately, new clause 45 seeks to establish a benchmark of data collection. Of course, duties and requirements placed on a Secretary of State, such as those in clause 7, can be delivered only if we start with the proper collection of data and, in the interests of transparency, publish it. For that reason, I also support new clause 45.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 8 will give the Secretary of State the power to direct integrated care boards to exercise his or her functions. This power, similar to that currently employed by NHS England, will promote subsidiarity by enabling such functions to be delivered at the lowest appropriate level. The clause builds on the existing section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006, which allows the Secretary of State to direct ICBs but only in respect of public health functions.

With our plans to abolish NHS England, the Secretary of State will again have broad powers and responsibility relating to the health service, and so this power encompasses a wider range of functions. Unlike the delegated frameworks set out under sections 65Z5 and 75 of the 2006 Act, which are entered into voluntarily, any integrated care board directed under this power would be obliged to carry out the stated functions.

I reassure the Committee that, while the ICB will be legally responsible for how it discharges a function, overall accountability will remain with the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Secretary of State might also use directions to place restrictions on the onward delegation of any functions, preventing delegation where it may be inappropriate. Finally, any directions must be published, ensuring transparency and allowing proper accountability.

This measure will empower the Secretary of State to assign functions to ICBs where most appropriate. It aligns with and facilitates our broader direction of travel towards flexibly planned and delivered local services. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 8 is essentially about the control that the Secretary of State has over ICBs. When we discussed the clause abolishing NHS England, we talked a lot about the balance between democratic accountability on the one hand and independence from political interference on the other.

The Government suggest that the Bill is a decentralising Bill. What this clause does is essentially to recentralise by default. As the Minister has just said, the Secretary of State can change what the ICB is doing if they think that it is inappropriate. What does “inappropriate” mean exactly, and how will that power be used? It may be used very infrequently—perhaps the current and previous Secretaries of State think that the power would be used infrequently—but equally it could be used in response to considerable pressure from MPs, lobbyists and campaign groups. Instead of issuing directions sparingly, we may end up in a position where the Secretary of State is issuing day-to-day instructions.

The Government want ICBs to take greater responsibility for commissioning decisions, but then they want to be able to undermine them by direction from the Health Secretary. The Health Secretary will never have as good a grasp of the situation in the local geographic area as local leaders, but he has the power to tell them what to do and issue blanket instructions with different characteristics. That will be inherently inefficient. ICB leaders will be under pressure, knowing that if they make a particular decision they can be removed or be told to do something different. They have the job and they have the power, but they haven’t really—all at the same time.

There is also the plan, as the Minister outlined, to make directions something that the Government publish. The clause says that directions must be published by the Secretary of State, but only

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

The intention behind requiring the prompt publication of directions is to reduce the surface area for back-room pressures, but the lack of a clear timeframe makes it rather a weak measure.

We currently have a Government who seem open to greater use of the private sector, whether in financing projects or in delivering out-patient care. Well, our Prime Minister resigned yesterday, and there is no guarantee that the Government of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will take the same approach. Will the Minister confirm whether the powers in clause 8 could be used by a Health Secretary to instruct ICBs to stop using a specific type of provider?

I would not dispute the idea that the Secretary of State needs to be able to exercise some control over the health service now that NHS England is being abolished, but the clause seems contrary to the Government’s stated vision for health management. I am not sure whether it is in the best interests of patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I recognise that this is a subject of some debate; we may discuss it further when we come to the part of the Bill on ICBs. The abolition of NHS England and transferring all its functions to one body has a consequence, which is that the Secretary of State retains that accountability and power. We are keen to have that power clear but flexible in order to empower local systems. That remains the intent.

The power is necessary for the Secretary of State to update national commissioning standards, for example. The ICBs will have wider roles as strategic commissioners. We expect them to take on formal responsibility for a number of services delegated by NHS England. That allows us to issue a common set of commissioning standards, on the point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon about variability in different places. There need to be common standards across the piece: eligibility criteria, the treatments the provider should use, and national reporting requirements. ICBs having those standards means that there will be a reduction in unwarranted variation in some of these events.

The shadow Minister raised the timetable. The Opposition will recognise that there needs to be flexibility for the Secretary of State and Ministers to respond to unforeseen or changing events. That is why it is purposely broad, because the range of events that can impact the NHS is clearly very broad. We cannot predict the future.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said that the Bill needs to deal with all these problems. The Bill needs to give enough flexibility to the system and devolve as much power to the system. The Bill needs to make sure that the powers are in the right place, but it is for the local systems to respond to their local needs within that framework. They will be held accountable, for example through the NHS oversight framework and through ICBs’ normal accountability frameworks.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is talking about flexibility. I understand that if a Minister is responding to an unforeseen circumstance, he or she may be very busy, but where a direction has been made, it should not take very long for a member of staff to publish it, because it will already have been written and sent. I understand that a Minister might take a day or so to sign it off because they are so busy, but it should not take months. The addition of a deadline is therefore not an unreasonable request.

[Karin Smyth]

With due respect to the hon. Lady, it is not a matter of the Minister being busy, whether that is me or anybody else. It is about the operational running of a £200 billion organisation with 1.5 million staff treating millions of people every day. I am sure we all remember from our own experience incidents and unforeseen events that have happened in the local system, and sometimes very tragic events that have required the Secretary of State to take action. We are trying not to increase the number of reports and documentation and to rid the system of bureaucracy by putting something out in that timeline.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Karin Smyth]

No, I have finished.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Secretary of State’s power to provide assistance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 9, which will insert new section 12DA into the National Health Service Act 2006, will give the Secretary of State a clear statutory duty to provide financial, staffing or other practical assistance in connection with the health service. The power may be used to support persons providing, or proposing to provide, services as part of the health service or which are beneficial to the interests of the health service. It may also be used to support public authorities where the assistance relates to education or training for people employed, or considering becoming employed, in activities connected with the provision of health services. The assistance may include financial assistance, the services of civil servants or other resources of the Secretary of State, and it may be provided on agreed terms, including terms about payments by or to the Secretary of State.

The clause will support the wider purpose of the Bill by enabling a small centre to act in a supportive and enabling way towards the wider system. Where appropriate, the Secretary of State will be able to provide assistance directly to those delivering or supporting health service activity. The clause is needed because the existing statutory framework does not include a clear power that enables the Secretary of State to provide practical support across the full range of health service activity. Relevant support may be financial, practical, staffing-related or connected with education and training.

Without this clear power, there is a genuine risk of confusion about the basis on which such support may be offered, particularly where the Secretary of State is acting to facilitate the delivery of services by others. The power is permissive and facilitative: it does not require the Secretary of State to provide assistance, and it does not require any person or body to accept it. The power is also limited by its connection to the health service and matters relevant to education, training or activities considered beneficial to the health service. Its exercise remains subject to ordinary public law principles and public financial controls. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

In a system as large as the NHS, covering an area as diverse as England, it is necessary that the Government be able to deal with unexpected situations. The pandemic may be half a decade behind us already, but the Committee will remember that the previous Government had to act quickly and part with a lot of money in a short time. In such instances, it is essential that Ministers have the power to provide financial assistance. It is not only about crises, however; ordinarily, there are occasions when a Government will want to roll out a new prevention programme or address deficiencies in care in particular areas. I know that health policy is always evolving, and the case for flexibility is clear. The Health Secretary may need to be able to provide financial assistance in pursuit of supporting the health service.

I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with the existing legislation. Section 12D of the National Health Service Act 2006 gives the Secretary of State, NHS England, an ICB or the local authority the ability to make direct financial payments as an assistance to persons or bodies. Clause 9 would new section 12DA of the Act, under which the Secretary of State would be empowered to provide assistance to any person or body carrying out, or proposing to carry out, activities that they deem beneficial to the service.

This is where semantics are important. The existing legislation allows the Secretary of State to make payments, but clause 9 is different: it would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance and to make available persons employed by the civil service or any other resources that the Secretary of State has. This is a remarkably open-ended power that would allow the Secretary of State to spend taxpayers’ money while bypassing standard scrutiny. When NHS England spends money, there is transparency: the public can see how much has been spent on different types of care, ranging from hospitals to public health programmes. The public can see how much money has gone into trusts, into the independent sector and into procurement.

Transparency builds trust in the system and disincentivises wasteful spending. Where will parliamentarians or the public be able to see the financial expense of civil servants, or literally any other resource that the Secretary of State may offer in support? For the first time, the Health Secretary will have the power to insert politically directed civil servants into elements of the health service that are not under public ownership.

As clause 9 is drafted, the Secretary of State could provide civil service labour to private or mutual health providers that work within the NHS. Will the Minister elaborate on how that would be used, and how it would be beneficial to the taxpayer and the health service? The number of civil servants taking home more than six figures has increased under this Government. Their time should be focused on delivering public services, not propping up providers, especially ones that are private businesses.

It is also unclear where the legal liability lies under such arrangements. If something goes wrong and the human resources provided by the Secretary of State are responsible, is the Secretary of State responsible or the entity into which those staff have been inserted? Can the Minister clarify that?

It may be politically beneficial in the short term to provide state support, but it can be costly to the public purse and damaging to markets in the long term. By allowing the Health Secretary to issue assistance in the form of free civil servant labour, clause 9 effectively creates a new type of off-the-books subsidy. How can Members of the House or NHS providers tell whether assistance is operational support or a de facto subsidy? It could undermine the idea of a level playing field for firms contracted to deliver NHS services.

There is also the question of when assistance crosses from operational support into running a provider or firm. We do not necessarily want to be in a position where the Bill is used to bail out failing private firms with NHS contracts. I return to the phrase

“any other resources of the Secretary of State”.

It is difficult to understand why the legislation was written in this way, allowing financial assistance, the provision of labour, and then the use of absolutely any other resource at the Health Secretary’s disposal. As with several other provisions in the Bill, it seems another sign that the legislation was rushed. Instead of circumscribing power tightly where it is needed, the Bill gives huge sweeping powers while claiming that it decentralises.

The Minister has described clause 9 as a discretionary power intended to support the effective functioning of the health service and its workforce. Although that may be what she sought to achieve, that is not the reality. The clause paves the way for arbitrary and unaccountable deployments of state resources, and that should concern all hon. Members.

[Gregory Stafford]

I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

I am particularly concerned about subsection (2)(a) of proposed new section 12DA. On examination, this provision raises significant concerns about the control of public expenditure and the efficient use of resources within the health service, and I find it rather vague. There is no definition of the terms used, no indication of scope and no express limitation on how the power is to be exercised.

When read together with subsection (1) of proposed new section 12DA, the effect, as I read it, is to allow the Secretary of State to provide funding to an extremely wide category of recipients. That includes not only public bodies and established NHS providers but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, private entities, charities, individuals and any person engaged in activities that the Secretary of State considers to be beneficial to the health service.

That breadth is not accompanied by a corresponding statutory safeguard. The clause does not set out criteria for eligibility, priorities for funding or principles to guide decision making. It does not impose limits on the sums that may be disbursed, nor does it require any structured process for allocating funds. There is no express provision for transparency, such as publication of decisions or reporting obligations to another body such as Parliament. That absence is significant.

Control over public expenditure ultimately lies with Parliament, yet the clause delegates a wide and flexible spending power to the Executive with little direction as to how that power is to be exercised. While it may be said that Treasury rules, audit requirements and general public law principles continue to apply, those are external controls and they do not substitute for clear statutory discipline within the provision itself.

The practical consequences of such a broad power need to be considered. The NHS is already under considerable financial strain; as we all know, demand is rising and resources are constrained, and there is a continuing need to ensure that funding is allocated in a way that delivers measurable improvements in outcomes. In that context, certainty, prioritisation and efficiency are essential. By framing this power in such open terms, the clause risks undermining those objectives. It will create the possibility of fragmented funding decisions, with resources distributed across a wide range of initiatives without clear and consistent frameworks, and it may lead to duplication of effort or to supporting projects with benefits that are uncertain or difficult to evaluate. Without clear criteria or structured oversight, it will become more difficult to ensure that funding is directed to the areas of greatest need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

In concluding the debate on this part of the Bill, the Opposition have helpfully made most of my arguments for me. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham opened with reference to the pandemic and the unusual circumstances in which we have found ourselves. It is obviously important that this Government learn the lessons from that pandemic in the round, that we are prepared and that, as NHS England is abolished, those powers come back to the Secretary of State so that we can respond to any eventuality that comes before us.

As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, there are existing standards and rules of procurement. Any spending that happens through the Department and the NHS will be publicly recorded and published in the Department of Health’s consolidated accounts. Those come before Parliament, so there is direct transparency through the parliamentary process in the usual way and, as we all know and as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, Treasury rules apply.

The point about the use of civil servants has been made. Again, it is really important that we recognise that we are bringing together NHS England, NHS staff and civil servants in the Department. It is right that the Secretary of State, in whatever eventuality comes before him or her, is able to deploy the right person for the right job, be they a civil servant or someone currently under NHS staff terms and conditions, to support that work going forward. The clause is necessarily flexible and broad to provide for those eventualities, and to enable the necessary assistance to be deployed. I commend clause 9 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Secretary of State’s duty as respects variation in provision of health services

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 10, page 6, line 21, leave out from “interests” to end of line and insert “of patients”.

This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to vary the balance between the public and private sectors in the NHS where it is in the interests of patients to do so.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

This is perhaps the oddest provision in the Bill. Since time immemorial, the Labour party has accused its political rivals of wanting to privatise the health service. In the early 2010s, the then shadow Ministers indulged the idea that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was a Trojan horse for privatisation. Several years later, after the Minister had herself joined the House, claims continued. The then leader of the Labour party urged the previous Government to

“undo the very damaging privatisation of so much of our NHS”. —[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 960.]

In the 2019 election, the public were even presented with a dodgy dossier—not Labour’s first—that purported to show that the NHS was on the table in negotiations for a trade deal. We now have a trade deal and the NHS is still intact.

Even though Members know full well that no sensible opposition party is advocating for abandoning our NHS system, they keep saying that Governments have been selling off the health service through the back door. Today, private providers deliver only about 10% of NHS care and the system continues to be free at the point of use.

That brings us to the deep irony of today’s debate. After years of peddling the NHS privatisation myth, the Labour party has introduced legislation to make privatisation possible. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 inserted a safeguard against privatisation, section 12E, into the NHS Act 2006. That section prohibits the Secretary of State from exercising his functions for the purpose of “causing a variation” in the proportion of services provided by the public or the private sector.

Clause 10 substitutes the text in that section and makes two small but significant changes. The first change is to expand the type of providers beyond public and private to

“different kinds of legal entity”.

That is probably a good change, because it encompasses the mutual and voluntary sectors, which do have an important role to play in health provision going forward.

The second change is what has caused alarm. The Secretary of State cannot alter the provider mix unless they deem it to be

“in the interests of the health service.”

Could the Minister set out some scenarios when it would be deliberately beneficial to privatise provision or, indeed, when it would be beneficial to deliberately nationalise provision? I cannot recall an instance where Ministers needed to privatise an entire service to ensure patients did not lose access to care.

In February, the Minister of State for Secondary Care told the House that lessons had been learned from private finance initiatives. Yet the Government announced that 80% of neighbourhood health centres will be privatised through public private partnerships. The Government are able to use these partnerships to loan money outside their limits, but it tends to be more costly than public sector borrowing. Essentially, it is borrowing, but not borrowing on the balance sheet.

What is the effect of these private initiatives? I remember receiving my own office on being promoted as a doctor to consultant. It is quite an exciting moment; before that, resident doctors share an office. I had my own space, my own desk, my own computer and a big whiteboard for notes. When I asked whether I could place the whiteboard on the wall, I was told I could not—it was £800 to stick it on the wall under the private finance initiative contract.

So my great big whiteboard sat there, propped against the wall. Periodically, I would move a piece of paper, knock the bottom of the whiteboard and it would tip and fall on me when I was sat at my desk. I did suggest putting it up myself, but that would also incur a charge through the PFI contract—for modifying things without getting them to do the modifications—so I just had to sit there with it propped up against the wall, ad infinitum.

The Government are on the hook for more than £100 billion of payouts, simply for the use and maintenance of PFI facilities. The Labour scheme was a shambolic waste of taxpayers’ money that could have been spent on improving care. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) asked the Minister about public private partnerships, she told him she was

“very proud of the capital investment under the last Labour Government”.—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 386WH.]

But is clause 10 simply a mechanism for Ministers to develop further private finance initiatives? If Government spending is under pressure, may Ministers seek to shift provision even if it proves more costly in the long run?

There is another side to the conundrum of clause 10. Instead of a Health Secretary intent on privatisation, what if we get one intent on squeezing out private sector provision? Who our new Prime Minister will be, we do not know, but one of the candidates has called for the country to abandon 40 years of neoliberalism. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on what that means, since the tax take as a percentage of GDP is the highest it has been in 40 years. To me, it signals a potential hostility towards choice and competition. We do not want to be in a situation in which the decision is made to alter the provider mix in service of ideology, rather than in the best interests of patients.

I am aware of several private firms that provide services to the NHS and are concerned that clause 10 could be wielded against them. If a future Health Secretary decided to reduce private provision on the basis of ideology, what would happen to the 10% of planned activity that is currently delivered by for-profit entities? NHS providers could not feasibly handle such a surge in demand, waiting lists would increase further, and patient choice would suffer. It would also be expensive. If private providers fear that the NHS is no longer a reliable customer, and that they may suddenly lose their contract if this clause is invoked, they will charge a risk premium on their services—that is what firms do when they face shifting regulatory goalposts. That would only damage the public purse.

Under clause 10, it would be legally possible for the Health Secretary to alter the provider mix. As a result, it would be worth it for several types of providers and ideologically motivated groups to spend vast sums of money hiring lobbyists to convince Ministers that their sector deserves favourable treatment and that they serve the interests of the NHS. Organisations would invest less in resources and more in influencing the rules, which is not a good outcome either.

All those issues are compounded by the fact that clause 10 is imprecise. What does the Minister define as

“the interests of the health service”?

I am not trying to catch the Minister out; I just want to illustrate the problem with legislation drafted in such terms. It is difficult to prove that the Health Secretary has not acted in what they thought were the best interests of the health service. What could that refer to? It could refer to the interests of patients, to the interests of NHS staff or to the financial stability of the health service—it is entirely subjective. What is the health service there for? It is there for patients, which is why I tabled amendment 53.

Amendment 53 would revise clause 10 to specify that the Secretary of State must not alter the provider mix unless doing so is in the interests of patients. I would like to place patients at the centre of the Bill’s changes, in recognition that we do not have the numbers on the Committee to change the clause altogether. My revision would make it harder for the Health Secretary to justify altering the provider mix if it harms patient access or reduces their choice. It would make NHS providers less fearful to know that the Health Secretary would be subjected to a better defined legal threshold.

[Gregory Stafford]

The shadow Minister has outlined a couple of hypotheticals for the future, when we have a different Prime Minister and a different Secretary of State. One might go down a route of more privatisation, another down a route of removing the private sector from health service provision. My concern is more practical and for the here and now: if the clause stands part of the Bill, it must be because the Government have some desire to do one of those two things now. Would it not be a good idea to hear from the Minister which of those two options it is?

[Dr Johnson]

It does raise questions about the point of new section 12E. That provision was not there before; there must be a reason for adding it. Either the Government want ideologically to reduce the amount of private provision in the NHS, or they want to increase it. The clause gives them the power to do both.

Labour politicians very often tell the public that the NHS is being privatised. Data has shown that that is not happening, but that did not matter; they found the myth politically advantageous and repeated it ad nauseam. Now, the Minister and her colleagues are in office—they have the levers of power—and are proposing to change the law to make it easier to change the provider mix. That is not only ironic but deeply misguided.

I tabled amendment 53 to require any changes to the provider mix to be in the interests of patients. If the Minister is unwilling to support that, will she offer a compelling explanation why? Clause 10 has alarmed stakeholders across the health sector and the political spectrum. That really ought to tell us something. I look forward to her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I will respond to that question before picking up the other comments. If I do not address all the Committee’s comments, I will come back to Members.

Everyone would expect this, but let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to a free-at-the-point-of-use, taxpayer-funded service. We also think that unless it is reformed and changed, it is an existential problem for the British public, who will not continue to support the service. As Members know, one Parliament can never bind another one, so I cannot predict what a future Government will do. There is talk from some of our Reform colleagues about an insurance-based system. There are people who were in the Conservative party but have moved over who think that, so obviously I cannot—

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Karin Smyth]

I will make some points, and then I will be happy take the hon. Lady’s intervention if I do not address what she was going to say.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire outlined some of the history. This clause seeks to strike a balance. The governing principle behind it is that the decisions of the Secretary of State must not vary the proportion of providers by the type of legal entity that they are. Decisions must be taken according to what serves the health service and the people who depend on it. The clause permits, by way of exception, the balance between sectors to be varied purposefully, but only where doing so would be in the interests of the health service. That would, for example, prevent the Secretary of State from deliberately choosing to grow the proportion of NHS services delivered by private providers for solely ideological reasons.

I understand the concern that drives the amendment. It is that the exception might be relied on to support the convenience of those already providing the service, without taking into account what is best for patients, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. That is not the Government’s position, and the clause does not lead to that outcome. The test that it creates is whether the interests of the health services are served.

As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham also said, the definition of the health service—as defined under section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—is not separate from the people it exists to serve. It is defined as “a comprehensive health service” for “the people of England”, directed at improving their health and at the “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” of illness. A decision to rely on the exception must be justified by reference to that duty; one taken merely because it was easier or more convenient for existing providers or any other group, with no such justification, would be unlawful. The protection that she seeks is, in substance, already secured by the clause.

The amendment would also create another difficulty. Section 1 of the 2006 Act reaches the entire population and includes the prevention of illness before anyone becomes a patient at all. The “interests of patients” reaches only those already receiving care, which is a narrower test than I think the hon. Lady intended, and would allow a Secretary of State who was so minded to provide a landscape that ignores vital preventive health and wellbeing concerns. I hope that she will take from my remarks an assurance that the clause already meets her concerns.

The hon. Lady also highlighted the example of PFI—a subject of much discussion over many years—and of being unable to change her whiteboard. That is absolutely one of the lessons that needs to be learned from the way in which some past PFIs were procured and dealt with. For example, as a new Government, we outlined proposals for a new model of public-private partnerships for neighbourhood health centres, among other things. The previous Government could also have learned the lessons and done something about that, but they chose instead to completely halt the building of any kind of facilities. That is one reason why we are in such a shocking state at the moment. The new proposal outlines, as I think the Opposition know, an 80:20 funding route, exactly to make the point about which is the most efficient way forward. That will absolutely drive measures for growth and create more jobs in the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I refer the hon. Gentleman back to my comments. The health service is defined under section 1 of the NHS Act 2006 as not being separate from the people it exists to serve. It is defined as “a comprehensive health service” for “the people of England”, directed at improving their health and at the “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” of illness—so, yes.

At this juncture, I will explain a number of other features of the clause. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it builds on section 12E of the 2006 Act to cover the Secretary of State’s health functions, powers and duties. It recognises that, with the abolition of NHS England, the Secretary of State has a far more substantial role to play—as a commissioner of services, for example—than previously. I also put on the record that whenever the Secretary of State takes a decision in this space, the general NHS procurement requirements and other statutory duties will continue to apply.

Finally, the NHS relies on privately owned providers, as well as charities and community organisations, to provide a range of important NHS-funded services across the country. As such, it is important to ensure that, where there is a mixed-market provision between public and private for providers of a particular service, the Government’s powers are not used to distort the provision and potentially discourage important investment from outside the NHS. Conversely, they should not be used purposefully to favour independent providers over NHS providers for reasons unrelated to the quality or efficiency of NHS-funded healthcare.

[Dr Johnson]

If I heard the Minister right, she said that the clause did not provide for changes on the basis of ideology. However, it says that changes are not to be made

“unless the Secretary of State considers that to do so is in the interests of the health service.”

A Secretary of State whose ideology is that the private sector is bad, good or whatever else could well believe that it is in the interests of the health service to be private or not private. How does the clause prevent an ideologically driven Secretary of State from changing the health service on the basis simply of his ideology, rather than of patient or clinical need?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady tempts me to delve into the politics of future Secretaries of State. They will respond according to the manifesto on which they are elected by the British public. That is the point of a democratically accountable public service. I think that the clause strikes that balance, as I have said. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

General power to direct integrated care boards

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 11, page 8, leave out lines 15 to 30.

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from removing the Chief Executive of an integrated care board.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 11 is particularly interesting. In August 2025, Alan Milburn was asked about the abolition of NHS England on the Health Foundation podcast. He said that the Government wanted to see a model that was “more delegated…more devolved” and “more diverse”, which necessitated the centre being smaller. Considering that he is a former Labour Health Secretary and a non-executive director at the Department of Health and Social Care, I do not doubt his understanding of what the Government wanted to achieve.

When the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), announced the 10-year plan to the House, he also talked about dissolving power. He spoke of a

“brave new world of devolution of power, resources and control”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 469.]

That was repeated in the Government publications that accompanied the Bill:

“Empowering ICBs as strategic commissioners will support putting patients at the centre of care by devolving decisions to a local level where different services can better integrate… Reforms to the NHS FT model will give providers more flexibility to design and deliver healthcare around local needs.”

Between the announcement of the abolition of NHS England and the publication of the Bill, Ministers articulated a vision for a more decentralised system. There is expert consensus that decentralisation boosts performance, reduces health disparities and fosters innovation. After listening to remarks this morning, I have no doubt that Members are clued up on the importance of innovation to the health service, but a problem—a philosophical contradiction—at the heart of the Government’s reform programme and the Bill is that Ministers talk about decentralisation while these provisions constitute a recentralisation of power.

Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. As Members will have noticed, I have taken my jacket off, so please feel free to take yours off—it is hot in here.

Clause 12

Commissioning functions: responsibility

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 12, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(4A) Before making regulations under subsection (1)(b) that would alter the range of services or facilities which the Secretary of State is required to commission nationally, the Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare and publish a commissioning transition plan in accordance with subsection (4B),

(b) consult in accordance with subsection (4C), and

(c) lay the commissioning transition plan before Parliament.

(4B) The commissioning transition plan must set out—

(a) a description of each service or facility that the Secretary of State proposes to add to, or remove from, national commissioning responsibility under section 3B(1)(b), and the reasons for each proposed change;

(b) a description of the body or bodies to which commissioning responsibility for each such service or facility would transfer and the basis on which that body is considered capable of commissioning that service or facility effectively;

(c) an assessment of the impact of each proposed change on patients who rely on the affected services or facilities, including—

(i) patients with rare diseases or conditions,

(ii) patients whose needs cannot be met by a single integrated care board area, and

(iii) patients who may face differential impacts on account of a protected characteristic within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010;

(d) the transitional arrangements to be put in place to ensure continuity of service for patients during any transfer of commissioning responsibility;

(e) the workforce and capacity implications for the bodies to which commissioning responsibility would transfer;

(f) the financial arrangements for the transfer of commissioning responsibility, including the funding to be allocated to receiving bodies; and

(g) the proposed timetable for implementation of each change.

(4C) Consultation under this subsection must include—

(a) integrated care boards that would assume commissioning responsibility under the proposed changes;

(b) NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts providing the services or facilities affected by the proposed changes;

(c) patient groups and representative organisations for patients likely to be affected by the proposed changes;

(d) clinicians with expertise in the services or facilities affected; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4D) Consultation under subsection (4C) must—

(a) run for a period of not less than twelve weeks, and

(b) begin no earlier than the date on which the specialised commissioning transition plan is published under subsection (4A)(a).

(4E) Following the consultation period, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the consultation that—

(a) summarises the representations received,

(b) sets out the Secretary of State's response to the key issues raised, and

(c) describes any amendments made to the specialised commissioning transition plan in light of consultation responses.

(4F) No regulations under section 3B(1)(b) that alter the range of nationally commissioned services or facilities may be made until at least 60 days have elapsed after the consultation response required by subsection (4E) has been published.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish and consult on a commissioning transition plan before making any regulations under the new section 3B of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by Clause 12) that would alter which services are commissioned nationally.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 13 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

In essence, the clause confers the commissioning duties of NHS England on to the Secretary of State, because NHS England is being abolished. In that respect, it is quite straightforward. In the existing National Health Service Act 2006, which is to be amended, section 3 sets out the duties of integrated care boards as to commissioning health services, and section 3A similarly. Section 4 is about NHS England’s responsibility for the provision of high-security psychiatric services. In essence, clause 12 replaces the references to “NHS England” in sections 3 and 3A with “the Secretary of State”. The ICBs now must act consistently with the discharge by the Secretary of State of the section 1 duty to promote a comprehensive health service. That is consistent with the aims of the Bill. I have concerns, which I have expressed previously, about how the Government ensure that the Secretary of State can make those decisions fairly, on the basis of clinical need, rather than because of pressure from a lobby group, a celebrity campaign or such like, but again, that seems consistent.

The clause also replaces entirely section 3B of the 2006 Act. Under the previous section 3B, the Secretary of State could direct NHS England to commission the service nationally; the proposed new section 3B confers a regulation-making power to require the Secretary of State to arrange nationally services for members of the armed forces and their families specifically, as well as such services or facilities as may be prescribed. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what sort of services or facilities might be prescribed under that proposed new section.

In doing that, the Secretary of State must have regard to the number of people needing the service, the cost and the number of possible providers. That reflects a balance. Some services, such as hip replacements, are very common. They occur in all areas of the country, perhaps at different rates, but they are broadly a common service. Accident and emergency is another common service. Some people, however, have the misfortune to have a condition that is rare and requires specialist care, in small numbers. That needs to be commissioned on a more national basis, because of the need for specific expertise among commissioners and health professionals.

In subsection (4), proposed new section 3B(5) modifies section 4 of the 2006 Act so that the duty to arrange high-security psychiatric services transfers from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State gains a new power to direct the providers of those bodies—but only non-public bodies—if he is satisfied that the provider is already licensed under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and would be required by its licence to obey the direction.

In one respect, as I said, it is necessary to transfer powers to Secretary of State, now that NHS England is to be abolished, but I have a couple of questions. NHS England published a direct commissioning update on 2 March, which describes a new commissioning structure. At the moment, NHS England commissions regional NHS England bodies and the ICBs at a more local level. The update suggests that we will have the ICBs commissioning services, and the Secretary of State instead of NHS England, but that each of the seven regions will have an office for pan-ICB commissioning, known as an OPIC, to support ICB commissioning services—both standard commissioning and at-scale commissioning in some instances.

How is that more efficient than the old structure? Are we just going to see the people working in the regions of NHS England get made redundant, at a huge cost to the state, only to be re-employed by the OPIC? What is the estimated cost of that? Is that the intention? We are going to either lose the expertise of the regional advisers in NHS England or end up re-employing them having paid them redundancy. Can the Minister explain which she thinks it is?

There is a hugely long list of specialist nationally commissioned services. Can the Minister guarantee that those services will not be moved locally? The ICBs only have so much capacity. It will be a challenge for an ICB to deal with conditions that may affect only one or two people in its area in a given year, particularly given the 50% budget cut; obviously, it will prioritise things that affect more of its population. People who have the rare conditions that are currently commissioned nationally may be worried that they will not get the same level of service that they are getting at the moment.

The direct commissioning update talks about prisoners and the justice system. At the moment, NHS England works directly with the Ministry of Justice to commission healthcare for those in the justice system. That includes adults in the custodial system, children in secure children’s homes, non-custodial care, sexual assault and abuse centres, and abuse referral centres.

There are eight high-security category A prisons in England. Instead of being specially commissioned as one batch, they are going to be commissioned specially by their local ICBs. Where are the ICBs going to get the advice and expertise to do that? Dealing with category A prisoners is about not only managing the prisoner and providing them with healthcare, but keeping the people providing that healthcare safe while they are working. This is a specialist area. I am interested to understand why the Minister thinks it will be managed best locally. If, under her new system, it is to be managed locally and the prisoner’s home address ICB is different from the prison address ICB, where will the funding move from and to? Will the prison’s ICB be reimbursed by the prisoner’s home ICB or will it bear the brunt locally?

What will happen to the sexual abuse referral centres? It is perfectly possible, particularly in some areas of the country, that an individual is sexually assaulted in one ICB area, lives in another and reports a crime in a third. Will local commissioning have an impact on where the individual needs to go for their pretty intimate examination and assessment? Has the Minister considered that? What is her view?

What happens to healthcare for migrants? That is another area that is dealt with partly by the justice system at the moment. Can the Minister update us on that? There are over 100,000 people in asylum accommodation, including 30,000 in hotels, and many members of her party are keen to welcome even more. Who will be responsible for commissioning their care?

The Government are also delegating the child health information services, which are the record of whether children have been vaccinated and such like. Given that they are planning to have a single patient record and the electronic red book, why do they want the services to be commissioned locally rather than nationally? Do they expect commissioning for a uniform service, such as a screening service, to lead to differential outcomes—and if it does not, what is the rationale for it?

A particular example is blood spot screening. The Minister will be aware that there was a Westminster Hall debate earlier in the week on spinal muscular atrophy, in which blood spot screening was mentioned. Metachromatic leukodystrophy is another condition for which people want blood spot screening. If blood spot screening is to be commissioned on a local ICB level, will ICBs be required to do it in line with Government guidelines, or will they be able to vary the service they provide to those patients?

By delegating more to ICBs, Ministers are creating variation. On one hand, they want local differentiation and variation; on the other hand, they have put in a clause that requires the Secretary of State to limit local variation. Again, there is a tension there. Will the Minister talk about that?

Moving to some technical points, I noticed that “hospital premises” is defined in section 4 of the 2006 Act, but I cannot find it defined in the Bill. Under the original section 3B of that Act, the Secretary of State had to obtain appropriate advice before making regulations about commissioning services; when services were commissioned locally or nationally, the Secretary of State had to take expert advice. That seems like a sensible thing that we want the Secretary of State to do. One would hope that if the Secretary of State were doing his job properly, he would do that, but it seems a little odd that that requirement has been taken out, as though there is an intention for the Secretary of State not to do that. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.

Proposed new section 3B provides that a direction can be given to a person other than a public authority regarding high-security psychiatric services. The Minister knows that high-security psychiatric services are currently provided at Broadmoor, Ashworth and Rampton, which are still stand-alone units run by NHS providers. Does she plan to ask a private provider—someone other than a public authority—to run those facilities? If not, what is the purpose of the clause? There is a secure children’s unit in Sleaford in my constituency. What will happen to those children if it is commissioned locally, and where will the money flow from?

We asked in a previous sitting whether the Minister thought that the new Prime Minister will want to continue with this Bill. When it comes to the OPICs, in essence the Government will be firing staff from one job, paying them redundancy, and rehiring them, potentially on different terms and conditions, to do a similar job in the OPICs. Is the Minister aware that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) used to speak out against firing and rehiring staff, and abolishing and recreating organisations? That is essentially what is happening, so will she have to abandon these changes?

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

We have heard a few times about Conservative fears about redundancy payments and so on. Why did they not add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order when they had the opportunity to do so? Is the hon. Lady aware of a reason why that did not happen when the Conservatives were in government?

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. The key point is that it is not logical to abolish a three-tier structure and recreate it with taxpayers’ money to do exactly the same thing. If NHS England is replaced by the Secretary of State, the regional NHS England is replaced by the OPICs and the ICBs are at the bottom—the more local tier—what has changed? The middle tier will be doing the same thing.

[Dave Robertson]

The modification order is a piece of legislation that is often used in the public sector. It means that when people from a lot of public sector organisations are made redundant and find alternative employment at another state-funded organisation, they are not entitled to a redundancy payment. During their 14 years in power, it would have been entirely possible for the Conservatives to add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order. That would have prevented the costs that the hon. Lady has mentioned several times. It just seems like they did not take the opportunity to do that, and now they are saying that they should have done that when they were in government.

[Dr Johnson]

But we were not planning to abolish NHS England, so we had no reason to worry about redundancy. We were not planning a large-scale abolition—the largest that has ever happened in this country.

Amendment 57 would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on commissioning transition plans before making regulations under proposed new section 3B that alter which services are commissioned nationally. It is a very reasonable amendment that would just mean that people get answers. It would mean that vulnerable people with unusually rare or highly complex conditions requiring regional or even national treatment could understand any changes the Government planned to make. We know that some services are delivered in only three or four centres in the UK. If a patient lives far from a centre, and suddenly that centre is closed, that can have huge travel and service implications, which can create huge distress and worry and make care worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. In general, the Liberal Democrats support clauses 12 and 13. We think that local decision making and community empowerment in the NHS, including on commissioning decisions, is the right thing to be doing.

However, I echo some of the concerns of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, particularly on specialist commissioning. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the spinal cord injury all-party parliamentary group. We are concerned that expertise in low-volume, very specialist concerns will be lost if the commissioning is pushed out to multiple ICBs. My understanding is that specialist commissioning sat with NHS England in the first place because of concern that multiple commissioning groups would struggle to deal with low-volume, complex issues.

The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned earlier this month that the new commissioning structure lacks mental health experts, with only one senior mental health lead across the seven new regional commissioning hubs taking specialised services from NHS England. Equally, the chief executive of the Derby and Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB cluster has said that it does not look like there will be a requirement for senior mental health expertise in reorganising ICBs. Will the Minister reassure us that when the Department designs which specialist services will be pushed back down to ICBs and which will be retained centrally, it will be minded to listen to representations from experts in the sector?

There are excellent services located geographically by accident—for example, the orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the veterans service that goes with it. Both are highly valued, but they need specialist commissioning at national level to be utilised properly and to provide the best outcomes for patients. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on those points.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said. Does she therefore support amendment 57, which would ensure that such a consultation takes place?

[Helen Morgan]

Yes, we would support the amendment, which is a reasonable way to get there, but an assurance from the Minister that the Department will consider specialist commissioning and really think that through properly before the powers are delegated to ICBs would be sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Clause 12 inserts new section 3B into the National Health Service Act 2006, re-establishing the responsibility of the Secretary of State to commission services. Although we intend ICBs to commission the vast majority of services, as we discussed this morning, we will use this regulation-making power to set out the small number of specialised services that the Secretary of State will be responsible for. That may include, for example, proton beam therapy, alongside a small number of other specialist services not currently suitable for ICB commissioning, such as gender dysphoria services and clinical genomics. By their nature, those are services to which national commissioning is appropriate because, for example, they have fewer patients or providers, greater or changeable costs, or they require specialist clinical expertise and input. Having a regulation-making power allows us to future-proof the system and update the regulations when new services or treatments emerge, or when services become cheaper or mainstream and therefore sit better with ICBs.

I now turn to amendment 57, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I recognise that any change to the way these services are commissioned matters enormously to the patients who depend on them. The hon. Lady used the word “worried”, and I understand that. Any change must be made with the greatest of care. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State, before any regulations are made that alter the range of nationally commissioned services and regardless of the scale of the change, to publish a transition plan covering seven prescribed matters, to consult five prescribed categories of persons for a minimum of 12 weeks, to publish a response to that consultation and then to wait a minimum of 60 days before the regulations can be made.

As I have said, I understand and share the concern about continuity of care and the careful allocation of responsibility that lies behind it, but the proposals in amendment 57 are not the right way to address that concern. It proposes a fixed sequence of steps with minimum time periods that would apply to every change without exception. Taken together, the prescribed steps would add the better part of half a year to any change, including changes that are minor or technical, or that, for reasons of clinical safety, need to be expedited. That would create delays for patients and uncertainty for the wider system over where commissioning responsibility sits.

I would like to offer assurance on some of the concerns raised today. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, who has spoken to me regularly about her concerns, for the work that she does in this area. I also commend the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, for her work on spinal cord injuries. I have met the chair of the APPG on spinal cord injury to discuss this topic. I would like to thank Bristol Councillor Kelvin Blake, who has a spinal cord injury and who for many years has impressed on me the difficulties faced by people with spinal cord injuries who are wheelchair dependent. I commend the work of people with these conditions who, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, struggle through a system that they should not have to struggle through. We want to make sure that these changes are assured, and I commit to working with hon. Members to do that as the Bill goes through.

I can assure the Committee that any significant change to nationally commissioned services will be accompanied by proportionate and appropriate engagement with patients, clinicians and the bodies affected. Change will always proceed according to appropriate transition arrangements. Each service, as hon. Members know, has very different patient needs and commissioning requirements, and demands different skills to commission effectively. The framework the Government are proposing will enable the Department to manage these processes flexibly and proportionately.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about arrangements for new organisations. In a changing organisation where people are coming forward for redundancy and in a new organisation that is taking shape, it is important that the executive looks at all redundancy requests and changing needs with regard for critical business infrastructure and the retention of skills. That is what we are currently doing.

The hon. Lady also asked about funding. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set out which ICB pays for whom, and there are clear rules for people in prisons and those not registered with a GP currently under the guidance of court, which is called “Who Pays?” There are also long-standing processes for ICBs to pay each other as needed. The hon. Lady also asked about high security mental health services; I can assure her that we have no plans to ask the private sector to provide services. The power to direct has been updated to ensure that directions would bite on non-NHS providers if that changes in future.

Clause 13, which is part of this group, is a technical clause that permits the Secretary of State or an integrated care board to confer on a person discretion in relation to anything that is to be provided under the commissioning arrangement. In practice, this means that they could undertake some activities traditionally carried out by a commissioner, such as reviewing how services are provided for a population and designing the way that those services will be delivered within the parameters set by the commissioner. These activities would be clearly set out and measured under the contract, and the commissioner would retain overall responsibility for the delivery of their functions. Currently, integrated care boards are already permitted to do this, and with the transfer of NHS England’s commissioning powers to the Secretary of State, we propose a similar approach for services that are commissioned nationally.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and that she will withdraw her amendment. I commend clauses 12 and 13 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Unfortunately, the Minister’s reassurances have not convinced me. In relation to change, “significant” means various things to different people. As for “proportionate”, what is “proportionate” to one person is not necessarily “proportionate” to another.

Amendment 57 makes reasonable provision for a situation in which there is a change from national to local commissioning, or from local to—mostly, it is from national to local commissioning. Therefore, I would like to push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

The clause will ensure that stability for contractors and patients is maintained with important safeguards, while further empowering ICBs to create a stronger and more integrated primary care system. I commend the clause and schedule, as amended, to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 14 is very straightforward: it states that schedule 1

“confers functions on integrated care boards in relation to commissioning primary care services…transfers related functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and”—

perhaps most interestingly—

“contains other amendments relating to primary care services.”

Schedule 1 essentially makes the following changes to the NHS Act 2006: it makes ICBs responsible for commissioning pharmacy services instead of NHS England; it amends section 99 to make ICBs responsible for commissioning dental services instead of NHS England; it amends section 83 to make ICBs responsible for commissioning primary medical services such as general practice instead of NHS England; and it amends section 115 to make ICBs responsible for commissioning ophthalmic services.

Largely, this change is formalising existing delegation and the risk of disruption is therefore relatively low. Local commissioners can tailor decisions to local need, and it is better if decisions are taken closer to users. However, there are a few other things in there as well. Paragraph 12(2) amends section 97 of the 2006 Act containing local medical committees, which are statutory committees. The way it is phrased,

“the whole or part of the ICB’s area”,

does not allow for overlap. Is that the Government’s intention? The Government, in a broader sense, talk about the strategic authorities and having the mayoral authority level involved in the ICB. But in Lincolnshire, for example, an area that I represent part of, the local medical committee could not work in conjunction with the mayoral authority under this legislation, as far as I read it, because it essentially covers two ICB areas and two regions.

The mayoral authority is the Greater Lincolnshire mayoral authority. That includes Lincolnshire’s upper-tier area, the Lincolnshire county council area. It also includes the areas around Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Immingham, which fall into the Yorkshire region as opposed to the midlands region, and therefore not a whole or part of any given ICB area. I wonder whether the Minister has any comment on whether that was the intention, because it is also the case with paragraph 24(2) of schedule 1, which amends section 113 of the 2006 Act on local dental committees. Again, although the ambition stated and discussed in the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday by the Minister for Care, who is responsible for primary care, was that ICBs were to be covered at strategic level, that would not be possible for local medical committees or local dental committees under my reading of paragraph 12(2).

[Gregory Stafford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill would have been the perfect time to align health commissioning services with local government structures and that the fact that these structures are being created totally without the new local government structures is not just an oversight, but a potential problem with the whole Bill? Does she also agree—I think that she was outlining this already, but I want to ensure that the Minister is clear on it—that the Government still have a chance to amend the Bill to ensure that the commissioning structures and commissioning areas outlined in the Bill neatly map out to the new local government areas? In relation to, for example, the current Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB, Hampshire is potentially being split up into a number of local government areas. I am against the way it is being split up, but if the Government are pressing ahead with it, this would have been the perfect opportunity to align commissioning with those areas. The problem is that we will now have a situation in which they do not match up, and the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined in her speech thus far will come to the fore.

[Dr Johnson]

Of course, my hon. Friend is right. One challenge with the Bill is that although not all the measures are a problem individually, the way they are being brought in is a problem. The planning and organisation that has gone into it has not been coherent. A 50% cut has been made to the budgets of ICBs, which has required many of them to merge, but that has been done before the local government reorganisation has been finished, which means that ICBs have been melded together in a way that is not the same as the local government reorganisation.

Let me again give the example of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire had an excellent ICB, run by chief executive John Turner. That has now merged with Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire form the East Midlands mayoralty, but Lincolnshire ICB, as was, forms part but not all of the Lincolnshire mayoralty—which, as I said, also includes part of what was the Yorkshire region. Because the cuts were done before the local authority reorganisation, and the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, we have ended up with an incoherent pattern, which does not help, particularly for social care services that are delivered by local authorities. We will come back to that when we talk about who is on the ICB. The risk is that we end up spending money doing this twice—being forced to do it at short notice, because of the 50% cuts brought in overnight by Government, and then doing it again to try to sort out the mess and bring things back into line with the new local authorities as and when it is decided what they will be.

Going on to the pharmaceutical arrangements—I should probably declare at this point that my brother is a rural dispensing GP—I share the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in relation to rural dispensing GPs. Let me give the Minister an example from my constituency. The Cliff Villages medical practice was an excellent medical practice. However, there was a doctor retirement and the illness of a doctor, and as a result the service reduced in quality quite substantially.

The ICB was working alongside the surgery and the one remaining practice doctor—not swiftly enough, it must be said. What happened in the end was that the Care Quality Commission came in, found that the service was really not good enough and closed the surgery down overnight, in the middle of the week. It was closed with immediate effect and there were no appointments for any patients in my constituency. Then, because the surgery had been closed, the ICB worked very hard to get a new practice in straightaway, and it got that opened on the Monday, which was pretty quick in the circumstances; but people lost their dispensing GP.

Living in a rural area—I have a dispensing GP myself, living in a rural area—people can go to the doctor’s, see the doctor and, if the doctor perhaps says, “You need some antibiotics,” they can go back to the waiting room and sit there for 10 minutes, be given the antibiotics and then leave. That is significantly more helpful to a rural constituent than having to drive eight or nine miles into the centre of town, park the car, find somewhere to get the prescription and then go all the way home again, which would take much longer. People really value that service—I saw how much when I held a public meeting with the ICB and the new provider to talk about what had happened at the surgery, and 250 people turned up to an evening event in the village hall at short notice. It is hugely important to people.

Will the changes allow the Secretary of State to step in in such circumstances, where the medical contract has been lost due to that cut-off by the CQC? Will that sudden loss of service be able to be replaced with a new dispensing service? Could Ministers have therefore given dispensing rights to the new provider? At the moment, those rights are not transferable, and it means that the only way that my constituents who live in that area and attend that practice can maintain dispensing rights is either to move house—perhaps to next door and back again, but they have to move house—or to change practice immediately, that same day, to another dispensing practice. To be honest, that seems ridiculous. Could the Minister make any comment on how the provisions in the Bill will help that situation and what her views are?

I am confused by new clause 23 and new schedule 1; the Minister has introduced them later than the rest of the Bill, but they seem quite significant. They would move pharmacy appeals from the first-tier tribunal to an NHS body specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State. I presume the regulations are not yet written, so we do not know what form that would take, but the first-tier tribunal is part of an independent judicial system and the appeals will now be under political control, within the Department.

Could the Minister explain why they think that is fair? Why do the Government want to do that? Is it just about saving money? How will the judgments made by that new authority be properly enforceable and give people confidence, given the change from the first-tier tribunal in the judicial system to something more politically controlled?

I move on to new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to establish within six months a scheme to give patients the right to a GP appointment within seven days of seeking one, or 24 hours if urgent. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that and how she thinks it could be achieved.

Modelling by the Health Foundation suggests that 6,500 full-time equivalent GPs—37,800 in total—will be needed by 2030-31 to meet greater clinical need. We have already talked about the doubling of medical school places; I presume the Minister has sought correction since we last spoke on whether the Government have a plan to double those places or not, but the Government are not on track to have that number of GPs. Is it simply that they do not have the resources to deliver it? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

[Helen Morgan]

With permission, I will explain to the shadow Minister our votes on amendment 57, which she pressed to a vote. I was reassured by the commitment the Minister made to consult widely on those commissioning changes, so the Liberal Democrats switched our vote from support to abstain.

I move on to new clause 2, our amendment in this group, which the shadow Minister was just discussing. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to ensure patients have the right to see a GP or another appropriate clinician within their GP practice within seven days.

The NHS constitution currently confers rights on patients when they are considered really important. There are, for example, rights within the NHS constitution around receiving cancer diagnoses and treatment. We felt that there was a gap on access to GPs. Given the Government’s stated aim of transferring more care into the community, which we fully support, and given the observation in the Darzi report that more and more money is being spent on secondary rather than primary care, we think it is really important to confer the right on patients to be able to access primary care when they need to.

As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, this measure would require a large number of additional GPs and would therefore not be achievable overnight, but over the course of a Parliament. The Liberal Democrat plan includes recruiting and retaining an extra 8,000 GPs, relieving pressure on the rest of the health service and enabling that shift into the community. When patients—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

We Conservatives share the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that patients get their appointments as soon as they need them to be had, but she is talking about a difference between urgent appointments, within 24 hours, and non-urgent appointments, within a week. Who is going to make the decision about whether the appointment is urgent? Will it be the clinician? Will it be the patient themselves? Has she thought about where that responsibility lies?

[Helen Morgan]

Yes, I have thought about where that responsibility lies. It clearly lies with the triaging process within the GP surgery. I do not think any of us envisage somebody phoning up about a child with a cold and saying, “I consider this to be urgent,” and getting an appointment within 24 hours, but I would imagine somebody from the surgery saying, “Please describe the symptoms to me,” and then, if they detected something more serious, saying, “That is urgent and you do need to come in within 24 hours.” The point of new clause 2 is to clarify in the NHS constitution that some services require parity with others. We have already established legal rights under the NHS constitution for certain types of treatment, and this puts GP access on the same level. We think that that is important.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on to new clause 52, which is about dental deserts. Everyone is horrified by dental deserts and by “DIY dentistry”, a phrase that means—let us face it—people using pliers to extract their teeth and super glue to reattach crowns, and cavities filled with household adhesives. More than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025. That is a stark failure. Dental care is as important as care for other parts of the body, in particular when most of what goes wrong in dentistry is preventable. We should absolutely focus on prevention, and that is in line with the Government’s aims to move from sickness to prevention.

New clause 52 is about our £750 million dental rescue plan to guarantee access to an NHS dentist for anyone needing an urgent or emergency appointment, which I hope would end that awful DIY dentistry. The plan needs to be achieved through bringing dentists back from the private sector, fixing the contract, using flexible commissioning wherever necessary and introducing an emergency scheme. For example, the emergency dental scheme in Shropshire, operated by the community dental practice, enables people who have urgent need and cannot register with an NHS dentist to get the care that they need when they need it. I urge the Minister to take our new clauses on board and to ensure that people get the care they need when they need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

One thing that my hon. Friend mentions is the Government’s stated intention to bring things closer to home, as opposed to the reality of the Bill as drafted. Does he agree with me that the document that explains what will happen to the commissioning of specialist services, and that talks about seven regions and how ICBs could collaborate within those regions, might imply that the Government are looking forward to having seven areas in which most commissioning takes place? These are even larger areas than have been described in the mergers so far.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is for the Minister to clarify that point, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is ironic that we seem to be heading back towards the strategic health authorities of an earlier age. Things in the NHS are neither created nor destroyed; they just go round and round and round. I think we may end up being back where we were 15 or 20 years ago, in an ever decreasing cycle of spending money on changes that are perhaps not wanted or needed.

I have touched on dental services, so I will not go any further on that. On pharmaceutical services, I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about dispensing GPs. That is a big issue. And I have touched on the Liberal Democrat new clauses. In conclusion, although Conservative Members support a number of the ambitions in relation to the group that we are debating, the questions that my colleagues and I have raised require more clarification from the Minister.

Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend comes to this with significant knowledge from his work on the Health and Social Care Committee. He is absolutely right, but that is a tension and a balance that I fear runs as a thread throughout this legislation, between local decision making and tailoring and the genuine need for a Secretary of State to have effective powers. We lobby Secretaries of State; on occasion I have lobbied the Minister, and she has always been very responsive—she does not always agree with me, but she has always been very responsive to me. As Members of Parliament, we do that on behalf of our communities.

My argument is that ICBs need to be more responsive, even when they do consult, to make it clear that the decision is not predetermined by the board and that they are going through the process. In the context of this clause, that also needs to be true of the Secretary of State: it needs to be not simply a formulaic approach but a genuine engagement and consultation. My question for the Minister, in that context, is about how we make sure of what she is seeking to do in the clause. The Secretary of State or those undertaking commissioning on their behalf must pay heed to something, but how do we make sure that that consultation, engagement and feedback genuinely have some teeth in what emerges in the final decision?

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon have covered my points so effectively that I will be very brief indeed. How do we ensure that the consultation is not just well meaning and ticking the legal boxes, but actually listened to, so that people’s voices are incorporated into the plans? Also, I appreciate that amendment 28 is a well-meaning intervention, but how do we ensure that all voices are heard in a co-production, not just those who are the most articulate or the most able to engage with a process that they see online?

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Patients and the public have a critical role in shaping our health services. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon for tabling the amendment, as moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I will discuss the amendment with the wider question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

To be clear, the Government are committed to engaging with patients and the public about the services they use. Services shaped together with the people who rely on them are better services. We want to see deep and collaborative ways of working between patients, public and the NHS. Across the country, there are good examples of that from which we want to learn. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to involve patients and the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, the development and consideration of proposals for service change, and decisions that may affect how services are delivered or the range of services available.

The clause is intended to encourage early engagement and meaningful involvement in service change, thereby helping to build legitimacy, trust and better-informed commissioning decisions. As a duty, it covers the entire end-to-end commissioning cycle. I have been a commissioner myself, so although I will not detain the Committee too much on that, it is indeed part of the job of a commissioner to do that at a very early stage.

I also draw attention to the fact that the clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure the involvement of individuals who use or may use health services, together with carers and representatives, where appropriate, in commissioning activity. That duty is purposely broad, covering both existing service users and those who may reasonably rely on services in future, and will support preventive approaches and enable the consideration of wider population health impacts.

We made the deliberate choice to include specific references to carers and representatives, recognising that some individuals may require support to participate effectively in engagement and decision-making processes. That is particularly important where barriers such as disability, communications needs, sometimes age, vulnerability or unequal access may otherwise limit participation. We are ensuring that involvement is inclusive and meaningful, which I think is what all hon. Members want to see.

Specifically on amendment 28, I gently caution against creating an implication of different approaches to patient involvement for different parts of the system, leading to a two-track approach and unnecessary confusion. Instead, we propose a Government commitment to ensure meaningful consultation. We support co-production and will continue to champion it, but we do not think it necessary to put it on the face of the Bill.

The Government support involving patients and the public at every stage, and we recognise that working closely with the people and communities affected by commissioning decisions brings valuable insight into service quality, accessibility, equity and effectiveness. We will use the duties and powers available to Ministers to ensure that that principle is embedded across the work of the NHS. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for North Shropshire has some reassurance and will withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 16, page 12, line 10, at end insert—

“(3) The regulations must ensure that integrated care boards may not impose operational policies requiring patients to wait a minimum number of weeks before they may access treatment.”

This amendment would prevent minimum waiting times for NHS treatment.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 35, in clause 16, page 12, line 10, at end insert—

“(3) Regulations under this section must make provision requiring integrated care boards to make arrangements which ensure that community equipment and wheelchair services are provided within 18 weeks of the date on which a person is assessed as requiring such equipment or services.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)—

‘community equipment and wheelchair services’ means equipment, aids, home adaptations or appliances provided to support a person’s independence, safety, care or daily living at home or in the community, including hoists, hospital beds, pressure-relieving mattresses, commodes, shower chairs, walking frames, grab rails, ramps, specialist seating, postural support equipment, associated mobility equipment, and wheelchairs.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which would require integrated care boards to ensure that community equipment and wheelchair services are provided within 18 weeks of the date on which a person is assessed as requiring such equipment or services.

Amendment 63, in clause 16, page 12, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must make provision requiring integrated care boards to—

(a) assess whether sufficient capacity exists to meet current and projected patient demand for cancer treatment, including radiotherapy treatment,

(b) maintain plans to ensure that workforce, equipment and estates capacity are sufficient to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment and improve access to treatment, and

(c) monitor and address geographical variations in access to cancer treatment, including radiotherapy treatment, with a view to reducing inequalities in patient outcomes the provision of satellite units.”

Amendment 52, clause 16, page 12, line 10, at end insert—

“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the number of patients validated off of treatment waiting lists each month, and the reason for which they have been removed.”

This amendment would require publication of the number of patients validated off waiting lists each month and the reason for their removal.

Amendment 32, clause 16, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

“14Z45BA Patient choice: community services substituting for consultant-led elective care

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to enable patients to make choices in respect of non-consultant-led community services where those services are commissioned as a direct substitute for, or to prevent a referral to, consultant-led elective services.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a service is to be regarded as a direct substitute for, or intended to prevent a referral to, consultant-led elective services if it—

(a) provides assessment, treatment or management for a condition that would otherwise be referred to a secondary care specialist; or

(b) is commissioned by an integrated care board for the purpose of reducing or managing demand on secondary or elective care.

(3) Services to which this section applies include, but are not limited to—

(a) community audiology services;

(b) community glaucoma management and monitoring services; and

(c) Minor eye conditions services.

(4) Regulations made by virtue of this section must ensure that—

(a) patients are offered a choice of any clinically appropriate provider commissioned under a qualifying NHS contract for the relevant service;

(b) no limitation on the number of providers from which a patient may choose is imposed solely on grounds of cost or demand management; and

(c) patients are provided with information enabling them to make an informed choice, including information about waiting times and quality.

(5) An integrated care board must not commission a community service of a kind falling within subsection (2) in a manner which has the effect of restricting patient choice below the standard that would apply to an equivalent consultant-led elective service.”

Clause stand part.

Schedule 2.

New clause 35—Community equipment and wheelchair services: standards, performance and outcomes—

“(1) Each integrated care board must publish standards which apply in its area in relation to the assessment for and supply of community equipment and wheelchair services.

(2) Each integrated care board must monitor its performance against the standards under subsection (1).

(3) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report including—

(a) its performance against the standards under subsection (1),

(b) waiting times for the assessment for and supply of community equipment and wheelchair services,

(c) the number and proportion of people waiting longer than 18 weeks for such equipment or services,

(d) outcomes achieved for people by the provision of community equipment and wheelchair services, and

(e) steps taken by the integrated care board to improve the assessment for, and supply of, community equipment and wheelchair services.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

‘community equipment and wheelchair services’ means equipment, aids, home adaptations or appliances provided to support a person’s independence, safety, care or daily living at home or in the community, including hoists, hospital beds, pressure-relieving mattresses, commodes, shower chairs, walking frames, grab rails, ramps, specialist seating, postural support equipment, associated mobility equipment, and wheelchairs.”

This new clause would require each integrated care board must publish standards which apply in its area in relation to the assessment for and supply of community equipment and wheelchair services and publish an annual report on their adherence to these standards.

[Dr Johnson]

The Government say they are firmly committed to cutting waiting times and meeting the NHS’ 18-week target. It seems odd that, despite that, it is necessary for me to table an amendment to prevent systems from forcing patients to wait artificially longer for their care through the imposition of minimum waiting times.

Last year, The Times reported that at least eight local ICBs had introduced policies to pay healthcare providers for treatments only once patients have waited 12 weeks or more. I cannot think of any clinical reason why someone should wait for 12 weeks before having any treatment. At the time, the Minister said that while there was

“no formal national policy supporting minimum waits”,

local areas may

“choose to include minimum waiting times in Activity Planning Assumptions to ensure delivery of targets within agreed financial allocations…to support commissioners in managing activity to ensure they can sustainably manage within their budgets”.

I do not understand why we would want to make people wait longer than necessary.

The Royal College of Surgeons has expressed concerns and made clear that minimum waits prolong “pain and anxiety” for those made to wait longer, saying that it is

“counterintuitive…to give commissioners the green light to impose 18-week waits, while simultaneously working to ensure patients begin treatment within 18 weeks.”

Age UK deemed it a “rationing approach” that is

“potentially harmful to the health and wellbeing of older people.”

NHS England has made it clear that ICBs cannot introduce minimum waits of more than 18 weeks—that is longer than the target, so that makes sense—but waits between 12 and 18 weeks are permissible. Will the Minister explain why that is a good idea?

Amendment 51 seeks to ban ICBs from introducing any operational policies requiring patients to wait a minimum number of weeks before they may access treatment. There are safety risks involved in introducing minimum waiting times. They distort clinical priorities and may make patients wait in unnecessary pain and anxiety. Treatment should be delivered when possible, based on clinical needs. If a patient has a high level of clinical need, they might need to be treated earlier than the minimum waiting time because of the suffering they are experiencing.

Minimum waits are not only detrimental to patient experience by forcing people to live in greater pain and discomfort; in some cases, the delay may make the patient’s condition worse, and the treatment they need may be more extensive and even more expensive. Their condition may even become life-limiting or life-threatening as a result of the delay. The introduction of arbitrary minimum waiting times that do not have any relevance to patient clinical need raises worrying issues, clinically, professionally and ethically.

Minimum waits will also hinder the NHS’ ability to cut waiting lists and get waits to within 18 weeks. Some providers will have a list of people who can be available at short notice for a procedure, who they can call on if there is a cancellation on the day. If that person has not waited the minimum, that may be left as a gap, and that operation or appointment may not happen. That is wasted NHS resource.

Each month that goes by, many people are added to the waiting list, and some are removed from it. We are aware that there seem to be a lot of unexplained removals from the waiting list, and that has spiked recently. Among the people treated by NHS providers in April, around 600,000 were treated within eight weeks of referral, versus 74,000 who were treated between 14 and 18 weeks. The introduction of a minimum waiting time will therefore push back many people’s treatment by as much as 10 weeks.

Minimum waits also worsen and entrench postcode lotteries, because patients who have differential waits, based on whether their ICB has decided to implement minimum waiting times, may experience differential levels of care because of where they live. They are also another way of undermining patient choice, because patients may want to be treated in one area or one hospital because of the waiting time. If they all have different minimum waiting times, that distorts patients’ ability to choose.

Minimum waits are also completely contrary to the 10-year plan for health, in which choice and productivity were considered central features, along with the Government’s wider commitment to keep people healthy. I hope the Minister will agree with amendment 51, which would ensure that minimum waiting times cannot be instituted.

Amendment 52 also concerns waiting times. You will no doubt have seen, Dr Huq, the many newspapers articles about the Government fiddling the figures on waiting times, and there has been a spike in removals from waiting lists. People have found themselves removed from lists or going back on lists, or have suddenly found out that their waiting time started more recently than they thought. Amendment 52 would require the Secretary of State to publish the number of patients who are taken off treatment waiting lists each month and why they were removed. It is important that we are able to explain to our constituents why the Government have decided to remove them.

[Helen Morgan]

I want to speak to amendment 63, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). As hon. Members know, he has campaigned passionately and for a long time on the provision of radiotherapy. His amendment seeks to ensure that there is sufficient and equitable access to radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is required by half of all cancer patients, and it is incredibly cost-effective, but England has fewer radiotherapy machines than comparable European countries, and thousands of people have to travel long distances and over 45 minutes for their treatment, particularly in my hon. Friend’s Cumbria constituency, as he has noted on many occasions.

The Darzi review noted that radiotherapy services are on their knees. They have some of the longest waiting times for treatment and vast parts of the country are classed as radiotherapy deserts, because of lack of accessibility. Radiotherapy currently has the worst 62-day performance of all main cancer treatments, and if we are serious about ensuring that all cancer targets are met by 2029, then we need the infrastructure, people and equipment to deliver them.

Cancer cases are expected to rise 30% by 2040, meaning that radiotherapy centres must be able to keep pace. Importantly, radiotherapy can also be used at an earlier stage in treatment, potentially saving lives, saving money and meeting important waiting time targets. We really ought to be leading the way on this and keeping pace with our European counterparts so that no one is left without the treatment they so desperately need. I add my support to amendment 52, because we do need to build confidence in the reduction of waiting lists, and more transparency around reductions would be helpful.

[Gregory Stafford]

Amendment 35 has not been moved, but it is very similar to new clause 35, which may be moved and concerns equipment. I will address both together. I think all in this Committee would agree that ensuring timely access to community equipment and wheelchair services is vital for patient independence, dignity and recovery. I have a number of constituents who believe that they are not getting access to that equipment in the time they would expect.

We also need to ensure that we give proper consideration to the efficiency and management of resources. In particular, we should look more closely at what happens after that equipment has been distributed. Too often, items such as crutches, wheelchairs or Zimmer frames are not reviewed after issue or returned when they are no longer needed. We are already seeing a massive financial consequence of that. It was reported last year that the Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust is losing around £70,000 a year due to patients retaining unused mobility equipment. That might seem like a drop in the ocean for the NHS, but £70,000 could fund another nurse, if we include the on-costs. These things do have consequences.

Despite distributing thousands of items, only 38% of crutches and just 15% of Zimmer frames were returned in 2024. That represents a significant loss of reusable equipment and considerable pressure on NHS resources. It also gets into the mindset of how patients use and value those pieces of equipment and how NHS users think about resources. While I think that we all agree in this Committee that the NHS should be free at the point of use, one of the downsides of that is that patients rarely think about what the cost of their care contributes. I personally think that if people understood how much crutches or medicines cost, they would use them much more usefully. Plenty of times I have spoken to pharmacists in my constituency who tell me that once a patient has unfortunately died, their family then comes to the pharmacy with a sackload of drugs that have never been used. I think that if people understood the cost of those things, they would use them more effectively and with more caution.

This is not an isolated issue but indicative of a wider problem across the system. If we were to introduce firm timelines for provision, we would need to ensure that there is a robust process for recovery, reuse and proper management of that equipment. Therefore, while I am not supportive of amendment 35 or new clause 35, I ask the Government to consider how those proposals could be strengthened by embedding clear expectations about the return and reuse of that equipment so that public funds are used as effectively as possible.

I will now turn to the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Amendment 51 is important because, while I understand the Government’s intention in clause 16, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, her amendment will prevent any artificial delays in treatment by ensuring patients are seen as soon as clinically appropriate, rather than being required to wait a minimum period. It simply protects the principle that care should be based on medical need—which I think we would all agree on—rather than some administrative target. It helps avoid situations where waiting times are managed on paper rather than reduced in reality. That ultimately safeguards patient outcomes and timely access to care.

Moving on to amendment 52, I add my strong support to this amendment, because it goes to the heart of trust, transparency and patient safety in the health system. I have been speaking to constituents and individuals from across the country who have contacted me after a video I posted on my social media that contributed to the exposure of the removal of 351,000 patients from waiting lists in March of this year. The stories I have heard are deeply troubling. Those include patients who have waited years for potentially life-changing treatment only to receive notification late—or in some cases not at all—that they have been removed from the list. For many it came as a shock, while for some it came after months or years of uncertainty. This is not some trivial administrative matter. I would sum up the Minister, when responding to questions on this point, as: “Nothing to see here, this is what always happens.”

There has been such a significant jump over a period of two months that there has to be something going on here. The experiences of patients who have spoken to me about this suggest that that is happening. For those patients it is the difference between treatment and deterioration, between hope and abandonment. It is also undoubtedly affecting more vulnerable and less technologically savvy pockets of society, such as the elderly.

[Dr Johnson]

I should say that I am on a waiting list for treatment myself. The validation process seems to involve phoning people to check if they still need treatment, which after a long period is perhaps not an unreasonable thing to do. However, if they then say yes, they are phoned again a few weeks later; and if they say yes again, they are again phoned a few weeks after that. That puts pressure on people to say, “Okay”. If they are then asked, for example: “Would you be happy to see the consultant so that he can check that you are still listed for the right procedure, given that your condition may have changed and you may want to do something else?” it feels entirely unreasonable to say anything other than “Yes” to that. Would my hon. Friend be surprised to hear that when some people do that they find that they do indeed need the same procedure, but that their waiting time has now gone back down to zero?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, of course there has to be a validation process. There has been for a long time, and I do not think that anyone is objecting to that. However, it is a question of how it is being articulated and the people it is focused on. It is being focused on vulnerable people. I have anecdotal evidence from conversations with a significant number of people since I posted that social media video that they feel pressured into coming off the lists. It does not help that trusts have financial incentives to take people off lists. Earlier this month, the Health Service Journal said that three trusts are earning more than £1 million in having people taken off lists. There is no problem with giving trusts a financial reward to do due diligence and validate the lists, but there is potentially a perverse incentive for trusts to try to knock people off them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and I think I said some moments ago that I am not against a validation of the list—I think I even said that I am not against some sort of financial incentive to clear the list. My concern is the extraordinary jump in the baseline in the last month or so: 351,000 people have been removed from the list for no apparent reason.

While I have been having anecdotal discussions with patients, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has been doing something a little more robust. It would be interesting to see the outcome of her endeavours and researches and to find out exactly what is happening in those areas. Anyone with a modicum of inquiry and common sense would say that the significant jump that we have seen in a single month deserves at least a level of interrogation, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is not allowing in his comments.

[Dr Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when somebody—particularly a vulnerable person—receives a call asking them whether they would be prepared to see a consultant to see whether they still need treatment, they are aware of all the noise in the media? They are aware that other people are waiting. People do not want to waste NHS resources. The first time, they may think it is a routine process but, when they receive the second or third call, they may start to think to themselves, “They are trying to tell me that they want to do something else. Maybe I don’t need it as much as other people.” They feel obliged and pressurised into saying they do not need the procedure when they do.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The danger in this process—especially the multiple instances of chasing within a period of weeks, which sometimes happens—is that pressure is put on patients. Again, I know anecdotally from patients who have been speaking to me that those who are most compliant—if I can put it like that—and do not want to make a fuss are generally older and vulnerable people, who feel that they are perhaps causing an inconvenience to the system. They see people with, in their view, more serious conditions or a greater need. We need to be very careful about creating perverse incentives, financial or otherwise, to try to take some of those people off the list. As I say, the significant jump that we have seen deserves more scrutiny and inquiry, and that is why I am very supportive of my hon. Friend’s amendment.

We need to understand whether patients are being removed because they no longer require treatment, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said—which is, of course, entirely appropriate—or just to improve targets, present an improved picture of waiting lists, and unlock the financial benefits tied to performance metrics. There is a troubling echo here. We saw similar practices in the 2000s when patients were removed or reclassified in ways that reduced waiting list numbers without genuinely improving access to care; it damaged confidence in the system then and it risks doing so now. What concerns me most is that we may be repeating that pattern. If the Government find they cannot meet their waiting list targets, there is a real danger that the pressure to do so will translate into decisions that, intentionally or not, compromise patient safety and fairness.

[Gregory Stafford]

There have been a number of reports of situations where people have not received care and have died because of that, so I do not see the hon. Member’s point. I think that, with amendment 52, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is trying to ensure that when the statistics are published, we can scrutinise the reasons behind them. The hon. Member for Ashford may be entirely right; let us imagine that is the case, and there is no gamifying or pressure going on. Why not allow the public to see that? Why not put to bed the HSJ stories that say there is something fishy going on? He should welcome that level of transparency and scrutiny to back up his argument if he is correct.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Member for Ashford talks about social media and social media comments. I wonder if, where the DHSC or the Government have put that waiting lists are falling, my hon. Friend has read any of the comments that come in from the general public below such proclamations.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend tempts me to be political; I will rise to that briefly. Yes, I have seen them and she is right. There is a clear concern that when the Government make all these proclamations about how brilliant the NHS has suddenly become, the reality on the ground does not meet that for many patients. However—I am being gentle now—that is probably not exclusively a problem with this Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston might kill me, but I am sure other Governments have done something similar.

I will go back to amendment 52 because I think it is really important. Let me be clear: it would not prevent people being removed where appropriate; it would simply require the Government to be honest about why. It requires the Secretary of State to publish the number of patients removed from waiting lists each month and, crucially, the reasons why. If everything is being done properly there should be nothing to fear from such transparency, but if there are problems, sunlight is the best disinfectant and the amendment is exactly what we need. We owe it to our constituents and to every patient in the country to ensure that waiting lists are not improved just on paper, or in a press release, or in a social media tweet, or at the expense of the care of real people but actually improved.

If we are to strengthen patient choice, particularly in relation to community services that substitute for or prevent hospital admission and treatment, there are some good measures in clause 16. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, there are concerns, so I hope the Minister will be able to pick those up in her comments when she winds up.

[Karin Smyth]

There are a number of amendments in the group. Amendment 35 was not moved but as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon spoke to it, I will comment on that amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). Community equipment and wheelchair services are really important to us and—to allay the concerns of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon—that is why the medium-term planning framework requires that, from this year, all ICBs and community health services must actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. I assure the Committee that we will hold the ICBs for their performance. The community health services situation report has a specific monitoring line, covering children and young people and covering adults, for the wheelchair, orthotics, prosthetics and equipment category. We intend to continue that work following NHS England’s abolition. Consistent national standards will help us to identify the best and the weakest-performing areas, to identify what improvements need to be made and to tackle the longest waits.

Amendment 52 was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. We are committed to ensuring that all patients receive the NHS care they need in a timely manner, and I recognise the importance that Committee members have placed on that matter. The NHS constitution sets out that patients should start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks of referral, and it is imperative that the system continues to work towards returning to and then upholding that standard.

I listened with great care to the comments from Members on the Opposition Benches, but I was here—as were you, Dr Huq—during the last couple of Parliaments; I was here as waiting lists rose and rose after 2012, under the previous Government’s stewardship, until they reached 4 million people, all waiting an inordinate amount of time. That Government had no kind of approach to reducing the numbers; they were quite content to have 4 million people on waiting lists, and to never bring forward measures to change that. They were quite content not to challenge NHS England or trust boards about why people across the country in all our constituencies were languishing on those lists. We are determined to resolve that situation.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will move on. It is absolutely right that integrated care boards, as local commissioners, retain the ability to manage their services and waiting lists effectively, given the shocking numbers that they have inherited. This is complicated, difficult work: commissioners have to balance demand, capacity and clinical need, and a prohibition such as the one set out in the amendment would threaten to remove legitimate flexibilities that are required at the local level to ensure that services are delivered safely and efficiently.

We are clear that systems should not be setting minimum wait times that exceed the 18-week constitutional standard, but hon. Members will appreciate that not all elements of waiting are inappropriate. In many cases, they reflect clinical pathways, sequencing of care or the need to prioritise the most urgent patients. It is imperative that clinical judgment and urgency remain the key drivers of prioritisation, which is something the amendment threatens to remove.

Turning to amendment 52, I recognise that Members across the House are committed to ensuring that all patients receive the NHS care they need in a timely manner. Validation is a routine and long-standing part of waiting list management by providers. It ensures that patient records are accurate, that patients are on the best pathway to meet their needs and that they still need their appointments. Routinely validated waiting lists will support a return to the 18-week NHS constitutional standard.

Reasons for removal as a result of validation include a patient no longer needing their appointment or there being a duplicate appointment. The previous Government left behind some systems and trusts in such a poor condition that they give out duplicate appointments, and we need to resolve that as part of our work. Other reasons for removal include a patient’s record not being properly updated following treatment or a clinical decision—another sign of the inefficiency that the previous Government left behind.

[Karin Smyth]

Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is expert on this issue and has outlined to us some excellent clinical examples. I look forward to debating the single patient record further in Committee.

Importantly, any patient removed from a waiting list should be notified alongside their GP. Data on the total number of removals from waiting lists is published by NHS England. That data includes, but cannot separately identify, patient pathways removed as a result of validation. The Department remains committed to the transparent publication of official waiting list statistics following the abolition of NHS England, although there are no plans to publish more detailed breakdowns. NHS staff are delivering record levels of elective activity, which has enabled us to meet our interim target of 65% of patients being seen within 18 weeks.

[Dr Johnson]

If a person has been waiting more than 18 weeks, the trust calls them and asks them to see a consultant to check whether they still need the appointment or whether they need a different treatment. If, after having that appointment, they are told that they still need the treatment, that same day they go back on the waiting list as if it were day one. Therefore, they have not waited less than 18 weeks, even though the Minister’s statistics might suggest they have. Does she accept that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Member for North Shropshire makes the point very well. Back when I was a Minister, and subsequently shadow Secretary of State, she raised that point with me. The clause is sensible. The Minister articulated concisely and reasonably why it is necessary. It is the nature of any devolution arrangements that a little bit of cross-border co-operation is required along the border to make sure that services work effectively for people. This may have changed, but in my experience the majority of those crossing the border were people from Wales coming for secondary care services in a hospital on the English side of the border, so I think the clause is entirely reasonable.

I echo the hon. Lady’s request: I would be grateful if the Minister updated the Committee on what conversations she has had, particularly with the Welsh Government, but also with the Scottish Government, to ensure that there is reciprocity and that they will put an equivalent provision into their laws to ensure that patients in England are taken into consideration in their healthcare planning.

[Dr Johnson]

The clause imposes a duty on ICBs to have regard to the likely impact of their commissioning decisions on areas of Wales and Scotland close to the border. In some respects, this is like other parts of the Bill—a statement of the obvious regarding a person’s job. Are we suggesting that the Secretary of State, and in particular ICBs, would not consider the effect of their decisions? I hope that they would, but, given that the clause is there, what teeth does it have? What if they do not? Is there any consequence in the Bill if they do not? As others have said, will the Minister confirm whether there is a reciprocal agreement with Wales and Scotland? If there is not, what negotiations has she entered into and what progress are they making?

[Karin Smyth]

As an MP in Bristol, which is not quite on the border, but is pretty close, I absolutely understand. We have relationships with our Welsh colleagues and I have been involved in debates on this matter. The clause ensures that, with the abolition of NHS England, regard is had to to arrangements with our colleagues across the border. We all understand that devolution means that different arrangements will be made in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It is not for the UK Government to determine what those are, because they are devolved. However, I assure members of the Committee that across the piece in the Department, and indeed across the Government, regular meetings and conversations on these and other matters with regard to the devolved functions are a regular part of the work that we do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Transfer schemes in connection with integrated care boards

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Karin Smyth]

The clause gives the Secretary of State the powers to make transfer schemes where an ICB is being abolished or established, or where the area covered by an ICB is being amended. A transfer scheme ensures that all the staff, property rights, responsibilities and liabilities, other than criminal liabilities, of the ICB being abolished are transferred to another ICB. That ensures that the ICB taking over has the appropriate information and resources to continue to arrange healthcare services for their population. In the past, that has been used to support the restructuring of ICBs to achieve geographical boundary alignment with strategic authorities, as set out in the 10-year health plan. The power also allows transfers to the Secretary of State and, when a new ICB is established, allows the transfer of staff from an NHS trust or foundation trust or from a special health authority.

Following the abolition of NHS England, we expect that Ministers will continue to need to be able to make transfers between ICBs. The clause allows that as needed. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

I have one question for the Minister. Which ICBs does she envisage being abolished, or is this just a precaution for the future?

[Karin Smyth]

It is precautionary to give the power in the event—future-proofing the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Integrated care boards: power to provide assistance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Karin Smyth]

The clause relates to the power for integrated care boards to provide assistance and support in relation to the health service. It replaces section 14Z48 and, in part, section 12ZA of the National Health Service Act 2006 with a clearer and more flexible power. At present, the various ICB assistance powers are narrower and more confusing. Section 12ZA provides for certain forms of practical assistance in connection with ICBs’ commissioning functions, while section 14Z48 provides a more limited power to make grants or loans. Other specific assistance powers sit elsewhere in the legislation, including in sections 96, 112, 124 and 147, which allow assistance and support for primary medical services, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services.

Clause 19 replaces all those separate powers with a general power for ICBs to provide assistance or support. The clause will make it clearer when an ICB may support providers, prospective providers or other activity connected with the health service. It will allow an ICB to provide assistance or support to a person who is providing or proposing to provide services as part of the health service. It will also enable an ICB to support a person who is carrying out or proposing to carry out activities that the ICB considers to be conducive to the health service. The assistance may include financial assistance, making available the services of ICB staff, or making available any other ICB resources. The clause also allows assistance to be provided on agreed terms, including terms about payments by or to the integrated care board.

The clause supports ICBs in their role as strategic commissioners. ICBs need to be able to support the development, improvement and resilience of services for their populations. They need to be able to cultivate their provider sector to meet the needs of the people they are responsible for, and they need to be able to do so in innovative and flexible ways. The clause gives them a clearer statutory basis for doing so. This is only an enabling power; it does not require an integrated care board to provide assistance and it does not create any entitlement for a person to receive assistance, nor does it disapply the ordinary legal and financial controls that apply to integrated care boards, or any other element of the usual way in which NHS bodies are overseen and regulated.

The clause should be read alongside clause 9, which creates a broadly analogous assistance power for the Secretary of State. In combination, the clauses support the move to a simpler, more flexible statutory framework that enables everybody, from the centre to ICBs, to discharge their responsibilities in ways that can be adapted to the complexity and multiplicity of circumstances they will inevitably encounter. I commend clause 19 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

The Government’s explanatory notes state that the clause is intended to give ICBs the ability to provide a broad range of support to those involved in providing or administering the health service. The flexibility there aligns with the Government’s stated vision for more autonomy across the system. I have a couple of questions. If the ICB were to provide support in a way that was out of line with good practice or what is expected by the Department, what would be the recourse? Where will it be possible for right hon. and hon. Members to see the financial expenditure that ICBs make in any such circumstance?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. ICBs are part of the accountability outcomes framework, so they will be monitored in the usual way, and any expenditure by the ICB—and, indeed, by the Department—is recorded in the departmental accounts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Performance assessments of integrated care boards

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise as a former Minister in this role. I do not want to mislead him, so I will come back to him in writing on both those points, if that is acceptable. He tempts me to be more prescriptive than I think we intend to be at this point, but I will ensure that he gets a proper answer to both questions. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As has been said, the clause replaces the part of the NHS Act that requires NHS England to carry out performance assessments of the ICBs and rewrites it so that the Secretary of State has to carry out those assessments. That makes some sense, but, as the Minister said, it takes out the criteria against which the ICBs will be assessed.

I accept what the Minister says—she wants those criteria to be set out more flexibly than can be done in primary legislation—but it is not reasonable or fair to assess people against criteria that they do not know in advance. It will be important, will it not, that ICBs know in advance what those criteria will be? Given what she said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston about writing to him, will she commit to writing to us to say not only what the criteria will be at the moment, but how far in advance ICBs can expect to receive them before they are expected to work to them and then be assessed against them?

Will variation be a factor in whether an ICB is deemed to have been performing well or not? We know that there is a tension in the Bill between the Secretary of State’s need to equalise provision and the ICBs’ desire and intention to vary it and innovate. Given that the Secretary of State is a political individual, how will the assessment process be conducted in a way that gives ICBs and their leaders confidence that there will not be political interference in it?

[Karin Smyth]

Of course ICBs will know how they are going to be assessed; that will be in guidance in the usual way. In the last two years, in planning terms, we have brought forward all that work for the system—including on the finances—in order that the system works more efficiently, and we will continue to seek to do that.

The hon. Member, as she has several times in the Committee, returned to the question of variation. When there is devolution and local systems are different, there will be a degree of variation, as I have said. In performance management terms, where there is unwarranted variation, we will seek justification and understanding of that. Sometimes, there is variation for geographical reasons. There may also be historical structural reasons in a local system, or temporary reasons why performance is variable. We would look at that as part of that general work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Membership of integrated care boards

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 21, page 15, leave out from line 33 to line 6 on page 16 and insert—

“(2) The constitution must provide for the ordinary members appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to include—

(a) at least one person nominated by one or more NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts which provide services under arrangements made by the integrated care board, in accordance with regulations made under sub-paragraph (2A);

(b) at least one person nominated by a body representative of providers of primary medical services whose area falls wholly or mainly within the area of the integrated care board, in accordance with regulations made under sub-paragraph (2A);

(c) at least one person appointed by a local authority whose area falls wholly or partly within the area of the integrated care board; and

(d) at least one member nominated by the mayor of each mayoral strategic authority whose area coincides with, or includes the whole or any part of, the integrated care board's area (if any).

(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the nomination of ordinary members under sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b), including provision about which NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts or representative bodies are entitled to make nominations.

(3) The constitution must set out the process for making nominations under sub-paragraph (2).

(4) A person making a nomination under sub-paragraph (2) must have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State as to the selection of candidates.”

This amendment modifies Clause 21 so that, rather than replacing the existing mandatory membership requirements in Schedule 1B to the National Health Service Act 2006 with a requirement for mayoral representation alone, the new sub-paragraph (2) reinstates and consolidates the full range of required ordinary members.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 25 in clause 21, page 15, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) The constitution must also provide for the ordinary members appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to include at least one member nominated jointly by the local authorities whose areas coincide with, or include the whole or any part of, the integrated care board's area.”

This amendment would require integrated care boards to have a member jointly nominated by local authorities from within the board's area, as is currently the case but would otherwise be removed by clause 21.

Amendment 45, in clause 21, page 15, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) The constitution must provide for the ordinary members as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to include at least one member nominated by local primary care providers.”

This amendment would ensure that ICBs have to have representation from primary care providers.

Amendment 26, in clause 21, page 16, line 3, leave out from “mayor” to “sub-paragraph (2)” on line 4 and insert

“or local authority nominating an ordinary member as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (2A).”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 25 and would require a local authority involved in nominating a member of an integrated care board to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“‘local authority’ has the meaning given by section 2B(5);”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 25 and 26 and defines the term “local authority”.

Clause stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

At present, integrated care boards will have a chair, a chief executive and at least three further ordinary members. Those three ordinary members will include a representative of the NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in the area, someone from the primary medical services in the area and someone nominated by the local authority areas within the ICB area. Under the clause, the requirement for those individuals is replaced with a requirement to have someone from each of the mayoral authorities.

Because of the order in which the Government have done this—removing half the budget from the ICBs, which has caused them to merge in a way that is not coherent with the Government’s not-yet-complete local government reorganisation—we have a situation where representation is not even. For example, in my ICB area the Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire and the Mayor of the East Midlands will each be able to choose someone to represent them on the board, but the proportions of the population are not even. Lincolnshire will be over-represented, which is not an issue for my constituents, but it may be for those from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Likewise, the northern part of Greater Lincolnshire, which is in a different region, has a small population relative to its ICB. Some mayors will therefore have representation that is not proportionate to their population size.

There is surely a risk that the next step will be for the Government to say they want to make things more even, with ICBs working in relation to mayoral authority areas. Yesterday, the Minister for Care suggested at his appearance before the Health and Social Care Committee that the ICBs should be aligned with strategic authorities, but the only way in which that can happen once the Government have decided where the strategic authorities will be is if things are changed once again.

That brings ongoing costs—financial costs, opportunity cost for service development, and cost to the people delivering these services. The people working hard to try to deliver the Government’s plan find themselves and their jobs threatened and chopped and changed all the time. We heard evidence that the concentration on reorganisation rather than service delivery, provision and development is causing distress to those people.

We also heard about the effect on social care, which, certainly in Lincolnshire and in other places, is delivered by the upper-tier local authority, but not all mayors have any responsibility for health—our mayor does not. We will therefore have someone who is not responsible for health on the ICB while someone responsible for delivering social care will have their seat on the ICB removed. I am afraid that I simply do not understand that. I watched through several times the Minister for Care’s Select Committee appearance, and I still do not understand the rationale. I will be grateful if the Minister for Secondary Care could explain that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The clause will replace the constitutional requirements contained in paragraph 8(2) to (4) of schedule 1B to the 2006 Act so that “ordinary members” must now include at least one member nominated by the mayor of each mayoral strategic authority whose area coincides with or includes the whole or any part of the ICB’s area. The ICB’s constitution must set out a process for making such a nomination, and a mayor nominating an ordinary member must have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State, following the abolition of NHS England, as to the selection of candidates.

The definition of a local authority in paragraph 8(7) of schedule 1B to the 2006 Act will be replaced with the definition of a mayoral strategic authority. Sub-paragraph (1), outlining the process to determine the appointment of an ordinary member, and sub-paragraph (6), specifying that one ordinary member must have knowledge and experience in mental health services, are both retained. The clause therefore represents a clear shift in the structure of integrated care boards and, in my view, an unwelcome one, by removing the requirement for representation of GPs, local authorities and NHS trusts, while introducing a requirement for representation from mayoral authorities.

Those are not minor features of the system. The inclusion of local authorities in particular was designed to ensure that decision making reflected local needs and supported genuine integration between health and social care.

For as long as I can remember, Governments of all colours have talked about bringing health and social care together. Some have been more successful at that than others, but there should be agreement across the House that much more needs to be done. With this clause, the Government seem to be taking at least one step back—I would say numerous steps—from trying to bring health and social care together. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I watched the Health and Social Care Committee’s discussions with the Minister for Care yesterday, and I too cannot fathom why the Government are doing it. I hope that it is an oversight and that, once the Minister goes away and reflects on it, she will look to table some amendments further down the line—I am sure that she will vote against ours today—so that we can bring these matters back.

I am especially concerned about the removal of local authority representation. We are effectively asking local authorities to continue to deliver vital services while removing their voice in the room where strategic decisions about health and social care are made. That raises a fundamental question about how the integration is intended to work in practice. There is also a broader concern about the direction of travel. We are moving away from place-based representation towards a model that places greater emphasis on these mayoral structures, yet the legislation is not prescriptive about who the mayors appoint, and colleagues within and without this Committee have already raised concerns that there is a gap in the understanding at the centre about how local authorities operate in practice.

That brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Winchester. I apologise; the Minister said that she did not want a geographic tour of our constituencies, but I am afraid that she will get one now. Part of my constituency sits in Hampshire in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB, and as the hon. Member for Winchester said, we may or may not have mayoral elections in a year’s time. Hampshire county council has launched a judicial review against the proposed local government reorganisation; if that is successful, or even if it delays the process, this Bill will come into effect without our having a mayor, and there will be no representation for anybody on this board. We need clarity from the Minister on who will represent the people on the board if there is no mayoral authority. I would say that local authorities—Hampshire county council in this case—should remain on that board, at least until there is a mayoral authority.

[Dr Johnson]

Where a mayor is from one political party and local authorities are run by different political parties, the mayor, as part of the ICB, will be able to make decisions about spending done by authorities that are run by different parties. That will surely create a political conflict, or at least the potential for one.

Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

The clause updates the National Health Service Act 2006 to abolish the requirement for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts to prepare and publish a joint forward plan and a joint capital resource use plan. The 10-year health plan aims to simplify local healthcare planning, and the Bill delivers that objective by removing legal requirements for integrated care partnerships, integrated care strategies, joint forward plans and joint capital resource use plans. Planning will now begin with the joint strategic needs assessment, developed by health and wellbeing boards. The assessment will inform a new neighbourhood health plan, replacing the joint local health and wellbeing strategy. ICBs will produce population health improvement plans, aligning multiple joint strategic needs assessments, neighbourhood health plans and local priorities across their wider populations. As a result, the planning process will be streamlined and less bureaucratic, and will deliver healthcare for local people based on local planning and strategy. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As the Minister said, the clause removes the need for ICBs and their partner trusts to produce a joint forward plan. The existing legislation requires ICBs and their partner trusts to prepare a plan setting out how they propose to exercise their functions over five years, which is reviewed and/or revised each financial year.

Joint forward plans address objectives in the Government mandate regarding the ambitions in the NHS long-term plan and planning guidance. Section 14Z52 of the 2006 Act sets out that an ICB and its partner trusts have to prepare such a plan before the start of each financial year and specifies what the plan must give regard to, including the ICB’s discharge of its duties—general duties and financial duties—under other sections of the Act. The plan must also cover steps that will be taken to implement the local health and wellbeing strategy, the particular needs of young people, and the particular needs of victims of abuse. ICBs and their partner trusts must publish the plan and give it to a set of specified authorities, and NHS England may give directions for that. Section 14Z54 sets out that an ICB and its partner trusts must consult people when developing such plans and that health and wellbeing boards must be involved. Section 14Z55 sets out that the relevant health and wellbeing board may give an opinion, and that when it does so, it must provide it to the ICB and its partner trusts.

Section 14Z56 sets out that an ICB and its partner trusts must prepare a joint capital resource use plan before the start of each financial year, and that the period may be determined by direction from the Secretary of State. Section 14Z57 sets out that an ICB and its partner trusts may revise the joint capital resource use plan, but if it is revised significantly, it must be published and given to the list of specified authorities.

Section 14Z58 sets out that an ICB must produce an annual report on how it has discharged its functions. It must explain how it has discharged its duties under other specified sections of the Act, review the extent to which it has exercised its functions in accordance with the forward plan and its capital resource use plan, review the extent to which it has exercised its functions consistently with NHS England’s views, and review steps it has taken to implement any joint local health and wellbeing strategy. The report must include details of expenditure and be given to NHS England by a specified date and then published.

In essence, the clause deletes sections 14Z52 to 14Z57. In some respects, it is legislative plumbing, to remove plans that are no longer necessary. The Government’s impact assessment notes that

“there is some duplication across planning documents. For example, the Joint Forward Plan covered the integration of services, which the Better Care Fund plan also considers, as does the Joint Local Health and Wellbeing Strategy.”

It goes on to note that duplication delivers an administrative burden, as staff

“complete parallel planning returns and fulfil competing data requests,”

so that is a positive aspect of the clause.

Will the Minister please address the following points? Section 14Z52 contains specific requirements to address the particular needs of young people and of victims of abuse. Where do they fall now? The NHS has a large maintenance backlog. What is the new mechanism for transparency of capital prioritisation decisions between the ICBs and the trusts? Can the Minister remind me and the Committee of other areas in which local democracy will be able to input into ICB planning once these planning documents are no longer required?

Under the Government’s strategic commissioning framework, ICBs have to develop population health improvement plans. Essex ICB published a document that is 148 pages long, with a particular focus on inequality. Is the Minister concerned about the length of some of the plans, the time it takes to produce them and the amount of bureaucracy involved, or does she think this is an improvement? What is the key objective in delivering these plans? Do the Government plan to introduce population health improvement plans through legislation? If they do not, Parliament will have scrutiny of the bureaucracy being removed but not of the bureaucracy that the Government replace it with. As the Minister once said:

“Local taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 122WH.]

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I largely agree about legislative plumbing—that is a nice phrase. As she rightly highlights, and as is clear in the explanatory notes and so on, the duplication and administrative burden on all these bodies is considerable. On her question about objectives, we certainly want to streamline that so that ultimately, as well as organisations knowing the objectives they are pursuing, the local population—importantly to her concluding point—can readily see and address that, follow it through and hold people to account. I do think that 150-page documents are not always the easiest to see.

Young people will obviously be part of the joint strategic needs assessment, and ICBs will be mindful of the Government’s wider policy objectives, as we have discussed previously. With regard to maintenance and prioritisation of capital schemes, since coming into office we have already done a huge amount of work to streamline the relationship between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care—and, indeed, our friends over at His Majesty’s Treasury—in respect of the approvals process, making better use of capital and making that more transparent at local level so that individual organisations are involved in the prioritisation that comes forward to the ICBs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Abolition of integrated care partnerships and strategies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Karin Smyth]

The clause abolishes the requirement for ICBs and their partner local authorities to form an integrated care partnership. It also abolishes the related requirement for that partnership to prepare and publish an integrated care strategy.

These abolitions address the policy objectives of the 10-year health plan by streamlining the number of plans that must be created by local health systems and supporting key local stakeholders to work together more flexibly and effectively. The changes recognise that in many areas, integrated care partnerships have not had a positive impact on local health outcomes and have come with significant opportunity costs. Alternative planning approaches proposed elsewhere in the Bill and more broadly will enable local health bodies to plan for their patients in a way that is tailored to their strengths. However, I can reassure the Committee that where existing arrangements are working well, nothing in the Bill will prevent local areas from coming together to consider how best to integrate services and plan their approach to tackling the challenges they face. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

In essence, the clause abolishes integrated care partnerships and strategies, which are where ICBs come together with local authorities to discuss how they can make their services more integrated. We know that many of the challenges facing the NHS are caused by difficulties in social care provision and some of the difficulties in social care provision are caused by issues with health provision, and that if those commissioning services in those two areas work together, we can see an improvement in both.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 made changes to local government structures and enhanced public involvement in health services. Section 116 requires local authorities to produce joint strategic needs assessments for the local authority and its partner ICB. When preparing the assessment, the local authority and its partner ICB must

“co-operate with one another…have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State…involve the Local Healthwatch organisation”,

and involve local people and the relevant district councils. I note that later in the Bill we will also come to the abolition of Healthwatch.

Section 116 of the 2007 Act has been modified by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Health and Care Act 2022 to ensure that references match the current NHS structure. For instance, in 2008 there were primary care trusts, rather than ICBs. Section 116ZA of the 2007 Act requires ICBs and local authorities whose areas coincide or overlap to create integrated care partnerships, which consist of a member appointed by the ICB, one from each responsible local authority and any other members that they choose to add; to some extent, they can determine their own procedures.

Section 116ZB of the 2007 Act requires ICBs to prepare an integrated care strategy

“setting out how the assessed needs in relation to its area are to be met by the exercise of functions of…the integrated care board…NHS England, or…the responsible local authorities”.

When developing that integrated care strategy, the integrated care partnerships must have regard to NHS England’s mandate and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Clearly, that would now apply only to guidance issued by the Secretary of the State, because NHS England is also being abolished. An integrated care partnership must publish its integrated care strategy and give it to each local authority and partner ICB. Integrated care partnerships must reconsider and, where necessary, revise the strategy each time they receive a new needs assessment.

Clause 23 deletes section 116(5A) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. That subsection required the local authorities to give a copy of the needs assessments to the ICBs, which is of course no longer necessary because they are being abolished. Clause 23 also deletes sections 116ZA and 116ZB of the same Act, which established ICBs and defined integrated care strategies respectively.

As Conservatives, we believe that streamlining bureaucracy is sensible, and I am sure that this is a well-intentioned reform. However, a survey conducted by the NHS Alliance in November indicated that a quarter of integrated care system leaders are likely to keep the integrated care partnerships anyway on a non-statutory basis, and 40% plan to fold them into health and wellbeing boards and working partnerships with the authorities. It is not really a ringing endorsement of the policy if a sizeable number of people intend to keep it anyway.

Like many other elements of the Bill, these changes are uncosted—if we read the impact assessment, it says “N/A” for the cost. Clearly, there will be a cost incurred by the abolition of the process, but there will also be an opportunity cost to services if ICBs and commissioners are not working together in the provision of social care as effectively as they were before. That will cost people in social care, and it will cost people in healthcare.

As recognised by the impact assessment that the Government have produced themselves, there is a risk of reduced focus on the wider determinants of health at system level. Committee members on both sides of the House have already stressed the impact that other health determinants can have on the health service and social care, and we have previously considered amendments to that effect.

Overall, it is regrettable that local government does not have the direct feed into ICBs that the design of those integrated care partnerships provided. Whether or not I agree, I can follow the theory or principle behind making the area covered more local, in line with the strategic authority. However, if the Government wanted to do that, I do not understand why they did not decide the mayoral areas first. At the moment, we do not know where the mayors will be, and where they are now is not where the ICBs are. The Government have decided to cut ICB budgets and force mergers before they have decided where the mayoral authorities will be in some cases. Even where there are mayoral authorities already, the Government have not mandated that the ICBs be coherent with them, and, therefore, in many cases, they are not. We have a very confusing pattern emerging, which may require further reorganisation of ICBs to line them up, with a further cost down the line.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, even if the Government get through the combined mayoral authorities they are trying to in this Parliament, there are still great swathes of England where there are no active plans for a mayoral authority at all. Even if the Government get their own way, some areas will not have a mayor for many years—if they get one at all.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. The mayors are also not all responsible for health and social care—the local authorities are, in most cases. There could therefore be a mayor directing proceedings with the ICB who is a political opponent of those actually democratically elected to look after social care. ICBs are supposed to be apolitical commissioners accountable to the Secretary of State, but now, instead of working with social care directors, they will work with an elected mayor instead.

I can see a positive to that in terms of democratic accountability, but what happens if they all disagree? There is some incoherence about who is in charge. We have the local authority tasked with delivering social care, which may be led by one political party; the mayor directing the ICB, who may be of a different political party; and the Secretary of State who can also direct the ICB, who may again be of a different political persuasion. How does it work if they disagree? Does the mayor actually have authority, given that the Secretary of State can override them anyway? How does the Minister see that working in practice? It feels like some people will be in power without responsibility and others will have responsibility without the power to exercise it.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I will raise some similar concerns about the abolition of integrated care partnerships and integrated care strategies, which clause 23 brings about. Before I do, I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The removal of integrated care partnerships, as well as the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities, raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning, which is very important to the Liberal Democrats, as the Minister knows. We feel that it removes the voice of charities and others in the voluntary sector who are crucial to meeting the range of needs in health and social care.

Throughout the Bill there is a theme of separating social care and the NHS, at a time when greater integration and closer working are clearly needed. We heard Sir Andrew Dilnot say in evidence that we cannot deal with some of the challenges that arise in the NHS—particularly around flow through hospitals and long waits in corridor care in accident and emergency—without improving the discharge of patients into social care. Separating the organisations that deliver those things is clearly problematic. If we think about it, as the shadow Minister just outlined, we have lost the local authority representative on ICBs. The Bill also changes the way the better care fund is administered. With those changes, we are really concerned about the separation of these two responsibilities.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an example in Shropshire. Shropshire council spends almost 80% of its budget on social care. It is an extremely challenged council because of those funding pressures. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB has also been one of the most financially challenged ICBs. That is partly because of its small scale and its merging with Staffordshire—which, for the record, is unlikely to be the combined mayoral authority that Shropshire ends up in, as is my current understanding, although we are a long way off resolving that problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 24 abolishes the requirement for health and wellbeing boards to prepare and publish a joint local health and wellbeing strategy. Instead ICBs, local authorities and their partners must work together through the health and wellbeing board to develop a neighbourhood health plan, in line with this Government’s commitment in the 10-year health plan. The neighbourhood health plan should be updated regularly to reflect the needs of the local population, unless all partners consider the existing plan is sufficient.

In developing their neighbourhood health plans, responsible local authorities and partner ICBs must involve the people who live or work in the area of the responsible local authority. The neighbourhood health plan will cover most of the topics previously considered by joint local health and wellbeing strategies, but will also encourage a deep focus on tackling the challenges facing individual neighbourhoods. That may mean applying different geographical focuses to different elements of the plan, to ensure that planners are addressing the real and different needs of the diverse communities they serve.

These plans will outline how the NHS, local government and local partners intend to improve the health of people in their locality and reduce health inequalities through a joined-up neighbourhood health approach. The plans will consider how local services can help realise national NHS priorities, further public service reforms, and improve performance against the adult social care outcomes framework and the local outcomes framework metrics. To support this work, the Government also intend to provide local areas with guidance and we will work with systems to ensure this addresses the needs of local planners and local communities.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 24 puts neighbourhood health plans on a statutory basis. Currently, section 116A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 requires local authorities and partner ICBs to prepare a joint local health and wellbeing strategy once they have received their integrated care strategy. Essentially, that means that the ICBs and local authorities produce their overall strategy, then it devolves down, and then the joint health and wellbeing strategy looks at how it will be delivered. The local authority and its partners must give regard to the integrated care strategy, the NHS England mandate and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The strategy must be published and local people and the local Healthwatch must be involved in its development.

Section 116B of the 2007 Act places a duty on local authorities and partner ICBs to have regard to various strategies when exercising their function, specifically, a joint strategic needs assessment, an integrated care strategy and a joint local health and wellbeing strategy. NHS England also has regard to these when providing healthcare for a specific area.

Clause 24 changes the JLHWS to a neighbourhood health plan. In many ways, that aligns with the shift in the Government’s 10-year health plan from hospital to community. As they have described it, more care in the neighbourhood will allow hospitals to focus on the more specialist care that may be needed, so more people can be cared for closer to home, which seems a reasonable aim.

However, if local authorities and partner ICBs have to give regard to what the centre is doing when developing neighbourhood health plans, to what extent does the Minister envisage that being directed? Local authorities and partner ICBs giving regard to the centre could mean there being a very loose requirement from the centre to provide for the local population, and then they get on with it; it could also be very prescriptive—my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has talked about the pros and cons of having targets—with a whole litany of targets in the plans. Whether that squares with the Government’s claim to be devolving power, or whether it strikes as a centralising power, depends on how that is done and to what extent the Secretary of State plans to direct it. I would appreciate it if the Minister could talk about that.

As has been said, Sir Andrew Dilnot told the Committee that

“we cannot really address many of the fundamental problems facing the NHS if we do not sort out social care.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 84, Q131.]

The Government have asked Baroness Casey to review social care, but they have developed this measure in the meantime. Is that because they have been talking to her and know that it is the sort of thing that she will recommend—or are they putting the cart before the horse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon suggested?

Later in the Committee’s considerations, we will come to Healthwatch, its benefits and the concerns that I and, I am sure, many other Committee members have about its abolition. What mechanisms does the Minister envisage there being for local people—local patients—to contribute to the neighbourhood health plans? A local Healthwatch currently contributes to the equivalent, the joint local health and wellbeing strategy, as a way of ensuring that it captures patient and community voices. How will that be done otherwise?

Some 80% of the Government’s new neighbourhood health centres that will deliver these plans are expected to be funded through public-private partnerships. Does the Minister have any comments on that, particularly in the light of the expensive private finance initiative that the last Labour Government entered into and left us stuck with?

In March 2026, the Government produced a neighbourhood health framework policy paper, which identified the goal of reducing non-elective admissions for those with severe frailty. Given that goal, why are the Government not on track to deliver the fracture liaison service improvements that they promised?

The policy paper also commits to what it calls

“a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high volume specialties”.

What is a “diversion rate”? It essentially requires more GP referrals to be rejected, so let us be clear about what that means. When someone, either hon. Members or constituents, goes to see their GP, they are referred to a consultant for care; I should declare an interest as a consultant in the NHS. The consultant will then review that referral and decide whether they think it is clinically appropriate to see the patient, whether a different specialty may be more appropriate, or whether they can give advice or make suggestions about treatment that could be given in primary care instead.

When a patient is given an appointment in secondary care, it essentially means that the GP has decided that they clinically need it, and the consultant has decided that they clinically need it too. If the Government want a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high volume specialties, are they suggesting that patients who the GP and consultant agree clinically need an appointment should not get one? If so, why?

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I have been itching to speak on this new clause, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—I am not sure how to pronounce that, but I am sure it is a very beautiful place; I have never been. It would ensure that a certain range of primary care providers were consulted by integrated care boards in the development of the healthcare plans.

The recent King’s Fund report, as well as many others, showed that over 90% of NHS contact with patients is in primary care in all its forms. New clause 70 relates to new clause 60, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which is about having GP representation on integrated care boards. This is an extension of that, so that dentists, pharmacy contractors and providers of ophthalmic services can all feed into integrated care boards’ healthcare plans. That is how most people come into contact with the NHS, which means that those providers have a close and deep understanding of the healthcare issues facing the demographics in their communities.

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 70 talks about a certain range of primary care providers being consulted by the ICB. Can the hon. Member clarify whether it is his intention for all providers of those services in a defined area to be consulted, or would it be a representative selection? If it is the latter, how would they be chosen?

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The purpose is to ensure that those who are deeply embedded in community care are consulted by the ICBs, so that they do not miss obvious localised issues in their demographics when developing care plans.

Just to give a brief example from a surgery I held recently, Joanne Cook is an occupational therapist who is campaigning for occupational therapists who have received specific training to be able to prescribe, and crucially de-prescribe, medications, in the same way that trained paramedics can. Often, occupational therapists see patients on a daily basis. They give them intimate and regular care, and are even better placed than GPs to notice small changes and adjust medications to keep people out of hospital.

If integrated care boards are not drawing on the experience, knowledge and data from primary care providers in all their forms, any healthcare plans they come up with will not be relevant to those demographics. We will not be keeping people out of hospital or treating them as effectively in the community, and the whole system will not be as efficient or as targeted as it could be. I would appreciate it if the Minister considered accepting the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 25 makes focused but important changes to the accounting and audit arrangements for NHS trusts by amending schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006. It does not put additional burdens on NHS trusts; instead, the aim of the clause is to align the requirements for trusts with the updated accounting arrangements for foundation trusts made elsewhere in the Bill. The changes are needed as a consequence of the abolition of NHS England and the removal of the requirement for foundation trusts to have councils of governors and members.

The amendments the clause makes replicate trusts’ existing duties to keep proper accounts and records about those accounts, and to prepare annual accounts for each financial year. The clause also replicates the Secretary of State’s current power to direct an NHS trust regarding the form of its annual accounts, but extends that power of direction so the Secretary of State may also direct a trust to prepare accounts for a specified period—for example, when part-period accounts are needed. That will help to ensure a consistent approach to financial reporting while retaining the flexibility to keep requirements up to date.

The clause also sets out and strengthens how the audit arrangements for NHS trusts should operate, mirroring the approach for foundation trusts and integrated care boards. It provides that NHS trust annual accounts are audited under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, as is the case currently, but it also provides that part-period accounts may be audited in accordance with that Act where the Secretary of State so directs.

The clause also enables the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the accounts and related auditor reports, as is currently the case. To reflect the fact that the Secretary of State will have oversight of providers once NHS England is abolished, it requires the accounts and audit reports to be sent to the Secretary of State.

Taken together, these measures support transparency, consistency and robust financial assurance. They will help to reduce unnecessary divergence in accounting requirements across different types of NHS provider, while maintaining clear oversight of public funds. That is consistent with the Bill’s broader intent to support effective governance and clear accountability for providers.

Clause 26 makes minor technical amendments to ensure that the statute book remains clear and coherent as the Bill aligns the approach to audit and accounts across NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It sits alongside the provisions in the Bill that update the arrangements for the audit of foundation trusts following the abolition of NHS England and the removal of the requirement for NHS foundation trusts to have councils of governors and members.

The clause does that by amending or removing outdated transitory provisions relating to the audit of NHS trust accounts in two places: the NHS Act 2006 and the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Clause 26 therefore supports the effective implementation of the wider measures in this part of the Bill by ensuring that the legislation is up to date, accurate and internally consistent. I commend clauses 25 and 26 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As has been said, clause 25 specifies how NHS trusts should handle their accounting. Paragraph 11A of schedule 4 to the NHS Act 2006 sets out the current obligations, which are that the trust must keep proper accounts, that the Secretary of State may give directions about how the accounts are held, and that the accounts must be prepared annually, may be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and must be submitted to NHS England.

Clause 25 replaces paragraph 11A entirely. Under the new provisions, the reporting goes to the Secretary of State, instead of NHS England—which seems sensible, because the Government are abolishing NHS England—and the Secretary of State may give directions about “methods and principles”, as well as the “form and content”. The Secretary of State may also give directions about specified periods in which accounts are to be prepared.

Will the Minister explain why those provisions are felt to be necessary? There will be suspicion among some more cynical people that the power to specify periods could be used to be more flattering for the Government, or that methods and principles could be used to change the perception of the position. Can the Minister give an example of where she thinks such periods would be useful, and also say why she thinks it is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to give directions about methods and principles, and form and content, in a way that is not done at the moment?

The exception for charitable trusts of which the NHS is a trustee is being removed. Will the Minister explain why she thinks that is important, and in what situation she thinks that power would be used? Finally, will she say whether the financial directors of NHS trusts have been consulted about these changes? If so, what was their feedback?

Clause 26 tidies up relevant provisions in two pieces of legislation, as the Minister has described.

[Karin Smyth]

If there are specific examples that are helpful, I will write to the hon. Lady—I am not entirely sure I got the point about charities, but we will pick that up in Hansard.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, these clauses are about standardising the key requirements across the NHS provider landscape in relation to annual and other accounts and records in relation to those, and audit and reporting requirements, including keeping those up to date and having a consistent approach across all NHS provider types. Of course, we worked closely with NHS England colleagues and directors of finance in seeking to bring forward those provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Special Health Authorities: establishment and exercise of functions

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Clauses 27 and 28 make amendments to the legal framework around special health authorities to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to best manage the reliable delivery of healthcare for patients and the public. As the Committee knows, special health authorities are independent bodies established by the Secretary of State, by order, to perform specific functions. They play a key national role in the health system, carrying out specific functions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Clause 27 does two key things to the special health authority legal framework. First, it amends section 28 of the NHS Act 2006 to increase the scope of functions that a special health authority could be established to deliver. Currently, the Secretary of State can create a special health authority only for the purpose of exercising functions under the 2006 Act. The clause allows a special health authority to be established to exercise functions under any other Act as well.

Secondly, the clause amends section 29 of the 2006 Act, which currently enables regulations to provide for the functions of a special health authority to be carried out flexibly, by another special health authority or jointly with one or more other special health authorities. That applies only to functions that the Secretary of State has directed the special health authority to exercise under section 7 of the 2006 Act. The clause removes that limitation, so that those arrangements can be made for any functions of the special health authority, not just those that it is directed to carry out under section 7.

These changes are needed because the health and care system is underpinned by a range of statutory functions that do not sit exclusively within the 2006 Act. The Secretary of State needs to be able to establish special health authorities to carry out those wider functions, and to give those functions to existing special health authorities. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State has the modern, adaptable tools required to place specialist functions in the right national body, with the appropriate governance and accountability. Equally, special health authorities need to be able to work with other special health authorities across all their functions in a way that best serves the needs of the wider health and care system.

On occasion, it is necessary for Ministers to merge, alter or abolish special health authorities, either because of changing circumstances or to ensure the smooth and effective running of the system. Clause 28 provides the flexibility to transfer and redeploy staff. It allows regulations to be made to enable staff to be transferred to an integrated care board or another special health authority. These changes ensure that staff can be transferred where they may be needed most, allowing for flexibility to direct resources in the health system.

The clause also allows for arrangements to be made for a special health authority’s staff to be made available to another special health authority, a local authority, the Secretary of State or an integrated care board. That may be necessary during an emergency or to provide specialist support to help an organisation achieve a particular outcome. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to give directions to a special health authority to make staff available to another special health authority or integrated care board or the Secretary of State.

Clause 28 also amends the existing power to make regulations about the sharing of information with other bodies, to allow information to be shared with integrated care boards in addition to the Secretary of State and other special health authorities. That allows for information to be shared across the system so that national and local functions can be successfully fulfilled and supports a more joined-up health system.

Clauses 27 and 28 provide for future-facing updates that will support effective administration and ensure the more reliable delivery of healthcare for patients and the public. I commend them to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Special health authorities are, in essence, specialist health authorities set up by the Secretary of State, usually to provide an England-wide service of some form. Examples include NHS Blood and Transplant, and the NHS Business Services Authority, which provides NHS pensions—I should declare that I have an NHS pension—admin for prescription exemptions and other such business-type functions. We also have NHS Resolution, which deals with clinical negligence claims, and the NHS Counter Fraud Authority.

In principle, special health authorities are useful in some cases, but they are effectively a form of quango. Can the Minister explain when she thinks the Government might want to set up a special health authority, rather than using a department within the DHSC to deliver the same thing? There are plenty of other nationally delivered services, and although the Government have suggested that some services, such as screening, will become localised as part of the Bill, some things will remain national. Can the Minister give some examples of what the new provision will be used for?

I can see there is provision for flexibility, but the special health authorities would require setting up, and there are set-up costs and costs associated with branding and those sorts of things. How does the Minister envisage those costs being provided for, and when will it be necessary for the Government to use them rather than just using the Department?

Special health authorities have been created, reconfigured and shelved many times. For example, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse became part of Public Health England in 2013, and the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement was closed in the same year. The functions of the National Patient Safety Agency went to the NHS Commissioning Board Special Health Authority, later known as NHS England, in 2012 and then to NHS Improvement in 2016. Widening the scope could leave us with more quangos than are necessary.

Which specific functions do the Government plan to move into special health authorities under this widened power? Have the Government just decided that they need this power and are increasing the scope because they are abolishing NHS England without a proper plan? Is this power just to cover themselves in the event that, as they start to make a plan, they find out they need it?

Clause 28 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the transfer of staff from one special health authority to another, or to an ICB. Paragraph 3(8) of schedule 6 to the National Health Service Act 2006 states:

“Regulations may provide for the transfer of officers from one Special Health Authority to another”,

or to NHS England,

“and for arrangements under which the services of an officer…are placed at the disposal of another Special Health Authority”,

or NHS England, or a local authority. Paragraph 3(12)(a) states that the Secretary of State may give directions

“to place the services of any of its officers at the disposal of another Special Health Authority”,

or NHS England. Paragraph 13 states:

“Provision may be made by regulations with respect to the recording of information by a Special Health Authority, and the furnishing of information by a Special Health Authority to the Secretary of State, another Special Health Authority”,

or NHS England.

Clause 28 modifies that paragraph such that regulations can now provide for the transfer of an officer to an ICB—that is a new power—as well as a special health authority and a local health authority, but no longer to NHS England because NHS England is being abolished. Regulations can now provide for an officer’s services to be placed at the disposal of the ICB and the Secretary of State, which is a new power, as well as the special health authority or local authority, but no longer NHS England. The clause modifies paragraph 3(12)(a) of schedule 6, so that directions may be given about placing the services of officers at the disposal of the special health authority and, newly, the Secretary of State or an ICB, but not NHS England. As the Minister said, the clause also modifies paragraph 13 of schedule 6, so that a special health authority can be required by regulations to pass information to integrated care boards, which is a new power, but no longer to NHS England.

NHS England is to be abolished, so it is sensible to say that staff can no longer be placed there—that seems an entirely reasonable exercise—but the legislation providing for special health authorities essentially contains open-ended spending power. Remuneration of the special health authority chairman and staff can be determined by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury. Does the Minister foresee an upper limit to those sorts of salaries?

People will essentially be able to transfer from one special health authority to another, or to an ICB—or be placed at the disposal of another special health authority, an ICB, a local authority or the Secretary of State. Will the Minister talk about the location, pension and salary of those individuals? We heard yesterday that the future Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), may want to move a whole load of civil servants from London up to Manchester. That will clearly be within his gift if he becomes Prime Minister, but for individuals who work in one location to be asked to move to another is disruptive to their family and social lives, and involves significant relocation costs. If people are moved in the way that clause 28 describes, particularly by transfer, what choice will they have? What will happen to their pension, salary and other terms and conditions, and will they have a choice of location or not?

[Gregory Stafford]

Very briefly, on clauses 27 and 28, I am sure the Committee is aware that special health authorities were initially established under the National Health Service Act 1977. Since then the number of special health authorities has expanded and contracted a number of times over the years to leave us with, currently, NHS Blood and Transplant, and the Business Services Authority, which covers pensions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned—I should declare that I have an NHS pension, albeit a very small one—as well as the NHS Litigation Authority, also known as NHS Resolution, and the NHS Counter Fraud Authority.

The mood music and the direction of travel, certainly since 2006, has been to reduce the number of special health authorities. On my reading, clauses 27 and 28 suggest that the Government are potentially looking to expand the number of special health authorities, given the Secretary of State’s direction under clause 27 and the practical steps for staff transfers in clause 28. Is the Minister looking at, for example, a special health authority to deal with artificial intelligence? Clearly that is something the NHS will have to embrace—or deal with, depending on which end of the AI argument one is on—rapidly over the coming years. Is that a potential area for a special health authority? Perhaps the Minister could outline where she sees the special health authorities acting and what their remits might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

This is quite a large group. First, clause 29 introduces schedule 3, which will make changes to the constitution of NHS foundation trusts. Currently, chapter 5 of the National Health Service Act 2006 establishes NHS foundation trusts as public benefit corporations in accordance with schedule 7 to the Act. That schedule, “Constitution of public benefit corporations”, sets out, among other things, the requirements for a constitution, the eligibility for membership, and the council of governors.

Schedule 3 to the Bill, introduced by clause 29, has a number of functions. First, it modifies the 2006 Act so that a foundation trust will no longer be a public benefit corporation, but will now be a body corporate—I would be interested in the Minister’s explanation of that change. It also modifies section 33(4) of the 2006 Act to remove reference to councils of governors, so that trusts no longer need to set those up, and modifies section 37 so that an NHS foundation trust can amend its constitution with the approval of the Secretary of State, where previously, that would have required a vote of more than half the members of the board of directors and more than half the members of the council of governors.

The schedule also deletes section 39A of the 2006 Act, “Panel for advising governors”, because one presumes if there are no governors, they do not need advice. It modifies section 43, “Provision of goods and services”, so that if a foundation trust wishes to raise its non-NHS income by 5% or more, the Secretary of State must approve it—previously that would have required local decision making from more than half of the members of the council of governors. It also deletes section 51A, “Significant transactions”, which states that an NHS foundation trust may enter into significant transactions, as defined in its constitution, only if more than half the members of the council of governors voted to approve it.

The schedule also deletes sections 56(1A), 56A(2), 56B(2) and 57A(2) of the 2006 Act. That means that governors will no longer have to approve a trust merging, being acquired, splitting or being dissolved. The Bill’s explanatory notes say that the Secretary of State will take on those approvals via schedule 11. Schedule 3 also deletes section 59, “Conduct of elections”, section 60, “Voting and standing for election” and section 61, “Representative membership” of the 2006 Act, which set out the democratic machinery for foundation trusts.

Schedule 3 also substitutes schedule 7 to the 2006 Act with an entirely new version. Elements of that new schedule 7 are as follows: the Secretary of State will now be able to appoint, suspend or remove the chair and non-executive directors—previously that was a governor’s role—and they can set the pay, allowances and terms of non-executive directors, and may regulate their tenure. The chief executive will be appointed by the non-executive directors, and the other executives will be appointed by a committee of the chair, the chief executive and non-executive directors, but the Secretary of State may set when those powers may be used. As the council of governors and its membership will be abolished, there are no members, elections or constituencies anywhere in the new schedule. Constitutional amendments will need the Secretary of State’s approval, not the approval of members and governors. The Secretary of State may make regulations on director eligibility, beyond the standard disqualifications. Directors owe a duty to promote the trust’s success, to maximise benefits for the public, with respective interests, duties and registers of interest. Board meetings must be open to the public. Accounts and audits are aligned with NHS trusts and ICBs. The Secretary of State may direct the form, content and timing as we have talked about before. Annual reports and forward financial plans go to the Secretary of State in the form that the Secretary of State decides, and trusts must publish their constitution, register, accounts and annual reports and hold a public meeting on them.

The council of governors was intended to feed in democratic input. Does the Minister have any comment on where democratic input will be held? Will it be solely through the Secretary of State, or is there any intent for local patient voice, now Healthwatch is being abolished too? How will local decision making be informed, and how will they understand their local area, particularly if it is to be directed largely by the Secretary of State?

Removing the council of governors will save money on administration, as noted in the impact assessment. The impact assessment also notes the Secretary of State does not have the ability to intervene in serious instances of foundation trust failure. Could the Minister comment on that?

Foundation trusts were intended to be independent. If the council of governors is removed and many things, as I have listed, are put under the control of the Secretary of State, they become increasingly more like an ordinary NHS trust, pre-foundation. Will they be independent in name only?

Non-executive directors are meant to be there to hold the leaders of the trust to account, but the Secretary of State can now appoint, pay and fire every non-executive director so a foundation trust’s internal watchdog can now be controlled by an elected politician who is potentially quite remote from that area. Does the Minister have any comment on how she sees that working?

Foundation trusts may have failed to increase democratic involvement in so far as there has not been huge interest in some of these elections for chairs of governors. But the answer to that would be a better version of local involvement rather than removing local input entirely.

The theme right across the schedule and the changes I listed is that foundation trusts are looking up to the Minister rather than out to local communities. Many NHS inquiries have reported back that frontline concerns did not reach the highest tiers of leadership. The Government are now closing an independent channel for sounding the alarm. Will the Minister comment on that?

I welcome Government amendment 19 because the idea that you need medical expertise on the board of a trust that delivers medical care seems to me fairly obvious, because otherwise you will get decisions that are not grounded in medical knowledge. I do recognise what the Minister says about it was not having been her intention to demote the voice of clinicians, but that was the effect. This amendment will go some way to correcting that, by having an executive director who is registered medical practitioner or a dentist, and another who is a registered nurse or midwife. Could the Minister be clear if a foundation trust wanted a nurse and a midwife, perhaps because they had a specific issue with the midwifery area, or a medical practitioner and a registered dentist, could they have both?

The Minister suggested that an exemption would be ambulance care, but there are medical practitioners, consultants, with expertise in out of hospital care. Does the Minister feel their expertise is not useful in some way?

I will speak to amendment 36 once it is moved. On clause 30 stand part, that clause removes the requirement for NHS England to consult prospective members or governors of a prospective foundation trust before its authorisation. Getting a new foundation trust without NHS England because it has been abolished is a consequence of earlier clauses that we have already voted on. Therefore, I will not go further on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Morgan]

I had finished speaking, but I will give way and think of something else to say.

[Dr Johnson]

The civil servants will be under the direction of the Minister, so how does the hon. Lady envisage it working? Presumably, civil servants are there to deliver for their Ministers or Secretary of State? Is she suggesting that makes the decision more impartial? Can she give us some detail on how that will work?

[Helen Morgan]

As I mentioned in my previous remarks, one imagines that a Secretary of State would set out criteria to ensure that the best people for the job are appointed. We are in a situation where a current Parliament cannot bind a future one, but we do need to set a precedent that political capture of these important leadership roles is not an unintentional consequence of this legislation. I accept that it is unintentional; I think the Secretary of State and the Minister have drafted this legislation with the best of intentions, but this is something we should guard against.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention neatly brings me to my next point. I have some sympathy for his viewpoint—and apparently the viewpoint expressed to him by governors—that in many cases, if not most, governors do not have the teeth, the influence or the ability to change things in the way they would like. My argument is very similar to the one we will expand on later regarding the abolition of the Healthcare Services Safety Investigations Branch and Healthwatch: the Government’s response to something not working as effectively as it could is to abolish it, but why not give those organisations the teeth—the powers—to achieve the things they were set up to do, unless the hon. Gentleman and the Government feel that there is no need, in Healthwatch’s case, for that level of independent scrutiny or, in governors’ case, that level of independent influence on boards?

There is a fundamental difference here: the Conservatives would take something imperfect and make it better; the Government’s response is to take something imperfect and abolish it. That is the wrong way round.

[Dr Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend think that this leaves a bit of a gap? The Secretary of State will not have the level of local oversight that the governors had, so how will that local oversight feed into the Secretary of State so that he or she can make the decisions instead?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is right that there will be a gap in local decision making on these issues. It goes back to that tension I described some moments ago: the Government’s stated intention is to devolve powers locally, but they seem to be pulling so much power up to the Secretary of State that we will lose the ability to make local decisions for the benefit of local populations where appropriate. We have a stated ambition for neighbourhood health, but those neighbourhoods are rapidly expanding in this legislation to become areas of millions of people. Local people who are interested in their local health delivery or local hospital trust would not see that as local decision making, and there is the gap that my hon. Friend describes.

I do not think that amendments 74 and 75 have been moved, so I will not talk about them. Government amendment 19 will require

“NHS foundation trusts to have at least one executive director who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist and another who is a registered nurse or a registered midwife.”

As also stated in the explanatory note, and as the Minister mentioned, regulations may create exception—for example, for ambulance trusts. That is the right decision, and it is important that we have medical experience on foundation trust boards. I am interested in understanding from the Minister, first, why she has chosen a medical practitioner or registered dentist. Does she see some equivalence in their expertise that could be substituted? I have great respect for doctors and for dentists, but they have potentially different clinical expertise. If a foundation trust does no oral healthcare or maxillofacial reconstruction, and does no dentistry or allied specialties, would it really satisfy requirements to have a dentist on the board? Likewise, given that the amendment also refers to a registered nurse or midwife, if a trust has no maternity services, would having a midwife on the board really satisfy the requirement of that trust to have nursing care input? I ask those questions, and I would be interested in the answers.

Likewise, there is the exemption for ambulance trusts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I would be interested to understand from the Minister why she thinks ambulance trusts do not need a medical practitioner on their boards, given that they are doing medicine. Plenty of consultants work alongside paramedics and in ambulances, so again I am not quite sure why she is making that exemption. I would be interested to hear from her on that.

I understand the intention behind Liberal Democrat amendment 36. Once again, it is trying to soften the Secretary of State’s power grab over decision making—like the hon. Member for North Shropshire, I am not saying anything against the current Secretary of State, but a future Secretary of State could be different. The aim is to try to temper that in some way. Unfortunately for the hon. Member—I have sympathy for the amendment—the stated intention of the Bill is to pull more power to the Secretary of State. The Minister may surprise me, but I fear that the amendment will not find favour with the Government, because the whole Bill is about pulling more power to the centre, certainly when it comes to appointments, and to the Secretary of State.

However, the Minister should think about how future Secretaries of State may have to go through some process whereby their decisions are checked and justified, especially at local level. If we want local people to have influence and say over their local health systems and trusts, there needs to be some sort of bridging legislation or bridging process to ensure that whatever a Secretary of State decides, it has the confidence and support of local people and local service providers.

--- Later in debate ---

On the question of the right level of clinical representation, our amendment 19 is clear that clinical and medical representation is fundamental to the work of those boards. It is important that boards reflect that clinical and medical work, although it will be for them to determine the right balance.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will move on, if I may. I think my response will the cover the issues raised in the debate.

On amendment 36 and new clause 59, I note the concern that the Secretary of State could act inappropriately when making appointments to the boards of ICBs and NHS trusts and foundation trusts. We discussed democratic accountability in a previous sitting, and at the end of the day it is up to the British public whom they elect to Parliament and as the governing party.

Transparency and democratic accountability are at the heart of our reforms. It would not be right for the civil service to be given sole legislative responsibility for appointments to NHS trusts, foundation trusts or integrated care boards. Ministers are democratically accountable to Parliament, and civil servants act on their behalf under the Carltona principle. Civil servants serve and advise the Government, and act on behalf of Ministers, but it is for Ministers to take decisions and to be held accountable to Parliament for the performance of the NHS. The civil service will run fair, open and equitable campaigns to fulfil these roles and will recommend appropriate candidates to Ministers.

Ministers are under a duty to comply with public law principles and to act reasonably, and will adhere to the Nolan principles, including objectivity, transparency and integrity, in discharging this function. The practical arrangements for appointments are being developed as part of the transition planning for the integration of NHS England’s functions into the Department, and will be based on these principles. It would therefore be inappropriate to exclude Ministers entirely from the appointments process. I urge hon. Members not to push the amendments to a vote.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[The Chair]

I think the Minister has finished.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment made: 19, in schedule 3, page 81, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) Unless or except to the extent that regulations provide otherwise, the executive directors must include—

(a) at least one person who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist (within the meaning of the Dentists Act 1984), and

(b) at least one other person who is a registered nurse or a registered midwife.”—(Karin Smyth.)

This requires NHS foundation trusts to have at least one executive director who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist and another who is a registered nurse or a registered midwife. Regulations may create exceptions (for example, an exception could be created for ambulance foundation trusts).

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

NHS foundation trusts etc: audit of accounts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I will start where I left off. Clause 34 addresses the gap by making it clear where responsibility sits, so that there is no doubt about who must produce the final accounts and ensure that they are completed properly, and about how those accounts should be audited. We think this is a proportionate provision to ensure continuity and clarity on how NHS money has been managed during organisational transition. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Clause 31 introduces schedule 4, which essentially makes series of amendments to other Acts. It amends the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 to remove a cross-reference to other categories, and it amends the Audit and Accountability (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 for similar purposes. It also amends the National Health Service Act 2006 by deleting section 62 and schedule 10, relating to the audit of accounts of NHS foundation trusts, to end the old audit scheme.

Schedule 4 amends section 3 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 so that foundation trusts are now included in the list of bodies that must keep accounts in the standard way, it amends section 4 to specify which documents count as accounts of foundation trusts for the purpose of auditing, and it amends sections 8 and 10 so that the auditor appointment procedure and the auditor panel’s role now cover foundation trusts.

In addition, schedule 4 rewrites section 13 of the 2014 Act so that if a trust fails to appoint a local auditor, it is the Secretary of State’s job to step in. Previously, that was NHS England’s job; clearly, that needs to change, because NHS England is being abolished. The schedule also amends section 21 so that the auditors’ general duties now apply to foundation trusts too, and it amends section 30, relating to unlawful expenditure and activity, and section 32B, relating to the independence requirement, to remove a now-redundant item from the list.

Schedule 4 also amends schedule 2 to the 2014 Act to formally add foundation trusts to the official list of audited bodies; schedule 5 so that the rules on who can be a local auditor now cover foundation trusts too; schedule 6 to remove an outdated segment from the audit practice code rules; schedule 7 to tidy the reporting rules and extend them to foundation trusts; schedule 9 to realign data matching rules that apply to foundation trusts in the new system; and schedule 11, relating to the disclosure of information, to remove a reference to NHS England, which is no longer necessary because NHS England is being abolished. In general, clause 31 aligns the audit process for accounts of foundation trusts with those of standard trusts and integrated care boards.

Clause 32 removes the need for NHS England to maintain a register of foundation trusts and the fees associated with maintaining it. Section 39 of the NHS Act 2006 requires NHS England to maintain a current register of NHS foundation trusts and specifies what must be in that register. Section 50 states that an NHS foundation trust must pay NHS England a fee that NHS England may determine in respect of exercising its functions under section 39, which relates to keeping the register, and section 39A, relating to a panel for advising governors. Clause 32 deletes sections 39 and 50. The explanatory notes say that the requirement to maintain a register does not need to be transferred to the Secretary of State when NHS England is abolished because, the Government argue, the information will already be available centrally, and there is no need for a fee to keep that in place. That seems sensible to me.

Clause 33 enables the Secretary of State to impose limits on a foundation trust’s annual capital or revenue expenditure. Section 42B of the 2006 Act allows NHS England to make an order imposing a limit on the capital expenditure of a foundation trust in a single year. Section 42C sets out that NHS England must publish guidance about the exercise of its power under section 42B, including about the circumstances in which it is likely to make an order and the method it will use to determine the capital expenditure limit. Clause 33 entirely replaces sections 42B and 42C with rewritten sections, with some notable changes. The wording is changed from “capital expenditure” to “expenditure”. The power is therefore widened from capital expenditure limits to limits on any expenditure—capital and revenue. The Secretary of State replaces NHS England as the entity with the power to impose limits, which makes sense, and the subsection requiring an order to specify the trust, the financial year and so on has been removed in full.

The change gives the Government financial control to stop overspending by NHS foundation trusts. I note that in financial year 2023-24, NHS trusts overspent by £1.2 billion, so presumably this is the Secretary of State getting a tighter grip on spending. In some respects that is sensible, but overspending is often due to staffing costs and day-to-day pressures, not capital expenditure, so there is an argument that the capital limits themselves are not sufficient to deal with the problem. Under the new governance model, the Secretary of State has oversight and responsibility for the health service, and financial control aligns with those changes. The new power could prevent one organisation’s failures from undermining the health service’s wider financial position or impacting other providers.

However, the purpose of foundation trusts is supposed to be that they have greater independence over spending, and the Government have stated that their aim is to create a more devolved and autonomous health system. How does broadening the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere in expenditure devolve power or make foundation trusts more independent? Imposing expenditure limits may control overspending on paper, but it does not address the reasons why it is happening, so limits could lead to a deterioration in the health services delivered by some trusts. What plans does the Minister have to deal with that?

Because the power moves from an arm’s length body to the Secretary of State, interventions could be politically motivated, rather than in the best interests of the NHS. How does the Minister consider that that will be managed?

The power for the Secretary of State to impose expenditure limits at any time during or before the financial year could create uncertainty among trust leadership and undermine long-term planning. If a trust is given a budget for the year, it knows what it has to work with, but if somebody says halfway through the year, “Actually, you are going to have to work with less money than that,” it is very difficult for the board to plan its expenditure, because it is always looking the other way. Why does the Secretary of State need that power? Can the Minister clarify that, if there is a change in the expenditure limit during the year, it will always be revised upwards, and never downwards?

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a prescient point. Has she thought about the word “limits”? To me, it is not clear from the clause as drafted—perhaps it is clearer to her—whether that is an overall limit on capital and revenue expenditure, or whether the clause is saying that the Secretary of State could impose limits on individual line items or departments. The word “limits”—plural—suggests that he or she may be able to do that.

[Dr Johnson]

I do not think the Bill is very clear on that. It says that the Secretary of State

“may by order impose limits on the expenditure that may be incurred by an NHS foundation trust in respect of a single financial year.”

However, it does not say whether that is an overall limit, whether it is for capital or revenue or whether it is a limit on a specific item, so the degree to which the Secretary of State has control is not clear. I presume it is an overall limit and that it is for dealing with budgets, but perhaps the Minister can provide some clarity for my hon. Friend.

Clause 34 requires foundation trusts that have been newly authorised, or that have recently acquired another trust or another foundation trust, to prepare the final accounts for their predecessor trust or foundation trust. It does that by modifying section 36 of the NHS Act 2006 to add new provisions that require foundation trusts to prepare accounts for the final period for which they were an NHS trust, establish that part of schedule 7 and part of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 apply in relation to those accounts, and define the final accounting period. It does the same for section 56AA of the 2006 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

During the process of producing our 10-year plan, we were clear that, as much as we will reward the best performing providers with new freedoms to innovate, we will not hesitate to act on poor performance, and this group of measures deal with just that: action in the event of a failing provider.

Clause 35 and schedule 5 insert new provisions into the NHS Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to, by order, convert a failing foundation trust to an NHS trust. This is intended to take place only in the most critical circumstances, and where it is in the public’s best interest for the Secretary of State to be able to direct the trust about how it should exercise its functions, to address safety or other issues at the trust. Foundation trust status should be a mark of good performance, and there must be a mechanism to remove it when performance is seriously deficient. This deauthorisation power will help to maintain the integrity of the reinvigorated foundation trust status and provide an additional incentive for challenged foundation trusts to improve.

The power to make a conversion order can be used where the foundation trust has failed to comply with a condition of its provider licence or with another legislative requirement. In deciding whether to make a conversion order, the Secretary of State must consider various factors, including the seriousness of the failure, the health and safety of patients, the quality of the provision by the trust of goods and services, the financial position of the trust, and the way the trust is being run.

The conversion power is also subject to two additional requirements. First, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about the matters they will consider in deciding whether to exercise the conversion power, including the factors I just outlined. They must consult on any such guidance before its publication. Secondly, where the Secretary of State proposes to use the power, they must first consult the foundation trust in question, any integrated care boards in the areas in which the trust operates, and any other person to whom the trust provides goods and services, and whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

Clause 35, together with schedule 5, also inserts new schedule 9A into the NHS Act 2006, which sets out the immediate consequences of a conversion order. Deauthorising a foundation trust has no impact on the property it holds, the contracts it has with commissioners and other groups, or the terms of employment of employees. These powers set clear organisational consequences for significant underperformance and allow the Secretary of State the freedom to take action to protect patients in extreme circumstances.

Clause 36 contains another critical power to allow action in the case of a failing foundation trust. It allows the Secretary of State to add conditions to an NHS foundation trust’s provider licence where they consider that the trust will breach its licence conditions due to issues with its governance. The clause is a consequence of abolishing NHS England and makes changes to the powers currently held by NHS England under section 111 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to confer them on the Secretary of State, with additional consequential changes reflecting the abolition of councils of governors.

The clause sets clear expectations for a foundation trust through the licence conditions and provides the Secretary of State with a transparent mechanism to take more urgent, targeted enforcement action to address failures of governance. Should the foundation trust breach any conditions imposed via section 111, the Secretary of State may require it to make changes to the executive directors of its board as necessary, including removing or suspending executive directors, replacing executive directors with interims, and preventing the trust from appointing specific individuals. If the foundation trust fails to take those actions, the Secretary of State may implement the changes.

To reassure the Committee, there are clear safeguards underpinning the clause, which can be used only where there is evidence that failures of governance in the foundation trust will cause it to breach the conditions of its licence. Further, acting under section 111 does not preclude the Secretary of State from using their other regulatory powers, including to require the foundation trust to take steps to address a breach of any condition of the licence, or to accept undertakings from the trust to address the breach.

Finally, the section 111 power was originally granted to Monitor in 2012 under transitional arrangements, as it was anticipated that the power could be withdrawn once governors had transitioned into their roles and could hold boards to account without outside intervention. Over 13 years on, that has proven not to be the case. With the abolition of the foundation trust councils of governors, it makes sense to repeal the provisions under sections 112 to 114 of the same Act that made it transitional.

Clause 37 makes changes to the special administration framework to ensure that it continues to function coherently after the abolition of NHS England. The clause makes focused, technical amendments to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to amend the framework for establishing a mechanism for financial assistance in cases where a provider is subject to a health special administration order under chapter 5 of that Act. It also amends the Act to remove the duty to establish a mechanism for financial assistance to foundation trusts to which a trust special administrator has been appointed. The duty no longer needs to apply to foundation trusts, because the Secretary of State already has the power under provisions in the NHS Act 2006 to provide financial assistance to NHS foundation trusts if needed.

With the abolition of NHS England, the duty to establish a mechanism for financial assistance for independent providers will be retained and conferred on the Secretary of State. It is worth noting that the provisions related to financial assistance in special administration cases, and chapter 5 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which sets out the powers and processes for the making of health special administration orders, have not yet been commenced. However, the amendments made by the clause ensure that the special administration regime can operate smoothly if it is ever needed.

The clause does not create new financial support mechanisms, but ensures that existing ones can be used appropriately in the reformed system. In short, clause 37 ensures that the legal framework reflects the new institutional landscape while retaining the ability to act swiftly to safeguard continuity of services during special administration.

Clause 38 makes changes to the trust special administration framework to ensure that it continues to function coherently after the abolition of NHS England. This clause, together with schedule 6, make targeted changes to the trust special administration process set out in the NHS Act 2006 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts as a consequence of the abolition of NHS England. It also aligns more closely the processes between NHS trusts and foundation trusts.

Trust special administration is, and will remain, a last resort mechanism used only in cases of serious failure. It is used to protect patients, stabilise services and put the organisation back on a sustainable footing. Where deemed necessary, a trust special administrator would be appointed to manage the trust and work with relevant key stakeholders to develop recommendations regarding the organisation and its services.

The amendments made by schedule 6 remove functions that currently sit with NHS England and confer the key decision-making functions on the Secretary of State, who will provide clearer lines of accountability and faster decision making when rapid intervention is required. The amendments also simplify the steps involved in the TSA process, with the aim of improving the speed of intervention and providing transparency. They align more closely the processes for trusts and foundation trusts, and set out a simpler process in relation to the administrator’s draft report, consultation and final report. They also require, as is the case now, that key documents and decisions are published and laid before Parliament. That will help ensure proper and meaningful scrutiny of the TSA process and outcomes. It also helps ensure that affected patients, staff and local partners have the opportunity to engage during the process, while maintaining the balance with the need to deliver timely intervention and secure continuity of safe services.

In addition, the amendments in schedule 6 make changes to the role of the Care Quality Commission in trust special administration. The CQC will be able to recommend that a trust special administrator should be appointed. The Secretary of State is also required to consult the CQC before making an order, ensuring that independent expertise on quality and safety informs decisions and that intelligence on service performance is co-ordinated.

The provisions in the Bill ensure that the process remains fit for purpose, proportionate, and aligned across NHS trusts and foundation trusts. They support faster, more coherent decision making in the most serious cases, with the aim of protecting patients and securing sustainable, high-quality services for the future. Taken together, the clauses provide the necessary tools for the Secretary of State to take proportionate, swift and decisive action in the event of provider failure. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 35 essentially establishes the right of the Secretary of State to convert a foundation trust into an NHS trust in certain circumstances. Currently, section 25 of the NHS Act 2006 establishes trusts and introduces schedule 4 of the same Act, which makes provision about NHS trusts. Section 56AA sets out how additional requirements concerning acquisitions of a trust or foundation trust are to work. Clause 35 deletes section 25(2), which specifies that an order in this context is referred to as “an NHS trust order”, and amends subsection (3), so that no order under section 25—previously no “NHS trust order”—can be made until any consultation that has been prescribed is complete.

Clause 35 introduces proposed new section 57B into the 2006 Act, “Conversion of failing NHS foundation trust into NHS trust”, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to convert if the foundation trust breaches its licence or other legal duties. The trigger is broad and includes non-compliance with any statutory requirement. The proposed new section requires an order to specify when it takes effect and also requires the Secretary of State, when deciding to issue an order, to consider among other things

“the seriousness of the failure…the health and safety of patients…the quality of the provision by the trust of goods and services…the financial position of the trust, and…the way that the trust is being run.”

Before making an order, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the trust, any ICB where the trust has facilities and

“any other person to whom the trust provides goods or services…whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

The proposed new section also provides the Secretary of State with the power, when the conversion order is made, to

“terminate the appointment of the chair or any executive or non-executive director”,

and to

“appoint a person to be the chair or an executive or non-executive director”.

It also time-limits the powers to intervene with management to one year after the order is made.

Clause 35 also introduces proposed new section 57C into the 2006 Act, “Guidance about conversion”, which requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance about matters to be considered when deciding to make an order and requires them to consult persons considered appropriate before publishing or revising guidance. The clause removes “NHS trust order” from section 276 of the 2006 Act, “Index of defined expressions”, and updates schedule 4, so that an NHS trust may be established by an ordinary order under section 25 or a conversion order under proposed new section 57B.

Schedule 5 to the Bill inserts proposed new schedule 9A to the 2006 Act, “Conversion of failing NHS foundation trusts”, which provides that, on conversion, the foundation trust’s chair and directors become the initial chair and directors of the new NHS trust, unless they are removed by the Secretary of State under the procedures we have just talked about. The proposed new schedule initially keeps the board the same size, until new arrangements are made. It provides that the foundation trust’s public dividend capital carries over to the NHS trust and that the conversion does not affect continuity of the body —it will remain the same organisation, just with NHS trust status.

The proposed new schedule provides that the trust’s property and liabilities, including criminal liabilities, continue unaffected. It also provides that existing contracts continue and that the trust remains party to them. It clarifies that those contracts do not automatically become NHS contracts under section 9(1) of the 2006 Act, provides that the trust keeps any corporate memberships that it held before the conversion, and clarifies that the continuity provisions do not affect the Secretary of State’s wider powers to make directions.

The Secretary of State will have a direct power to act where the foundation trust has failed—for instance, where there have been patient safety lapses—and there are clear benefits to that. There are also transparency requirements built in: the Secretary of State must publish guidance and consult before issuing guidance or undertaking conversion, and the power to change the management is limited to a year.

However, the last Labour Government said that independence was central to the success of foundation trusts. In 2005, the then Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, said:

“We know that independence from central Government control and greater freedoms are giving NHS foundation trusts the opportunity to innovate new approaches to healthcare and healthcare services, for the benefit of NHS patients.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 5WS.]

The challenge with innovations is that, even with the very best intentions and the very best advice, some will work and some will not. If any failure at all is a reason for trusts to be taken over, will that cause them to be shy about innovating, for fear of their independence being undermined as a result? There is a balance to strike, so I wonder whether the Minister will comment on that.

The change also makes it easy for the Secretary of State to convert a foundation trust for political reasons—for instance, because of pressure from local Members of Parliament. That is a positive in some ways and a negative in others. Again, it could have a chilling effect on the very autonomy and innovation that Ministers want to see, so the question is how they think they will balance that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I do not think that the Minister addressed new clause 26, so does she wish to do so now? [Interruption.] She need not worry about it, I am told.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 39 broadens the Secretary of State’s ability to delegate or jointly exercise health service functions with NHS bodies and local government. Currently, section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006 enables the Secretary of State to arrange for any of their public health functions to be exercised by relevant bodies, such as NHS England, ICBs and local authorities. Section 65Z5 sets out how relevant bodies may jointly exercise delegated functions, and section 65Z6 sets out how funds may be pooled for such purposes. Section 65Z7 sets out that NHS England may issue guidance for exercising functions under those two sections and that relevant bodies must have regard to any guidance. Section 75 then sets out that the Secretary of State can make regulations to enable NHS bodies and local authorities to enter into arrangements related to the delivery of health functions.

Clause 39 deletes section 7A, removing the separate power for the Secretary of State to delegate public health functions. It amends section 65Z5 to create a wider power that allows the Secretary of State to arrange for any health service-related function in England to be exercised by or jointly with relevant bodies, local authorities, combined authorities, combined county authorities or other prescribed persons. It removes outdated references in section 65Z5 linked to NHS England and updates the wording so that arrangements can be made with a wider range of persons and not just bodies.

Clause 39 also replaces section 65Z6 so that where functions are exercised jointly, the parties can use joint committees and pooled funds. It provides that pooled funds can include payments from relevant bodies and the Secretary of State, and can be used for expenditure connected to jointly exercised functions. It amends section 65Z7 so that guidance on joint working and delegation is issued by the Secretary of State rather than NHS England. It makes consequential amendments to provisions on directors of public health and local authority public health functions, reflecting the removal of section 7A. It also makes consequential amendments to section 75 partnership arrangements and the Local Government Act 1974, again removing references to section 7A.

Once again, it is necessary to move functions to the Secretary of State when NHS England is abolished—somebody else needs to do the work. The changes introduce more flexibility for joined-up working between the Secretary of State and other entities in the health system, which could support integration and the shift to place-based care, with localised approaches to prevention, integration and service planning in line with the Government’s 10-year plan.

However, the power is very broad, relating to any function in the health service. The Secretary of State could arrange for functions to be exercised by or jointly with any person prescribed, which could mean anyone. How will it be possible to determine who is responsible for things that have gone wrong when joint committees are established and funds are pooled? The Minister has spoken a number of times during our sittings about the importance of clear accountability. In the event that the work, funds and activities are pooled, how will it be made clear who is responsible and therefore accountable for the activity that occurs?

Melanie Williams, the then president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, told the Health and Social Care Committee that we spend

“a lot of time debating about who pays, rather than having a conversation about how, in the longer term, we can invest in people’s outcomes to enable better health and wellbeing.”

Is it the Government’s intention to decide the allocation of money for social care and health providers, or that whoever they decide will work together?

The Government have said that this is all about the devolution of power. This morning, we discussed the abolition of integrated care partnerships, on which ICBs and local authorities work together on projects that they choose locally. The Government are now introducing another power that will enable the Secretary of State to direct them to work together on things that he or she chooses. That does not sound terribly like the devolution of power. Could the Minister explain that to me?

I shall leave new clause 26 to the Liberal Democrats. Government new clause 20 ensures that there is a complete list of authorities that may be included. I think some were missing from the first iteration. I just make the point that the more actors there are in the mix, the harder it may be to see who is responsible overall. We also need to discuss how to maintain the balance between clinical need and political priorities in the choice of what healthcare is provided.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

New clause 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who both sit on the Health and Social Care Committee, would require the Secretary of State to review the arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 and consider whether to require NHS bodies and local authorities to enter into new arrangements with one another if that is likely to lead to an improvement in how their functions are exercised.

A recurring theme of Health and Social Care Committee inquiries is the impact of financial flows and how they frustrate attempts to deliver truly integrated care—an issue we discussed in earlier sittings. We all recognise that closer arrangements are needed to properly address discharge delays, which directly lead to corridor care or even unnecessary admissions to hospital. It seems that a consensus has been reached, yet the action to back that up is not there. We feel that, through this Bill, the Government are moving away from closer integration.

Melanie Williams, the then president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, told the Health and Social Care Committee that the NHS and local authorities

“spend a lot of time debating about who pays, rather than having a conversation about how, in the longer term, we can invest in people’s outcomes to enable better health and wellbeing.”

She highlighted concerns about the funding of intermediate care and community health services through aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and NHS continuing healthcare.

Section 75 of the 2006 Act provides a legal mechanism for NHS bodies and local authorities to pool budgets and jointly commission health and social care services. The Select Committee has heard evidence of positive examples of such arrangements being used to commission integrated services. It also heard that the use of section 75 arrangements is inconsistent.

In October 2023, the Government launched a call for evidence to explore how section 75 could be better utilised to support integration. A summary of responses published in December 2024 identified several areas for improvement, including the need for stronger inter-organisation relationships, clearer governance and financial structures, and better data sharing. The Health and Social Care Committee recommended that the Government expand the use of section 75, including the range of services that it will be used to support.

This Bill is a missed opportunity for the Government to reform or promote the use of section 75 arrangements, or to provide an alternative mechanism that they believe would be more effective in addressing the challenges that funding flows present to the integration of health and care services. That is why the Select Committee suggested this new clause to prompt a review of section 72 and the introduction of guidance to support pooled budgets and jointly commissioned health and social care services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

We know that robust finances are an essential part of the health service. The financial accounts related to the NHS are of keen interest to His Majesty’s Treasury and indeed to Parliament. The Government are especially mindful of the keen interest of the Public Accounts Committee in this area. Under current arrangements, NHS England prepares a set of financial accounts for all NHS trusts and foundation trusts, and that is audited by the National Audit Office. That is the point at which the National Audit Office conducts its oversight of NHS providers, with that feeding into the National Audit Office’s assurance over the Department of Health and Social Care group.

The financial accounts for integrated care boards are currently included in the NHS England group accounts, which are presented separately and audited by the National Audit Office. With the abolition of NHS England, the Government intend to reduce central administration costs, so financial reporting needs to be proportionate while balancing stakeholders’ keen interest in financial information related specifically to the NHS. Clause 40 therefore replaces the current consolidated accounts of NHS providers with a single set of consolidated accounts for the NHS covering its trusts, foundation trusts and integrated care boards. That consolidated account will continue to be audited by the National Audit Office.

We believe that bringing the accounts together in this way will assist the public, Parliament and the National Audit Office in scrutinising NHS expenditure. Although it is not covered by the clause, it is important for the Committee to be aware that there will be no change to the current requirement for the Department to publish a Department of Health and Social Care group annual report and accounts that will consolidate the NHS accounts with the core Department and other group bodies—for example, its arm’s length bodies.

However, the Government recognise that only reporting figures for the NHS in the overall Department group would reduce transparency compared with the current structure of NHS financial accounts. The clause therefore seeks to prioritise high quality audited financial accounts information being made available while balancing against administrative costs, both of which are important to the Government.

Clause 41 amends the Secretary of State’s existing power to create a scheme allowing NHS bodies to pool funds to cover property losses and legal claims arising from their healthcare activities. They ensure that when liabilities arise, whether from damage to property, negligence or other claims, there is a clear and consistent mechanism through which those liabilities can be managed and resolved. In doing so, they protect the financial stability of the NHS. The clause updates the legislation for the new landscape by removing NHS England from the arrangements and ensuring that responsibility for administrating the schemes rests appropriately with the Secretary of State.

Although the clause is targeted and technical, its effect is essential in that it ensures continuity and legal clarity and continued effective operation of arrangements that underpin confidence and functionality across the health service. Clause 42 is a necessary technical and structural change that supports the new statutory framework following the abolition of NHS England. It removes provisions in the NHS Act 2006 and the Health and Care Act 2022 that relate specifically to NHS England’s funding and financial responsibilities, which will no longer be required once NHS England ceases to exist. The clause avoids duplication and confusion and ensures that financial accountability is clearly defined in the post NHS England system. Under the reformed framework, the Department is responsible for the overall funding of the NHS and for national financial assurance, while integrated care boards and providers continue to operate within defined statutory financial duties and controls.

Clause 42 plays an important housekeeping role, providing legal clarity and underpinning a more transparent and coherent financial framework that is fit for the NHS future operating model. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 40 prepares for the preparation of the annual accounts of NHS trusts and integrated care boards. Existing legislation in section 65Z4 of the NHS Act 2006, “Consolidated accounts for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”, requires NHS England to prepare a set of accounts every financial year and consolidate the accounts of all the trusts and NHS foundation trusts. The Secretary of State can give directions about the content for methods and principles, and the accounts must be accompanied by reports or other information as directed by the Secretary of State. A copy may be sent by NHS England to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The latter must then examine and certify those accounts before sending a copy to the Secretary of State and NHS England, and NHS England must then lay a copy of the consolidated accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report before Parliament. That is how it works at the moment.

Clause 40 rewrites section 65Z4 and the duty to prepare the consolidated accounts every financial year moves to the Secretary of State, and the list of what gets consolidated now includes the ICB accounts. The power to give directions to NHS England about accounts is removed, which is fair enough because there would be no need for it, as the Secretary of State is now preparing them and NHS England will cease to exist. The requirement for the accounts to be accompanied by such reports or other information as the Secretary of State may direct has been removed. The accounts go straight to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who reports back only to the Secretary of State. At the end, the Secretary of State lays the accounts before Parliament. The changes are necessary owing to the abolition of NHS England.

I want to ask about the consolidation, including the ICB accounts, which was not there before, and what impact that will have. Will the accounts be sufficiently detailed so that it is possible to disaggregate that information if people are interested in doing so?

Clause 41 changes which NHS companies can be covered by the scheme that meets certain losses, legal claims and liabilities. Currently, section 71, “Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc of certain health service bodies”, of the NHS Act 2006 enables the Secretary of State to establish schemes to meet the losses of NHS England, ICBs, trusts, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the CQC and several other bodies. The list of bodies includes

“(ha) a company formed under section 223 and wholly or partly owned by the Secretary of State or NHS England”.

In the new legislation, clause 41 rewrites paragraph (ha) so that it is

“a company formed under section 223 other than by an integrated care board by virtue of section 223A”.

That narrows the scope of the liability scheme by preventing ICB-created companies from automatically gaining protection, presumably to encourage ICBs to manage risk responsibly.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

Amendments 60 and 61 would introduce a primary care investment standard that required integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of their total programme healthcare funding. We have discussed the importance of primary care in previous sittings, so I will be brief now, because we have a lot to get through.

The primary care investment standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard. It would set a clear benchmark to which to hold the Secretary of State. Primary care is the very frontline of a health service, and it is vital to stop the rest of the health system becoming overburdened, with issues such as corridor care and long ambulance handovers often a direct result of the system’s failure properly to shift resources and focus into primary care and community care, so that we can catch diseases early and prevent people from going into hospital.

If people cannot get GP or dentist appointments, they turn up to A&E. That transfers the load to what is not only not the most efficient part of the NHS for dealing with routine issues, but the most expensive part of the NHS. That is hugely expensive, as well as not ideal for the individual. Although more than 90% of patients’ direct experience with the NHS is through primary care and GP practices, less than 10% of the NHS budget in England is spent on primary care.

Despite years of all Governments promising to shift patient care out of hospitals into the community, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on general practice has fallen to its lowest point in the past 10 years. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ 2025 practice manager survey revealed that although 61% of practice managers said that they need to expand the GP workforce to meet their patients’ needs, 62% said that the lack of funding in general practice is a major barrier preventing them from hiring the number of GPs they need.

It has been revealed that 22 out of 27 of the first round of neighbourhood health centres are already doing some of those functions; they are simply being rebadged and slightly expanded. We know that in the NHS, money is key, and there are constant important and competing demands for the limited amount of funding. Protecting funding streams for primary care would ensure that the Government actually provided the funds to back up their ambition of shifting care into the community. The benchmark that amendments 60 and 61 would set for the Government is modest, but it would have a huge impact if we could successfully transform the NHS by shifting care into the community. We hope that the Government will view this as a spend-to-save initiative as well. One question is always where the money comes from, but having fewer demands on A&E, the most expensive part of the NHS, would save money in the long run.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The amendments would introduce a primary care investment standard, requiring the ICBs to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of the total funding that they receive. The Secretary of State would be able to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply.

As the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not need to talk about the importance of primary care, because we all know it is very important and quite efficient. The Darzi report said that primary care is one of the most financially efficient parts of the NHS. The challenge is that demand is increasing across the whole system, and unless overall funding is increased, then giving primary care a bigger share must mean giving somebody else a smaller one.

My other concern is about how the hon. Gentleman thinks this will be measured. Is measuring inputs rather than outputs really the right way to run the health service? We have tested almost to destruction the idea of just giving more and more money, which I suppose is why the Government have introduced this Bill: to try to reform things and make them more efficient. We can argue about whether they are doing that well or not, but that is the thrust of what they are trying to do.

I think the idea behind the amendments is interesting, but I would be interested to hear more about how the hon. Member thinks the standard would work, and in particular whether he thinks it could be justified if there was huge unmet demand in the secondary care or mental health sector. The balance of need may change over time, and if it does, then legislating for a set proportion to go on this or that type of care, rather than on delivering this or that type of outcome, might not be the right approach.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for his explanation of amendments 60 and 61. Like my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I entirely understand what he is seeking to achieve, and also how important general practice is. Access to appointments with a general practitioner or at a practice is one of the most significant issues in Melton Mowbray. Despite the fantastic work that doctors are doing to try to manage that, the pressure continues to be intense, which on occasion is causing real anxiety for patients. Equally, I can see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) are trying to achieve by kick-starting a shift away from acute settings and towards front-loading—for want of a better way of putting it—people’s treatment in the NHS. As he said, Governments of many different complexions have tried to achieve that shift; what he is trying to do is give it a bit of oomph.

I can entirely see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do have some concerns, one of which was articulated well by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which is that the amendments are very much focused on inputs rather than outcomes. With the Health and Care Act 2022, we sought to shift the focus more towards outcomes, and I think the Minister is also seeking to move it towards outcomes rather than purely inputs—she will correct me if I am wrong—so I do worry about that.

Like my hon. Friend, I also have a slight concern about the effect of amendment 60 on the flexibility to address local circumstances and—for want of a better way of putting it—the discretion available to ICBs in determining the local health priorities. The Bill moves us away from the conception of ICBs in the 2022 Act, under which they were essentially mapped on to an upper-tier local authority geography, so that those delivering social care mapped directly on to the same geography and better integrated with it. With the removal of local authority reps and their potential replacement with representatives of a mayoral authority, and with ICBs covering much larger areas, we see a fracturing of the link with social care provision, and also perhaps a lot of local mapping and a local focus from the ICBs. None the less, my concern is that taking a prescriptive approach in primary legislation could further reduce ICBs’ ability to flex in order to address local needs. I can entirely see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and we all want to see primary care—general practice and dentistry—getting the funding it needs to address needs, but I am not convinced that the amendment will not have potential unintended consequences.

On amendment 61, I can again see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell are trying to do: give the shift teeth and make sure that ICBs look at it. The risk is that if they fail to achieve it, they will face financial penalties, which risks compounding the financial challenges they face and potentially reducing the available funds for primary care, mental health and a range of other healthcare services in the vicinity. I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I share the objective, but I have concerns about how it would work in practice and whether it would be overly prescriptive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I would happily speak for several hours on the multifaceted reasons why young people in particular are struggling with mental health. One of my passions is ensuring that people get intervention and support before they require clinical care, but at the moment that is not happening. For a whole variety of societal reasons, including young people applying for 300 or 400 jobs and not even getting a response, more and more people are ending up on mental health waiting lists.

The mental health investment standard has been widely hailed for bringing about positive change in the health service. It protects funds and provides certainty for services that are seeing dramatically rising demand and, importantly, it provides certainty about future finances. Placing it on a statutory footing in primary legislation would make it more transparent and prevent it from becoming a political football. It would also help to stop the watering down of targets that seems to have happened over the last few years. Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, essentially resigned over those changes.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the Milburn report and the report by the Children’s Commissioner this week showed that the number of children referred to mental health services in England has risen by over 10% in just one year—it is now at more than a million. The pressures on NHS services and funding are clear. If funding is not protected, there is a real risk that it will be cut due to competing demands.

One thing I found when speaking to staff at Winchester’s A&E department is that when mental health patients turn up, having been unable to get support and often having already been on a waiting list, sometimes for more than 18 months, the average time they spend in A&E is more than 18 hours, during which some of them require constant supervision. So, we are badly supporting people with mental health issues in the most expensive part of the NHS. We cannot afford to let the mental health crisis in this country continue slipping out of control, and funding for NHS mental health services is an essential part of stopping that.

New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to

“conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.”

Something I found interesting growing up on a farm and working as a vet is the almost unrecognised mental health issues in rural areas. That is partly because many people who work in rural vocations have minimal contact with people outside their workplace. Sometimes the vet and the postman might be the only people that a farmer sees in one, two or three weeks. There are a lot of questions about why disparities in accessing treatment in rural versus urban areas exist. Alternative approaches are needed, and some of the ideas floated have included mental health support officers for rural GP surgeries, or training vets up as mental health first aiders, because they might be a point of contact for a farmer and recognise when they are struggling.

Different communities require help in different ways, and farming communities often feel overlooked. They are vital for keeping the nation fed and fit and healthy, but they have a job that involves working from before 5 or 6 in the morning until late at night. If services are provided that do not fit with that person’s lifestyle and job restrictions, they can often struggle to access them, which, when coupled with having virtually no mobile signal and poor broadband, means that people in rural areas are sometimes cut off in more ways than one.

The Mental Health Act 2025 had a fairly limited focus on providing care to those with the most acute mental health problems. We need to look at preventive measures to ensure that people are supported through difficult times in their lives. These new clauses will require a report from local authorities so that we can ensure that they are providing tailored support to those in need. The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that early intervention and preventive services are key to tackling to mental health issues. These new clauses would urge mental health service providers to look beyond putting out the fire. This is about moving from crisis management to ensuring that people are supported in their local communities so that they do not reach the point of crisis. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat physical health. I know the Minister agrees with that; we think these new clauses will enable the Government to deliver on that ambition.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 9 and 10 have some similar issues to the last two Liberal Democrat amendments. They referred to the primary care investment, while these amendments refer to the mental health investment standard, which seeks to define the proportion of NHS money spent on mental health and maintaining it at a static position. Essentially, similar arguments apply.

In 2016, the mental health investment standard was brought in, albeit not on a statutory footing, to ensure that mental health got the attention it deserved and that the resources provided to it were higher, because the number of people with mental health problems was increasing. There was good sense to that.

However, the challenges to the NHS evolve over time. If the standard were to be fixed in statute, what effect would that have? Would that create an upper limit on spending on mental health at a time when mental health was increasing in prevalence as a problem? Would it increase the lower threshold when the reverse was the case? The Government need flexibility. I would hope that the Government make the right decisions, but that is the democratic process, and they need the flexibility to make the decisions that are appropriate for the time, rather than having this fixed in place.

If we look at current waiting list figures on the Government’s referral to treatment dashboard, in general, the number of people waiting has risen in the last month for which figures are available. If we look in particular at people who require an admission to hospital for a procedure or operation, the numbers are higher over the last month, and also over the last year, for all types of admissions. Not all mental health figures are covered in the dashboard, but those that are have improved slightly in the last month. The point I am making is that things fluctuate over time, and the Government need flexibility to deal with that.

Let me turn to new clauses 33 and 34. As a rural MP, I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Winchester made about rural healthcare. It is more difficult to get to the major, tertiary centres that provide the most up-to-date treatments. People might have to travel quite long distances to get to the doctors they need to see or to visit in-patients. Of course, those individuals also face transport costs, as we discussed in a previous sitting.

I note for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the British Medical Association, and an NHS consultant paediatrician. Last week, the Children’s Commissioner published a report that found that 60,000 children were waiting for more than two years for support; the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has also sounded the alarm about the number of children attending A&E because of mental health service issues. In that sort of the situation, the Government might want to move money from A&E services to mental health support to prevent A&E admissions. They may also need to do the reverse, in order to treat those A&E admissions in the first place. Flexibility is required.

New clause 34 would create a duty for the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to

“promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.”

That is a statement of his job, and a statement of the obvious; if the Minister is responsible for the mental health services of the country, of course he has a duty to make sure that they do their jobs properly.

It is a nice amendment—it is one of those things that it is politically difficult to vote against—but I would ask the hon. Member for Winchester what practical effect he thinks it would have on mental health. Does he think the Secretary of State is not thinking about mental health? I do not sit on the same side of the House as the Secretary of State, but I think he is interested in mental health and wants to do his best job. Does the hon. Member for Winchester think that is not the case? What does he think the new clause would achieve in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

These clauses will make a series of vital changes to the NHS financial framework following the abolition of NHS England, strengthening funding arrangements and financial accountability. First, clause 43 will enable funding to flow to integrated care boards following the abolition of NHS England while simplifying the powers to direct how resources are used. The first change in new section 223G will transfer the responsibility to fund integrated care boards from NHS England to the Secretary of State, maintaining continuity of allocations and allowing in-year adjustments where needed.

We will also simplify the existing power in new section 223GA to direct integrated care boards in how resources are used, making it clearer and easier to use. That will ensure that safeguards can be applied consistently, such as the ability to recover funding where there is a failure to comply with a direction. Transparency will be maintained through the requirement to publish directions.

The clause will also introduce new section 223GB, setting how the direction powers in new section 223GA can be used in relation to expenditure on service integration across health and social care. At present, service integration funding must be placed in a pooled budget with local authorities, even if that is not the most effective approach. The current legislation allows for only one model, even where that may introduce unnecessary bureaucracy or delay. The clause will remove that mandatory requirement, giving the Secretary of State discretion each year on whether integration funding should be pooled.

That will not remove pooled budgets; they will remain the default where they deliver better outcomes, and local areas will still be able to enter section 75 agreements voluntarily. This clause will introduce proportionate flexibility and enable the Secretary of State to decide, transparently and through published directions, whether funding should be pooled in particular circumstances. That will ensure that we can act quickly when needed, for example in responding to urgent pressures, so that the Secretary of State is not constrained by a blanket legal requirement that does not always add value.

Clause 43 will also make necessary consequential changes following the transfer of functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State. That will include replacing “NHS England” with “The Secretary of State” in section 223GC, which concerns the power to give directions about integrated care board expenditure limits, and repealing section 223K on quality payments, as the Secretary of State can use other powers to deliver payments for quality improvement purposes.

Having set out a clearer and more streamlined framework for allocating and directing NHS resources, we now turn to how integrated care boards and providers will be held accountable for managing those resources. Clause 44 will omit sections 223M and 223N from the National Health Service Act 2006, which require each integrated care board and its partner NHS trust and foundation trust to balance their finances collectively. By removing sections 223M and 223N, we will ensure that one organisation’s deficit can no longer be obscured by another’s surplus, while preserving the Secretary of State’s ability to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner trusts where system-wide alignment is needed.

If we are to achieve the ambitious aim set out in the 10-year health plan, of getting most providers to achieve a surplus by 2029-30, we must place the onus back on individual organisations. Each NHS organisation should be unambiguously accountable for managing its own finances, rather than relying on collective system balances to absorb overspends.

Importantly, that does not mean abandoning collaboration. Clause 44 amends section 223L of the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts, where local system-wide alignment is genuinely required.

This approach supports the wider policy direction for ICBs to operate as strategic commissioners. With clearer organisation and financial accountability, ICBs can focus on population health outcomes, prioritising prevention, reducing health inequalities, shaping services around need, and driving better value for money through more effective commissioning.

These clauses make a clearer, more disciplined framework, where individual accountability is strengthened, ambiguity is reduced and national oversight is more coherent, while retaining targeted tools to support collaboration where it adds value. I therefore commend clauses 43 and 44 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 43 is particularly long: it runs to almost two pages of text. Essentially, clause 43 transfers the responsibility for funding ICBs, and deciding how they use the resources, from NHS England to the Secretary of State. In many cases, that is consistent with the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England, take decisions and responsibility in-house, and get some more control.

One thing that does not make sense to me is that the Government are talking about devolving control and decision making, yet this clause gives the Secretary of State powers to control spending, direct how ICBs spend money in different areas, and penalise them if they do not do what they are told. The Minister has also talked in this Committee about a vision for the future in which ICBs are consistent with mayoral authority areas, and mayors sitting on ICBs to provide some sort of democratic accountability. But how can mayors be held democratically accountable if they are, or might be, overruled by the Secretary of State? How does the Minister see that working?

Also, greater financial intervention powers for the Secretary of State, if used, could expose ICB budgets to short-term political pressure, such as funding for a specific health area that has received celebrity or media attention. How would the Minister guard against that?

If the Secretary of State is able to contest financial decisions taken by ICBs, will that slow down decision making and make things more “sticky”? Essentially, the changes seem to go against the Government’s stated aim of a more devolved and autonomous operating model for the health service. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.

Clause 44 is a little shorter. It essentially makes changes to the joint duties of ICBs and providers. Some of those changes are again necessitated by the abolition of NHS England; keeping some of the sections would result in overlapping systems, so those make more sense. But the duties requiring ICBs and their partner trusts to achieve overall system balance are repealed. That goes against the collaborative principle behind the creation of integrated care systems, and makes it more difficult to manage financial pressures across a geographical footprint. If, in a particular year, there is financial pressure in one area of an ICB but less so in another, it is not able to transfer things so easily between those areas. How does the Minister expect that to work?

Clause 44 also allows the Secretary of State to set objectives for “one or more” partners. Is that discretionary or are there criteria for it? If it is discretionary, what would prevent the Secretary of State from selectively choosing which trusts are bound by joint objectives and which are not? How will that decision be made? How will trusts know whether it is likely to be made, or in what circumstances it could be made? This could undermine consistency of treatment across different ICBs and trusts. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

While I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester, I note the irony that he is talking about how he wants more independence in this clause, whereas the amendments he tabled previously would have taken independence away from the ICBs—but hey, ‘twas ever thus with the Liberal Democrats.

On the new powers in clause 43, we have previously discussed the power of the Secretary of State to direct how ICBs use and manage both financial and other resources, impose expenditure limits, require approval of local decisions and compel repayment of funds where directions are not followed. These provisions substantially weaken the operational independence of ICBs, transforming them from organisations that are intended to exercise local strategic leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, into bodies primarily responsible for implementing centrally determined priorities. Such centralisation risks diminishing the flexibility required to respond to local, demographic, clinical and population health challenges.

The timing of these legislative changes also raises significant concerns, because they coincide with the abolition of NHS England, the redistribution of its functions and the requirement for ICBs to reduce their operating costs by at least 50%--and, in some cases, even more than that. Collectively, those reforms represent one of the most significant reorganisations of NHS governance. However, there remains little clarity regarding which responsibilities will remain with the ICBs.

The clause makes it even less certain which responsibilities will transfer to regional teams or providers, and how accountability will operate across the system. Introducing substantially enhanced ministerial powers before the future operating model is fully defined, as we have discussed with regional mayors and other bodies, will essentially risk creating uncertainty, duplication and potentially gaps in oversight.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about uncertainty. Essentially, those powers could not be used at all to direct or they could be used to micromanage. It is not clear what the intent is.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is right, and I have mentioned that in relation to other clauses. I am perhaps a cynic in my belief that if stuff is being written into legislation, that probably means that the Department has some idea of what it wants to use those powers for. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what her and the Department’s intentions are for these powers. How directing or otherwise will they be of ICBs?

Specifically, proposed new section 223GB to the NHS Act 2006, relating to service integration, also exposes that inherent contradiction. It enables the Secretary of State to require ICBs to allocate designated funding into pooled budgets with local authorities, and at the same time to impose centrally approved spending plans and performance objectives. It is not possible to take the clause forward without having some clarity on exactly how those powers are going to be used in future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, clause 44 is shorter. She covered most of the points that I was going to make, but I think the Government should explain how effective oversight of the system-wide financial discipline that we have talked about will be maintained in the absence of the provisions omitted from the 2006 Act and the Health and Care Act 2022 by the clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I note that proposed new section 223GA to the 2006 Act, inserted by clause 43, includes the duty to “publish any directions” but there is no timing for that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to understand how soon after the direction is made we should expect the Minister to publish it?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is right again: there is a lack of clarity in these two clauses, as I have highlighted. I am sure the Minister, having heard my hon. Friend’s question, will respond when she gets her moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 45 adds an additional purpose to those already listed in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 under which the Secretary of State can set or modify conditions in the provider licence. It will allow the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for licensing following the abolition of NHS England, to set licence conditions that promote or secure compliance with statutory obligations.

The NHS provider licence was first introduced in 2013 for NHS foundation trusts and in 2014 for eligible independent providers of NHS-funded care. It set clear rules and expectations around a range of matters, such as pricing and governance, for providers of NHS services. It also provided a mechanism for regulatory action when failures occurred at those organisations.

Licence conditions can be set only for specific purposes set out in legislation; the additional purpose does not change the existing licence conditions. The Secretary of State will be able to add or modify licence conditions only following a statutory consultation.

This additional purpose will allow the Secretary of State to hold providers to account when they are not meeting their legal obligations; for example, when they are not following procurement rules. As with other conditions in the licence, it means that we can use guidance to influence provider behaviour in these areas. The change is necessary and forms an important part of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene where providers are not meeting expectations.

Clause 46 clarifies the methods by which the Secretary of State can serve certain notices relating to changes in the regulation of healthcare services. It brings existing requirements up to date with modern methods of communication, reducing administrative burden.

As the Committee already discussed when considering the abolition of NHS England, the Bill will transfer functions relating to the provider licence and the payment scheme from NHS England to the Secretary of State. When changes are proposed to these documents, NHS England must consult those affected and must notify all relevant organisations of the consultation. Currently, that notice cannot be delivered by email without the agreement of the organisation receiving it—without that agreement, it must be posted.

That process is out of step with the modern, digital-first approach set out in the 10-year health plan. Technology has evolved since those requirements were set, and we no longer communicate predominately through the postal system. The changes in the clause allow for rapid communication to ensure that the notice reaches the appropriate person promptly.

The clause brings the method by which the Secretary of State can deliver notices up to date with modern methods of communication to ensure that everyone affected has the chance to participate in the consultation in a timely way. I am sure all hon. Members agree that that is necessary, so I commend clauses 45 and 46 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 45 makes technical changes to the licence conditions, allowing the Secretary of State to use those conditions as a tool to ensure compliance with legal requirements beyond those in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That power is somewhat open-ended, which reduces certainty for providers, particularly independent ones, as they will not be able to easily anticipate what additional legal duties might be folded into the licence. The Minister said that there would be a consultation, but does she have any more details on how long the consultation process will be, or on how much notice of changes providers can expect? Like other clauses in the Bill, despite the Government’s discussion of devolution, the clause introduces another centralising power.

Clause 46 is about the specifics of to whom legal documents can be served and through what mechanism. I understand the Minister’s argument on the need for modernisation, but everyone will have had emails that were bounced by spam filters or the like. How will she ensure that the emails are not just sent but received, so that there is a fair playing field for everyone?

[Gregory Stafford]

I understand the purpose of clauses 45 and 46, as there is clear public interest in ensuring that providers that hold licences in our health and care system comply with the law. Patients, taxpayers and staff are entitled to expect high standards, proper governance and accountability. Where a provider delivers vital public services, it is reasonable for the licensing scheme to help to uphold those obligations. In that sense, the intention of the clauses is good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham outlined a number of questions for the Minister. Could the Minister explain in more detail how clause 46, which essentially provides for the enforcement of the provisions in clause 45, will operate in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I agree that there is no need for carers to see irrelevant or extremely historical information in the single patient record. Currently, however, there are a lot of carers who, for various reasons, such as not having legal power of attorney, cannot access the information that they need.

We also sometimes find that the people who are carers, who are potentially the spouse of the patient and are themselves elderly—because a lot of people receiving care are elderly—do not understand the information that they are being given. There can be a situation where the person providing care does not fully understand why the patient is getting some medication, or the best way to treat them. We hear that quite a lot.

We understand that the Bill is not designed to set out all the specifics of what the single patient record will look like—that key point was made in the interventions by the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Ashford. However, although we do not know exactly what it will look like, as it is being created, drafted and thought through, we would love the Minister to confirm to us that carers will be able to see the appropriate parts of the single patient records of those they care for, so that they can oversee their medical care and flag any issues.

There are some specific advantages to having a single patient record when travelling between hospital trusts. For example, being able to quickly see what historical medication the patient has had, especially when it comes to antimicrobials, and the results of tests that were performed in other hospitals and healthcare settings, is absolutely vital to ensure that we do not allow antimicrobial resistance to increase at an unnecessary pace. Often, patients do not understand the type of antibiotic they are on, or remember the name of it, and that is a specific but big issue, because it can generate antimicrobial resistance. There are a few more issues that I could speak to, but I will sit down.

[Dr Johnson]

I rise to talk about amendment 8. I essentially understand what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to do—to make sure that carers are provided with the information that they need to provide the best possible care—and I think we would all agree with that ambition. However, I have a couple of questions for him. The Bill, as drafted, discusses “making” information

“available to people other than a patient on the patient’s behalf”.

I am not quite clear why would that not encompass a nominated carer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made an important point about privacy. The single patient record will encompass a patient’s entire medical history, medical notes and medical information, but every person who provides that patient with medical or social care does not need to see all of that, and in some cases, the patient may not want them to. My hon. Friend gave a good example of that; another example would be an elderly lady who does not want her carer to see that she had a termination at 23. There are lots of things that are private to people that they do not want others to see. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on this issue. Access to the record is seen as a binary choice, but in some respects, it needs to be a much more nuanced affair than that, while still allowing someone access to the areas of the record that are required for them to complete their duties.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Lady is making very good points. The whole thrust of the argument is that there is little detail around how the single patient record will be created and implemented. This is a perfect opportunity to work out how we can empower carers while preserving patient confidentiality where necessary. If we do not focus on that in the early stages of the SPR’s implementation, before it has even been designed, we will miss the opportunity to ensure that carers have an easy way to get the right information. We should not miss that opportunity.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, but we need to start with the patient at the centre and ask what is best for patient care. It is about what the patient wants to share with their carers. The patient may make an informed decision not to share information that is potentially useful, but if they have capacity, they are free to do that. It is about starting with the patient.

I have huge sympathy with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that that is not already included in proposed new section 250E(2)(c)(i) of the NHS Act 2006, which mentions “making” information

“available to people other than a patient on the patient’s behalf”.

The important thing is that patients make the decision if they have the capacity to do so, or that someone acting with power of attorney has done so on their behalf.

Amendment 65, which is also in this group, talks about support needs. I have some sympathy with that as well. When I see a patient in clinic—I am a paediatrician, so they are all children—I look at the notes, which say they have a particular issue, and I go out into the waiting room and call the child’s name. There is nothing on the record, necessarily, to tell me that the patient and the mum are deaf, or that the other parent is deaf and may not be able to hear me calling them in the waiting room. So I have sympathy with the idea that the record would flag up reasonable adjustment needs; I think there is a place for that.

There is something called the reasonable adjustment flag on the NHS Spine, and perhaps the answer is to use that rather better than is happening at the moment. With carers, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, or with parents or legal guardians looking after children, we should consider whether reasonable adjustments also need to be made for the parent, guardian or carer who is likely to bring the patient to be seen.

[Gregory Stafford]

As I expressed in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve with amendment 8. Whether by accident or design, he has allowed us to have a real think about—

[Gregory Stafford]

I will be charitable and take him at his word. We have opened a vital conversation about who will have access to this record, how it will be shared, which bits of it will be shared, and how we ensure that the laudable aim of a single patient record—to ensure that a clinician treating a patient has all the vital facts in front of them—is balanced with that patient’s privacy. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we must make sure that the patient is put at the centre of this.

We need to look at the amendment under that microscope of scrutiny. We must use our role as legislators to ensure that gaps in legislation are closed so that loopholes cannot be exploited. I am fully in favour of the Government’s intention on that. However, I have some concerns about privacy and access, and amendment 8 potentially highlights those.

The amendment provides for a nominated carer to access a patient’s record, but who nominates the carer? Is it always the patient, and how will that consent be verified and continually checked so that if the patient wishes to remove consent for the carer to see their record for whatever reason, there is a way of doing so? What protections exist for vulnerable patients who may feel pressured or even coerced into granting access? If circumstances change, how easily can that access be withdrawn, by whom and through what process?

Although I am not being critical specifically of the amendment, the Government will need to think about those questions when they introduce the single patient record. It is not as simple as saying, “Here is a wonderful record and everyone can access it,” because it will contain some of the most sensitive information an individual holds, including details of their physical and mental health.

I entirely accept that carers often play a vital role in supporting patients, but unrestricted or poorly governed access could undermine patient confidentiality and therefore trust in the system. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Member for Winchester and think that, not just in relation to this amendment but as the record is pulled together, we really need to consider these vital issues.

On amendment 65, like the shadow Minister, I have a lot of sympathy with the point about reasonable adjustments. We need to be careful when deciding as legislators the purpose of the single patient record. Is it simply a repository of treatments, illnesses, conditions and so on, or does it give a wider commentary on those conditions and treatments? In the example given by the shadow Minister, knowing that someone has hearing difficulties would be useful, but is the single patient record the appropriate place for that? I do not know the answer, but we need to discuss and decide that, because there is a danger of scope creep. If we try to make it all things to all men and women, it could lose the stated purpose, which is to ensure that a clinician has the full facts when dealing with a patient.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying; he is making a very good speech. I wonder whether he agrees that one of the challenges for us as legislators, in looking at all the amendments on the single patient record, and indeed at the single patient record itself, is that while the principle of a single patient record might be a good, it is all about the devil in the detail and the delivery. We do not have a delivery plan or a vision of more of the detail relating to how it will look, so it is difficult to make judgments on many of the clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that, through this amendment, the hon. Member for Winchester has given us an opportunity to think. I am grateful to him for this chance to talk about carers and this important issue. I am a carer of an older person, and for those of us who are carers, it is helpful to have some discussion about this area. Carers play a vital role and we are committed to ensuring that they have the support they need. We are of course very grateful for all the work that they do.

The Bill already includes a power that permits regulations to make patient information available to people other than patients on the patient’s behalf. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said, that can include carers, and it is our intention to do so. We want to ensure that carers who act on behalf of the people they care for get the full benefit from the single patient record.

NHS proxy access already allows for people other than patients—which includes carers, parents or care home staff—to manage the health and care of someone they care for. Setting up proxy access requires the consent and involvement of the individual and the person they care for. We will set out in regulations how proxy access will work for the single patient record, as in the existing NHS position.

The single patient record will be developed on two priority care pathways in maternity and frailty, which will initially be delivered through local arrangements. Some clinicians and patients will be able to view and manage additional elements of care, such as proxy access for carers, earlier than others. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw his amendment.

We have had some helpful comments about some other concerns.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister confirm whether the intention of the Government is to separate parts of the record out so that people can give consent for part of the record to be shared, but not the complete record, where they have reasons to want extra privacy?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady knows that we are talking about an enabling power in the Bill. All the details will be brought forward in regulations, through discussions and consultation. We will discuss that more broadly as we talk about the wider clause.

One of the key issues I have been asked about is protecting vulnerable people. Patients will access a single patient record through the NHS app, and NHS England has published guidance on clinical safety, safeguarding and the NHS app, which provides advice on minimising the risk to those where there may be challenges or potential risks. We will adopt a similar approach to the single patient record. Clinicians will be able to redact information that is too sensitive to share, and we will agree a protocol with professional bodies on how that will be applied. I am sure that we will discuss that in more detail, because it is an important area to get right.

Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I suppose this is another chance to use the developing single patient record to ensure that we close the gap. The record could be formed in such a way, and the process put in place, to ensure equity in the system, with mandatory markers.

Amendment 72, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require prior membership of the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior armed forces membership visible on the single patient record.

There are just over 1.85 million armed forces veterans in the UK, 13.6% of them women and 86.4% men. The transition from serving in the armed forces to civilian life can mean that many of those individuals struggle with mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The issues are often specific to the service the individuals have given. Some stats show that more than half of England’s Army veterans have some sort of health problem. I should point out that veterans do not only have mental health problems. Specific back and knee problems are much more common among infantry soldiers because of the type of training they have done over many years.

The amendment seeks to make prior armed forces membership visible to all relevant healthcare workers, and to make the Secretary of State consult on the merits of doing so, so that when a GP is treating a patient, they are aware of that person’s service history without having to ask about it specifically.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I have a couple of questions about amendment 71 for the hon. Member for Winchester. First, can he comment on why the amendment refers to firearms, which have stricter licensing conditions than shotguns? Also, the GP should be aware, because all relevant medical information should filter back to them, that the person has a firearms licence, which, as I say, has stricter criteria. It is essentially harder to get a firearms licence than a shotgun licence. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on that.

On amendment 72, I have a large veteran population in my constituency, and I am very grateful to all those who have put their lives on the line to keep us safe, both today and in the past. I can see that there may be benefits to the amendment in respect of the delivery of the armed forces covenant and aspects of veterans’ care, but I am curious about how it is written. Proposed new subsection (3A) of proposed new section 250E of the National Health Service Act 2006 says that

“regulations must make provision for prior membership…to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record”,

but proposed new subsection (3B) requires a report on the potential merits of doing that. It seems slightly counterintuitive to do it and then decide whether it is a good idea, rather than decide whether it is a good idea, consider the pros and cons, and then do it afterwards. I am interested to understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks the amendment is drafted in that way.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. On amendment 71, I ought to declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance. Although I do not own a shotgun myself, I represent a large shooting community and I have been on a shoot relatively recently, but without a gun, so I did not shoot anything.

As I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I spoke on this issue in Westminster Hall some months ago, when it was clear to me that there was a significant level of cross-party support for the idea of mandatory markers for GPs. As mandatory markers for firearms licensing are technically a Home Office issue rather than a Department of Health and Social Care one, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), responded to that debate, but he was unable to reassure us that provision would be made. I did not understand the arguments he made, because I think mandatory markers are probably the way forward. Given that they are supported by organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance—organisations that one might not have expected to be in favour of them—the Government should look into the idea.

There would clearly be a benefit to the proposal in amendment 71. If a patient who holds a firearms licence presents a serious medical risk because of a mental health crisis, suicidal ideation or behaviour that raises concerns about risks to themselves or others, an immediately visible marker would help clinicians to make informed decisions and take the appropriate safeguarding action. But a firearms licence is obviously not a medical condition, nor is it health information in any traditional sense. This goes back to the point I made in the debate on a previous amendment, about how broad the information that we keep on the single patient record will be. The inclusion of such a marker across the single patient record could lead to issues relating, as we talked about in previous debates, to who would want to see that information.

For example, there may be people out there who are not in favour of recreational shooting, and someone may hold a firearms license for recreational shooting. Of course, section 2 firearms licences, especially for shotguns, are often held by farmers and people involved in conservation, and for all sorts of other reasons, including the control of pest populations. But if someone has a licence for recreational use, there may be people who, for whatever reason, find that to be against their own beliefs and opinions. That might lead to a patient being subjected to a level of intrusion or bias, or perhaps not receiving the care they deserve, because someone has made an assumption about what they are like based on that information. We need to be careful about that.

[Dr Johnson]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I ask him about security? It might also be possible for someone who looked at the records to identify where guns are kept. That information is currently is more protected than that.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention; I had not appreciated that. If that is true, the security and safety of the individual who holds the firearms licence, and indeed of anybody else in the vicinity, is paramount, and we generally would not want people to know precisely where guns are held, because that could be a security risk. I think the hon. Member for Winchester has the best of intentions, but the consequences have not been fully thought through.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Wherever possible, the single patient record will build on source records such as GP records. As such, it will include relevant patient information and, where appropriate, digital markers such as those suggested in the amendments. We have had some useful discussion as a result of the amendments, but such considerations are generally operational, and legislation is neither necessary nor practical.

On amendment 71, Members will know that the Government have been doing significant work in support of a digital medical marker for firearms. Medical information for firearms licensing provided by the applicant has been a mandatory requirement for every firearm and shotgun licence application since November 2021, as we have heard, when the new statutory guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing was introduced. When any individual applies for a firearms licence, the applicant’s doctor must provide details of any relevant medical conditions, such as depression, dementia, mental health conditions or drug or alcohol abuse.

A digital maker is placed on the GP patient record when a certificate is granted, and a GP can alert the police if a licence holder has a relevant medical condition. The digital marker automatically flags to the GP if a patient is suffering from a relevant medical condition and is a firearms certificate holder. It is true that the marker is not legally mandated, but it is supported by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the former issues guidance to GPs about the firearms marker.

GPs already have professional duties to consider patient and public safety, and existing firearms licensing arrangements support GPs to share relevant concerns with the police where appropriate, while the responsibility for licensing decisions rests with the police. Data shows that, since its introduction in 2023, the marker is being used and that GPs are notifying police of medical issues that have arisen. There is nothing to suggest that the system is not effective.

[Dr Johnson]

Is it not also the case that anyone who is aware that an employee or relative has a licence and is concerned about their mental health can make such a report?

[Karin Smyth]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question, but if it is relevant, I will try to get back to her on it.

People applying for a licence must now indicate whether they have seen a medical practitioner other than their GP. The Government also intend to make a statutory instrument to require licence holders to inform the police if they consult a third-party medical practitioner who is not their GP.

The single patient record will build on and connect with information from GP source records where appropriate; no new provision is needed for that to happen. That process should be agreed as part of operational arrangements with the profession, in line with the current approach to markers in the GP record. If it is agreed that it would be beneficial for health and care professionals to have wider access to the firearms marker, the single patient record could facilitate that, but we do not intend to fill the Bill with detailed operational requirements such as that.

We do not believe that the SPR is the appropriate vehicle for having a debate about regulations requiring a report on the merits of a mandatory marker. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we should not expand the clearly defined scope of the single patient record—the scope is limited to direct care—to include a debate about what is stored more generally in NHS records. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw amendment 71.

On amendment 72, as I have already outlined, the single patient record will build on and connect with existing source records, such as GP or hospital records, wherever possible. Where a person’s status as a military veteran is recorded, it will be possible to make that information available in the single patient record. Therefore, the provisions already ensure that the information is made available, where veterans opt to have that status recorded—that addresses some of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. There is no need to make any statutory requirement to ensure that staff have that information and consider any necessary adjustments or potential treatment options that may be relevant to ensure safe and effective care.

In addition, the clause contains powers to make regulations to allow people involved in the provision of an individual’s direct care, including that of any veteran after they have left the military, to access their single patient record. We want the single patient record to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of care for everyone. That includes making sure that military veterans can access necessary support and that staff can provide them with appropriate care. Furthermore, duties in the Armed Forces Act 2006 require the NHS and local authorities to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, which, of course, I fully support. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester not to press amendment 72.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

Amendment 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. I declare an interest as the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities.

I hope that we Liberal Democrats have been clear that overall, we are supportive of the single patient record; it is important that every patient can access their own health records. Under the SPR, however there is a risk that people belonging to already vulnerable groups will be digitally excluded from accessing their health information. Research commissioned by Ofcom suggests that 2.8 million people—5% of the UK population—do not have access to the internet at all. Although age is a predictor for a person not having access to the internet at home, especially if they are over 85, more than half of such people are younger than 75.

Amendment 70 would ensure that the Secretary of State assesses the potential for digital exclusion with relevant stakeholders, including patient groups, and that the assessment is laid before Parliament. It would also ensure that the Secretary of State takes into consideration the risk of exclusion for those lacking access to a suitable electronic device or suitable broadband connectivity, including people who have disabilities, who belong to socially excluded groups or who lack digital skills.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 70, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, would require the Secretary of State to publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion in the single patient record. That is important because, as our lives become more electronic and online, there are people who are getting left behind. That could be because they have a disability that prevents or makes it more difficult for them to access online facilities, because they do not have the resources, because they live an area of the country that is less well served by digital or broadband provision, or because they are elderly and have decided that they will not get involved in the digital world.

In fact, according to the Good Things Foundation, 7.9 million people in the UK lack basic digital skills and 1.6 million adults do not have a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Of those with no basic digital skills, 77% are over 65. People need more healthcare as they get older, yet those individuals have fewer digital skills, so this issue needs to be addressed. The NHS Alliance published a report on digital inclusion in March 2026, which found that rural and coastal areas typically have higher levels of digital exclusion than urban areas.

Lincolnshire ICB, which covers the area that I represent, estimates that 21.3% of Lincolnshire’s population live in the most digitally deprived areas. The ICB has a digital inclusion strategy for 2025 to 2028, which includes efforts to try to reduce digital exclusion; I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on how she might expand that sort of initiative across the country.

The Government’s equality impact assessment for the single patient record recognises that digital exclusion is a significant challenge in several groups with particular protected characteristics and other characteristics. I am interested in learning more from the Minister about how she intends to mitigate that challenge. In many ways, digital availability is a good thing, and it makes things much easier for many people—I am not knocking it in any way—but we need to ensure that people do not get left behind.

I understand that NHS England is supporting public libraries to signpost users to the NHS website and help them navigate it. What will happen to that support as NHS England gets abolished? Does the Minister intend the Department of Health and Social Care to provide something similar?

Amendment 49, tabled in my name, is basically about public awareness. Although we get immersed in what we are doing here, the public are not necessarily following every word that is said in Committee or in this House—or even necessarily every word that appears in the press—so when the single patient record is launched, it is important that they are aware of it, and in particular, aware of their rights.

We have talked about whether a person might want to let a carer see the single patient record or whether they might want to let someone see part but not all of the record. If the record goes live before people are aware of their rights and abilities in relation to it, they might find that things are available to people, or can be viewed by people, who they would not have wished to see them, which could lead to a number of problems. The amendment would allow people to be more aware of the single patient record for a period of time before it is brought in to try to make sure that that sort of problem is mitigated, and I am interested to understand the Minister’s view on it.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish to speak on this aspect of the single patient record. Although I support the general intention and aim of the single patient record, I have some wider concerns about how it will be implemented. I will restrict my remarks to the issues related to this group of amendments, and particularly amendment 49 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Plainly, most people—I would probably include myself in this—are not immediately familiar with all the ins and outs of how their medical records are kept and used, and why should they be? However, they have some pretty clear views on what they expect, whether that is confidentiality or their records being used and stored in such a way that does not inadvertently act as a barrier to accessing healthcare in an efficient and timely way. That is why the Government have introduced these proposals, which I mainly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I want to speak primarily to amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the shadow Minister, and to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has just said. Sadly, there will be a large number of people who do not follow the debates in this House or this Committee in great detail, however fascinating they may be. That is perfectly understandable.

The single patient record has genuine potential. It has the potential to put all the different bits of data in one place, so that when, for example, someone is blue-lighted to hospital, their consultant or the doctors treating them in A&E can access the information they need about their medical history and any medications they are on, which could improve clinical outcomes for patients.

I can entirely see the potential of the single patient record, but I am also conscious of the genuine concern among those of our constituents who are aware of this about what it might mean in practical terms for them and their data—it is important to remember that it is their data. They will have concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out, about who can access it, what safeguards are in place, whether they can opt out, and a range of other legitimate questions about how it will work.

I have to say that amendment 49, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is not unreasonable. It would give the Government an opportunity to reassure our constituents and bring them along on this journey, rather than leaving questions unanswered or just addressing them in a Q&A on a Government webpage. People have genuine questions, and in many cases I am confident that the Minister will be able to allay those concerns or put them to rest, but some campaign of that sort is needed.

Such campaigns happen regularly on a range of subjects. The Department of Health and Social Care spends a significant amount of money on public health and awareness campaigns, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs spends a large amount of money on reminding everyone to get their tax returns in on time, in the lead up to that, or to remind them of the penalties if they do not. Government do that day in, day out across a range of services and where major changes are being made.

The Government have a genuine opportunity to accept amendment 49, which will help them to bring the people we serve on this journey, and potentially help to realise the benefits and allay people’s concerns. I genuinely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or will commit to take it away, look at it, engage with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and possibly bring back a Government amendment that does exactly this on Report.

[Dr Johnson]

I am advised to declare that, although I am not a licence holder of a shotgun or a rifle, my husband has both a shotgun and a firearms licence.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to hon. Members for this debate. Meaningful public engagement will be key to the success of the single patient record—we absolutely understand that—in building awareness and in designing the system. It has to have digital inclusion at its heart, but adding statutory requirements for public awareness campaigns and risk assessments is not the way forward. Amendment 49 seeks to put such a requirement on a statutory footing. I want to reassure the Committee and all Members: as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston said, public awareness is absolutely key and will be integral to success. Work is already under way to ensure that we do that; we do not need to wait, nor should we be constrained by the proposed amendment.

In 2024, we began extensive public engagement on the use of data across health and social care, which showed strong support for the single patient record. We have heard that most people felt it was

“long overdue and a necessary step towards better care”.

The public engagement findings indicated support to progress at pace on the concept of a single patient record, to resolve the frustrations that patients and the public have when they have to repeat their story at multiple health and care settings.

As we move towards our ambition to give all patients in England access to a core set of their data through the single patient record from 2028, we will maintain a sustained drumbeat—as they say in the jargon—of public communications to raise awareness of the single patient record. We have heard some examples of where the Government do that well. Of course we want to learn from such examples across the country and from previous Government campaigns that have worked well, to explain the benefits and safeguards in plain English, and to signpost accessible information and feedback routes for patients and the public. I heard the comments made about people who may be excluded or have particular disabilities, including some older people—from conversations with my own constituents, it is often older people or those with multiple disabilities who can have their experience enhanced. We should make no assumptions about who does or does not feel excluded in this space; we need to learn from them all.

Furthermore, we have already published public-facing single patient record information and a dedicated feedback route. We will continue to co-create plain English, easy-read and translated materials, frequently asked questions and “voices heard/action taken” updates with public panels and patient groups ahead of roll-out. We will build on what we learn from that ongoing work as we develop the regulations. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham not to move amendment 49.

On the lead amendment, moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, we recognise, as I hope I have assured the Committee, that digital inclusion is an important issue. To quote another Member, we are eager to get it right, and we are taking it very seriously. Digital inclusion is a key driver in addressing health inequalities, supporting individuals and empowering people to better manage their health, which is at the heart of our 10-year plan. It is a system-wide issue, and one that the health and care system is taking action to address. We have considered this as part of the equality impact assessment of the single patient record provisions in the Bill, and will continue to keep those issues and potential mitigations under consideration throughout the development and implementation of the SPR. Therefore, although we agree with the aim of the amendment, we do not consider it necessary. Indeed, it would duplicate work that has already been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will vote on amendment 49 later if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham wishes to.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 47, page 36, line 1, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations may not be laid under this section unless the Secretary of State has published a plan setting out the measures to be taken to prevent clinicians and other persons involved in the provision of health care or social care from accessing patient information made available through the system otherwise than for the purposes of the care of the patient concerned (an ‘inappropriate access prevention plan’).

(4B) The inappropriate access prevention plan must include—

(a) a description of the technical controls to be applied to restrict access to patient information to those with a legitimate care relationship with the patient;

(b) the system of audit logging to be applied to record each instance of access to patient information, including the identity of the person accessing the information and the time and circumstances of access;

(c) the sanctions applicable to persons who access patient information without lawful authority or without a legitimate care relationship with the patient;

(d) the arrangements for detecting and investigating suspected cases of inappropriate access; and

(e) the role of the Care Quality Commission, the Information Commissioner and any other regulatory body in enforcing compliance with access controls.

(4C) The Secretary of State must lay the inappropriate access prevention plan before both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a plan to prevent inappropriate access by clinicians and other care workers has first been published and laid before Parliament.

Amendment 48 would prevent the Secretary of State from

“making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a plan to prevent inappropriate access by clinicians and other care workers has first been published and laid before Parliament.”

This is about trust. It is about people being able to trust that the records that will now be more widely available will remain confidential and be looked at only by those who need to look at them.

We have seen that people can be uniquely nosey when it comes to accessing medical records. For example, 48 staff members at the University Hospitals of Liverpool Group were found to have looked at the records of those involved in the Southport attack without any medical basis to do so. Almost a dozen staff members were sacked from the Nottingham University Hospitals trust because they had looked at the records of the victims in Nottingham. It is important that we address this, because it is happening already and needs to be tackled.

Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, said that trust is being “jeopardised”. The amendment seeks to ensure that proper thought goes into making sure that people cannot access records they should not be able to look at—for example, those of the Prime Minister or members of the Royal family—before the single patient record is live and can be used. We have Public Department 1 for HMRC; is there an intention to have something similar to close off records to reduce their accessibility where the public may be particularly nosey, either because of the person’s job or because of an event such as a terrorist attack, where we have seen people look at records when they should not have? There were reports that staff at The London Clinic, a private clinic, had been trying to sell records of the Princess of Wales online, so there are examples where this has happened before.

In addition, it is important that people know what the penalties are for deliberately misusing these records. My final question for the Minister is this. If a record has been viewed and there is a data log of it having been viewed, how long will that data log last for? Will it last for six months or a year, or will I be able to look back in 10 years’ time and see who accessed my records today? It is a case of understanding the Minister’s intentions and pushing the Government to ensure that these records are truly private to those who need to see them, not accessible to anyone who just happens to be curious.

[Sojan Joseph]

I declare that I am a registered nurse. I have worked in the NHS for many years, and I have used patient records throughout my career. The Nursing and Midwifery Council code requires nurses, midwives and nursing associates to respect patient confidentiality, share information appropriately and ensure that patients are informed about how their information is used. That is the existing system, and every nurse, midwife and nursing associate has to follow the code of practice. A similar code is there for the General Medical Council for doctors, and all other registered professionals follow those codes.

On top of that, information governance in the NHS ensures that patient data is handled legally, securely and ethically, providing a framework for data protection and confidentiality. We have numerous different digital systems in the health system currently. Before anyone gets access to those digital systems and patient records, they all have to go through information governance and data protection training. They are then given access to patient records. That is the existing system.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has just mentioned the Nottingham incident, which is a good example. It is a clear example of where those who accessed the records were able to be identified. There is a clear audit trail, and I have my own experience of taking people through disciplinary proceedings for accessing patients’ notes when it was not relevant to those staff. The existing patient data systems do have provisions to safeguard and monitor who is accessing patient records.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, which is that there are processes in place already and that the fact that someone got sacked for looking at the records is a sign that the systems work to an extent. However, does the fact that they could look at them at all suggest that the systems are not working well enough? Because it is a computerised system, there are methods for identifying whether someone is likely to need to look at that record. By knowing the profession of the person looking at it, and the department they are in, the computer can help to limit the number of people who look at those records when they should not.

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree that we are never going to have 100% proof. There will always be people accessing records. What I am talking about is the existing system, which does have provisions. What we need to strengthen is the training and the audit trail. All staff who do the training are aware that they are not supposed to check patients’ records unless it is relevant to them. Those who access records inappropriately should be identified and action should be taken.

Just because we are moving to a single patient record system, it does not mean that everybody is going to access everything they want. People working in the healthcare system are given access based on their role. Not everybody is able to access everything. Systems are in place, and we need to strengthen those systems and the training. We should not be scaremongering by saying that, because we are moving to a single patient record, everybody will be able to see their records.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Member for Ashford made his point very clearly about what happens when something goes wrong and someone behaves inappropriately—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has highlighted some very concerning recent incidents—and was right to highlight the ability to follow an audit trail and take action. He is also right to highlight the importance of training.

However, taking action once inappropriate access is known, and then following the audit trail, deals essentially with the consequences rather than preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why amendment 48, and particularly proposed new section 250E(4B)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006, is important. It describes the technical controls. That goes beyond the audit process and what happens after something has gone wrong. It is about what can be done to build safeguards into the system to make it much harder for anyone to circumvent their obligations, and to build those technical safeguards into the overall design of the single patient record. That is a reasonable ask, because such incidents, while hopefully rare, as the hon. Member for Ashford alluded to, do happen and understandably cause concern.

The challenge is that there is potentially a lot more information in one place, rather than being held in different pots, trusts or GP surgeries. For those inclined to break their legal obligations and behave outside the rules, the potential opportunity to access a wider range of information is more significant. The design of the record needs to have those technical safeguards strengthened and built in.

[Dr Johnson]

If we use the example of Southport, the people who could access those records worked in the Liverpool trust, because that is where the records were stored. With the single patient record, as planned, people would be able to access those records from across the country, if they had a clinical reason to do so. However, someone behaving badly could also potentially do so, even if they did not have a reason.

[Edward Argar]

That is the challenge. The Minister knows her brief very well—if I may say, I hope that whatever happens in a few weeks’ time, she retains it. She is that rare thing among Ministers in Government: someone who comes to their position with a hinterland of knowledge, experience and interest, which she has demonstrated through her period in office thus far. I hope that she retains her role, because continuity of Ministers in Government is a good thing.

Can the Minister reassure us on the shadow Minister’s point, which is one that I have been seeking to make? Can she reassure us that the system will include barriers to prevent whoever builds and operates it—whether a third party or someone internal—from having inappropriate access to the records? The data must be ringfenced and protected, so that it does not go out of the country and cannot be accessed by those who are technically running or providing the platform. Even within the social care system, there must be very clear and technical restrictions on who can access the records for legitimate purposes, as the hon. Member for Ashford has highlighted. I think that would just reassure people.

As I said in response to previous amendments, I think the potential of the single patient record to improve clinical outcomes in care is very significant, but we need to bring people with us. I suspect that if anyone can reassure us on those points, it is the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Before I was rudely interrupted by the fire alarm—I am not taking it as a hint, much to the Minister’s disappointment—I was saying that this is a unique system and that with the unique benefits come unique risks. I was trying to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Ashford.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston have mentioned, we already know that despite the regulations, whether they are from professional regulators or the ICO, people will get round the system. One of the biggest concerns that patients will raise is not simply whether patient records will be accessed by nefarious people from outside, such as cyber-hackers, hostile states and so on, but whether they are secure from inappropriate access by people who have access to the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, those people could be situated anywhere across the country. Patient records should be accessed only where there is a clear clinical, professional need. The public rightly expect robust safeguards, strong audit trails and meaningful consequences where the rules are breached. Amendment 48 raises that important issue. The Minister should explain how inappropriate access will be prevented, how misuse will be detected and what sanctions will apply when the standards are not met.

My hon. Friends have already mentioned a number of cases and I pick another one: the unfortunate case of the three-year-old boy who was hospitalised after being attacked by a crocodile at a zoo. Cambridge University Hospitals trust is currently investigating 40 members of staff who appear to have accessed that boy’s medical records inappropriately.

While we would always hope that that would not happen, unfortunately it clearly does. This single patient record means that someone will potentially be able to look at patients’ records regarding anything and from anywhere in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham slightly generously described some people as “nosey”. Along with those who have an actual ulterior motive, that presents a real challenge. I say to the hon. Member for Ashford that just because the current system is in place to protect patient records as they currently exist, that should not be a bar to making sure that we make the system even more robust given its potential risks.

It goes directly to proposed new section 250F(4B)(b) of the National Health Service Act 2006, which is the system of audit logging to be applied to each record, so that every time someone accesses a patient record or part of that patient record, the identity of the person obtaining that information should be recorded. I believe that the patient should be able to easily see, hopefully in real time, who has been accessing their record and at what time.

We on this side have mentioned a number of big events: that poor boy with the crocodile, terrorist attacks in Southport and so on. I suspect that those data breaches have been identified because they were big events. People have gone out to check that nobody has been inappropriately accessing those records. I worry that every patient record will potentially be available to every single person, and I doubt that there will be an ability to check every single person proactively rather than reactively. That means patients need access themselves to look at their record and see who has been accessing it. If the name of the person who has accessed the record, or the organisation they belong to is available, patients can say, “Well, there is Mr Smith, my child’s paediatrician, and that is fine. However, who is this guy from elsewhere in the country who has looked at the record?” They can then raise that. That is absolutely vital.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he also think that it is possible for the system to have some designs built into it that identify that someone from another area of the country, or from another department or different profession is unexpectedly looking at results? Perhaps AI could help with this.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is right. I will not sit here and propose a solution to this problem, but what her amendment does is ensure that the Government look at this and present a plan before both Houses of Parliament, before we get to a single patient record.

I have now touched on the nefarious and the nosey. I think there is also a case of inadvertent access. With this new system, despite what the professional regulators might think, and despite the best training from the Information Commissioner’s Office, there will be occasions in a new system where people do not understand the limits of what they are allowed to look at or the appropriateness of access. There could well be inadvertent access to these systems. Again, the Government need to have a plan and system in place to ensure that there is not inadvertent, non-nefarious access to patient records as well. That is why I am very supportive of amendment 48.

To make sure that this system is trusted by patients, we need to have the highest level of safeguarding possible, both from external attacks and from internal misuse. My hon. Friend’s amendment goes a long way to putting some of that trust in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

This is another important discussion to have on the record to give patients and the public confidence as we introduce the vital single patient record. I start by stating that the security and privacy of people’s health data is paramount, and we will build the strongest safeguards possible into the record. Members from across the House have asked how those safeguards will be built into how the system is designed and operated, which is what we are doing.

It will operate on a roles-based access control model, similar to other NHS patient record systems where access to patient information is restricted to the authorised user only. The single patient record will go a step further by applying advanced cloud-based audit and oversight capabilities, enabling near real-time monitoring of system access and detection of unusual or inappropriate patterns. That will allow NHS security teams to track and detect access patterns, and to quickly intervene if specific records are accessed by staff who have no clinical relationship with the patient in question.

The single patient record will ensure that just because a clinician has permission to view a specific patient record, that does not mean they are authorised to do so without a clinical need. The security and access arrangements will be set out in the regulations themselves, which will be debated, rightly, in Parliament. Therefore, it is not necessary to set them out in a plan beforehand.

Furthermore, there are already existing enforcement arrangements that provide sanctions for inappropriate access to patient data, which will also include accessing the single patient record. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for his extremely helpful intervention, in which he highlighted his own experience in this field. Some of the examples that we heard again today, including Southport, Nottingham, the recent case in Cambridge and others, are truly shocking to people. Clearly, that should never happen, but sadly it has. As my hon. Friend rightly outlined, there are provisions in place for training people on information governance and tracking when that happens.

Additionally, I want to be clear that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes it an offence to use a computer to access information in an unauthorised manner, such as a person accessing information without a legitimate reason. Inappropriate or unauthorised access to health records—often referred to as snooping—is a serious offence that can lead to severe penalties, including dismissal, criminal prosecution and financial penalties. Regulated healthcare professionals, such as doctors, nurses and pharmacies, can be reported to their respective professional bodies, which can result in them being struck off in serious cases.

The information commissioner also has powers to investigate and take action against infringements of data protection legislation, which can include monetary penalties, enforcement notices, undertakings, prosecutions and reprimands. Furthermore, patients have a right to access data that is held about them under the data protection legislation, and those rights will continue to apply to the single patient record. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

We think this is an important issue, so we would like to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Accordingly, clause 47 contains a savings provision to ensure that the single patient record can be used as a source of data for secondary uses only where there is a separate legal basis to do so. The clause does not provide any new legal gateways for secondary use. That means that the single patient record can only be a source of data for secondary uses in the same way as any other health and care data and subject to the same legal, ethical and confidentiality standards. We hope and expect that organisations will want to co-operate with the single patient record, but we know that currently, data is not always shared when it needs to be. Therefore, the Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations the circumstances in which a financial penalty may be imposed for a failure to meet an obligation imposed by regulations and the amount of any such penalty, although imposing a fine will be a last resort. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 47 amends the existing legislation to facilitate the single patient record. We have heard about the many benefits that it may bring, for example for patients who find themselves telling the same story again and again and having to repeat themselves because caregivers cannot see the records that they need to see. That can be frustrating and sometimes very distressing for patients.

I caution the Minister against saying that the single patient record will completely fix that issue, because from a clinical perspective, particularly in certain presentations, hearing the story again from the individual can be helpful for a diagnosis, but the principle is a good one, and it will make things easier for clinicians, particularly if the patient is in an area away from home. Records may be kept in a particular geographical location or hospital, and if someone is away on holiday and they come in, we may not have access to their records. In paediatrics, we often give the parents of children with complex problems letters to carry that have the necessary information in them. That would not be necessary if the record were more accessible, so there are benefits to the single patient record.

There are, however, a lot of questions about it. One problem is that the single patient record has not really been designed yet, so we are being asked to approve something that is a hazy vision in the distance. On 1 June, the Minister said that

“although the Bill establishes the legal framework for the SPR, much of the detail will be in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 957.]

I appreciate that it will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but we are being asked to make a decision now on something that is unfortunately very woolly.

Will the Minister reassure us that she will address the following questions in the secondary legislation? Who will have permission to edit the information in the single patient record? When will they have access to it? Will it tell us who has edited it—will there be a record of who, when and where? If the record is not accurate when it is edited, how will that be addressed? How will people know that it is inaccurate, and how will it be improved? In 2025, Healthwatch reported that 23% of adults who had seen their medical records reported inaccuracies or missing details, 12% said they had been refused treatment because of inaccurate information, and 10% said they had received inappropriate medication as a result. This is important. In recent years, there have been several incidents of patients dying after doctors used incorrect medical histories and prescribed medication that they should not have. This information needs to be available, but also accurate. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about that.

The other question is: what is going to happen to the records people have now? I am 48. I am sure the Minister is much younger than that, but we have records: our vaccination records, our childhood records, and records of any admissions or treatment we have had. Will those be added to the single patient record, or will the SPR start from day zero and go forwards? If it does, how will people access their historical records? If it goes backwards, what provision has been made to ensure that the data that is input is accurate, and for the cost and personnel required to do it?

Is the intention that the SPR will be one-size-fits-all? The Secretary of State talked about people not being asked to have a one-size-fits-all but being able to access the various systems around the country, but there are so many different systems. In my own practice, if I want to look at the notes of somebody I am caring for, I go to Evolve, where the notes are scanned in and I can look at the pages one at a time. If I want to look at blood results, I go to ICE, which is a different system where I can see the test results. If I want to look at the films of an X-ray, they are on a different computer system again. If I want to follow the patient’s pathway through the hospital, see when their next appointment is with me or see who is next in my clinic, I go on to e-Track. There is a different system for maternity, and there is Symphony in A&E.

Each hospital trust has a lot of different computer systems and information, and they do not all use the same systems, as I know having rotated through a number of hospitals during my training. How will the single patient record work with that? Will people be able to access all those different systems, and will they need to be trained to use them, or will there be a homogeneous system—and if so, what does the Minister envisage that looking like?

The Government say the single patient record will be more efficient, reduce the number of A&E attendances and hospital admissions, and make £20 million in annual savings to the NHS. Those are quite small margins compared with the scale of the project. Is the Minister satisfied that the savings will not be obliterated by the cost of the project running away?

The other thing is the public view of this. Polling published in January 2025 by the Tony Blair Institute found that 69% of people are willing for their anonymised data to be used to help plan NHS delivery, 71% are willing for it to be used for research into drugs and new treatments, and 75% are willing for it to be used for speeding up and making better diagnoses. There is an amendment—amendment 11—that make data available only for patient care, but patient audit and research can be quite important. Does the Minister have any comments on how audits and patient research might be used in a clinical context to improve care using anonymised or non-anonymised data?

Proposed new section 250E(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006 says:

“The regulations may provide that the processing of information in accordance with the regulations does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information.”

As one of my hon. Friends said earlier this afternoon, if the Government put a clause into a Bill, they normally have a reason for wanting to use it. Can the Minister expand on the circumstances in which they might want, in essence, to bypass patient confidentiality in pursuit of that provision?

In addition, the regulations may make information

“available to people involved in the provision to patients of health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands,”

which means it will not all be provided in England, and it will not necessarily all be provided within the United Kingdom. Will there be reciprocal arrangements with the self-governing territories? If not, how will the Government ensure that the data is properly protected once it has been shared?

I also want to mention cyber-security. On 30 June—just earlier this week—it was reported that the UK healthcare sector experienced a tenfold increase in attacks during January to May 2026 compared with the whole of 2025, recording 264,000 individual events compared with just 27,000 in 2025. In June 2026, Bedfordshire hospitals NHS foundation trust revealed that data relating to 33,000 hospital patients was stolen and shared online two years ago. Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust reported the theft of 2,380 records in the same attack. The Secretary of State said earlier in June that

“the situation with the single patient record is…different from that of the federated data platform, because it is likely that we will let a series of contracts to de-risk the delivery of the single patient record.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 891.]

That suggests that the Government are aware of the problem but have not yet nailed down the detail of how to contract the delivery of the single patient record or worked out how they are going to keep data safe once they have. How can patients have confidence when their health data—their most personal data—is on the line and the Government have not yet made the key decisions for protecting it? Does the Minister have any comments on that?

What will happen to private providers? The Government are increasingly using private healthcare providers to try to improve the waiting lists, but will they have access to the single patient record? If they will, will they have to contribute to it financially or get it for free? How will the data be protected if it is not in NHS hands and not necessarily under the same regulation? What plans do the Government have to monetise the data? In December 2025, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), was reported in the Financial Times as having said that the UK should make money from patient data for the

“benefit of the Treasury coffers”.

Can the Minister expand on her Department’s plans to monetise patient data? Can she guarantee that personal data will not be exposed or leaked?

Can the Minister give assurances that the tendering process for contracts to set up and run the single patient record will be fair and transparent? It has been said that companies that donated to Labour before the general election were awarded contracts worth almost £138 million during this Government’s first year. It has also been reported that Peter Mandelson had links to Palantir, which secured a £240 million deal with the Ministry of Defence. It is important that people have confidence in the contracts. Does the first person to get a contract get locked in? Once the system is set up with one provider, will it be prohibitively difficult to change provider? Will the contracts become more and more expensive as time goes on because of the difficulties in redesigning a system? Who will own the intellectual property of the system that is designed? Will it be the Government or the private company? If it is the private company, how will that work going forwards?

The other question is: can we trust this Labour Government to deliver this? In 2005, the previous Labour Government launched a digitisation project called the NHS national programme for IT. In 2007, the Public Accounts Committee found that the Government had not sought to keep a detailed record of expenditure and there was no evidence that officials had carried out an examination to see whether the benefits exceeded the cost. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), described the project as

“one of the biggest IT disasters of all time”.

Costs ballooned to more than £9 billion, leading a member of the PAC to say in 2013 that it was one of the

“worst and most expensive contracting fiascos”

in the history of the public sector. How will the Minister convince the House and the public that the contract is being provided fairly, that it will be useful, that it will deliver what it said it would at the prices it said it would, that the data will be held securely once it is delivered, and that provisions will be in place to record access, decide who gets access and limit access?

Who gets access to sexual health records is particularly important. At the moment, sexual health records are kept separate. If someone attends a sexual health clinic specifically for sexual health screening, those records do not appear in their general medical record, in order not to disincentivise people from attending those sorts of appointments. If everything will be in one single patient care record, will sexual health records appear within that record? That is an important issue; indeed, it was raised during the Committee’s evidence sessions, when it seemed that the Government had not yet made a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I have listened very carefully to people’s speeches, and it is important to say that we are debating that clause 47 stand part of the Bill. The clause creates the single patient record and, while many Opposition Members have justifiably and understandably asked how we will do this right and what safeguards we will have, it is important that what we are debating is that the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause creates the single patient record, and it creates the overarching ability for the NHS to use data better than it currently does. I am not a data scientist. I am a physicist by training, and I taught physics and worked in trade unions for a long time. Because of my training and my use of data, every group of people I have ever worked with invariably came up with nicknames for me, which usually boil down to “Data Dave”. There is something so valuable about being able to use aggregated values to tell us something that we do not already know.

One of the most valuable things we may get from this is that, when a clinician talks to a patient and they say or present something that does not match what is on the single patient record, it will raise a red flag that leads the clinician to realise something they would not have realised if they did not have access to notes previously taken elsewhere. I genuinely think that is one of the most valuable things that will come from this.

On a wider stage, the ability to aggregate data and properly track what is going on within the health service, and for people to be able to track what is going on with their care, with a wider view of what is going on, will be so valuable to clinicians and wider afield.

[Dr Johnson]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that, in many ways, the NHS dataset will be one of the most valuable datasets in the world, not only to patients themselves—in terms of the value to them and their privacy—but in the ability to analyse it and perhaps understand parts of medicine that we do not understand at the moment and so improve patient care?

[Dave Robertson]

I am not entirely certain that I want to agree with “one of” the most valuable datasets in the world; I think it could potentially be the most valuable dataset in the world.

We know that the NHS is the largest healthcare provider in the world. We know that the data is potentially very valuable. Creating this will allow our NHS to be at the forefront of managing how it works, in a way that no other health system will be able to, and certainly to a scale that no other health system anywhere in the world will be able to. That obviously comes with risks.

I have been listening carefully, and it is important that we tease out those risks and make sure that we stay as red hot as we can on all the issues that hon. Members have raised. I go back to the salient point of whether this clause should stand part. I fully support that this measure should be part of the Bill and that we should be moving in this direction.

I have spoken about the more global ideas and the reasons why, intellectually, I think this is a good idea, but let me take an example from my home county of Staffordshire up in the west midlands. There are reports that one hospital in Staffordshire uses 450 different electronic systems, which is absolutely bananas.

For so long, we have not had a single patient record. We have not had one unifying system. Over a cup of tea with the Minister a couple of days ago, I got very excited and started talking about primary keys because, although I am not a data scientist, I like the use of data. I do not think we need to get into a situation where there is a single primary key that is instantly recognisable to everybody and where we are necessarily using some machine learning to assess that. That could potentially come later down the line. That is not what the clause is doing, and it would need a much wider discussion than we are currently having.

If we take the example of Staffordshire and its 450 different data systems in one hospital—I do not know that number for certain, although it has been reported to me by two or three colleagues—I cannot imagine the difficulties that the IT team has in trying to get that number of systems to talk to each other. It will be nigh on impossible. All it leads to is delays. All it leads to is people having to reproduce data from one system to another manually. By creating an overarching single patient record, we will force it to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

It really surprised me to hear my hon. Friend talk about his experience of 450 systems in the computer system in his local hospital. I was shocked, because as a clinician who previously worked in the NHS, I wanted a system that made patient records readily available so that we could care for patients.

My understanding is that the clause amends the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a system to make patient information readily available to patients and to those involved in providing health or social care in England. Under the current system, care and treatment across different parts of the NHS are not as co-ordinated as they could and should be. All too often, that means that patients have to repeat their medical history every time they see a different medical professional. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about how that can sometimes be useful for getting the diagnosis right, but it can be very traumatising for someone to have to explain the same story again in such a short period of time.

Speaking in the Chamber, I previously gave the example of a mental health patient going to A&E on a Friday. They tell their story to the professionals there and they tell the same story later when a mental health professional comes to see them. When they are admitted into a mental health hospital, they have to explain the same story when going into the ward, and then again to the nurses. Having to repeat their story again and again is traumatising for most patients.

[Dr Johnson]

My point was that this can sometimes be beneficial. If a clinician sees a young lady who has collapsed at school, she might have fainted or had a fit. There are a lot of different potential causes, such as cardiac syncope, and lots of different potential diagnoses. A lot of the detail in making the diagnosis is in the history. The patient will probably already have been asked their story when they arrived at A&E, but it is still important for a senior clinician to ask for it again.

My caution was against presuming that we can, in all cases, prevent repeated asking of questions. There would clearly be a benefit when there are particularly sensitive pieces of information, about which we need not ask two, three or four times, but we cannot stop all cases in which a patient is asked for the same story.

[Sojan Joseph]

Absolutely; a single patient record will not stop professionals from asking the necessary questions of patients at any time. Each ward round, the doctors ask the patients how they are feeling. They will have that conversation; that will not stop. We are talking about repeatedly having to tell the story.

The point was highlighted when the Committee heard from Jacob Lant, the chief executive officer of National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities. In his 15 years of patient and public engagement, the most consistent theme is patients’ frustration at constantly having to retell their story, and the fact that medical notes are not available across different healthcare settings. Not only is that frustrating for patients, but it can also be deeply distressing. Kath Abrahams, the chief executive of Tommy’s, told the Committee that

“Women report constantly having to retell their story—highly sensitive or traumatic experiences of loss—and that repetition can happen across the early pregnancy unit and maternity services.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 66, Q108.]

As medical professionals, we are taught the importance of empathy and understanding, but if the absence of a unified patient record system is aggravating traumatic experiences for patients, we need to address that. The absence of a national unified report can also compromise patient safety and lead to clinicians making decisions based on partial or incomplete information, significantly increasing the risk of error.

We heard evidence of that from the chair of Healthwatch England, who highlighted the risk posed to patients with multiple comorbidities. He said:

“Without a single patient record, we can find that a consultant or a GP has access to only one part of that multiple comorbidity…That can lead to all sorts of unforeseen errors.”

That can result in poor health outcomes, increased hospital admissions and reduced patient trust, which is why he went on to speak about

“the great advantage that we can get from a single patient record.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 49, Q79.]

Experienced mental health patients often move between A&E, GPs and mental health services and have to repeatedly go through that traumatic experience.

I have spoken in the House previously about my deep frustration that the digital records available to me in mental health services in Kent and Medway were incompatible with those used in other parts of the NHS, both locally and across the rest of England. I know that that frustration is shared, so in advance of the Committee’s consideration of clause 47 I spoke to some of my former colleagues, as well as other healthcare professionals in my constituency, to find out what systems are used to record patient information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

My patient record is currently kept by different organisations or providers, which cannot see each other. If I speak to the GP about my blood sugar and then end up in A&E, they cannot see that record. If I go to the mental health service, they cannot see what medication I was taking. When I get discharged back to the GP, he will not get the information on my medication. That is the clinical aspect I am talking about, although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope the Minister will address some of those issues.

The responses I collected demonstrate how disparate and fragmented digital record systems are within just one local area. I do not think any of our constituents are aware that their data is kept in different places and that the services do not talk to each other. That is what the Bill is trying to address. All that information will be available for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare providers so that they can see patients’ history and medication and those patients will be more safe. Things will be more transparent. It will be easier for admission to discharge processes.

[Dr Johnson]

There is no detail in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said, there is nothing in the legislation requiring the computers in his local area to talk to the computers in my local area.

[Sojan Joseph]

I hope that would be the outcome of this legislation. I will give an example. My constituency is very close to Dover. Lots of travellers go through Ashford, my constituency. We often get patients from Scotland, Manchester or Liverpool, for whom doctors cannot start a treatment because they have to wait 24 hours to 48 hours to get the information from the hospital where the person comes from. I am not saying that the story is the same across the country, but that is what we are experiencing.

[Dr Johnson]

In the event that someone from Scotland comes into the hon. Gentleman’s hospital near Dover and a doctor wants to look at their healthcare record, does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the doctor will log on to their local system and see the records from Scotland, or that they will have access to the Scottish system to look at the records directly there?

[Sojan Joseph]

I do not know whether there will be the same system in Scotland, but my understanding is that in the north of England doctors will be able to see the same system. Again, we can hear more detail from the Minister.

A single patient report has the potential to transform patient experience and safety by ensuring continuity of care, by reducing unnecessary repetition, by enabling better informed clinical decisions and the smoother discharge of patients, and by creating a more efficient and joined up healthcare system.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank all those who have spoken so far in this debate. I have never seen the hon. Member for Lichfield so animated—Data Dave is clearly alive and well.

As we have discussed, the clause creates the legal power for a single patient record in the UK. It is important to say, as others have, that the Bill does not create the system but gives the Secretary of State the power to create it later through regulation. That does not mean, however, that we should not have a debate about some of the issues that we have raised.

I should state at the start that I support better information sharing when that helps patients receive safer and better care, and I think that the single patient record could well do that. Anyone who has worked in healthcare, as I have, knows the frustration that results from the records not following patients between services. Clinicians can lose valuable time in searching for information, if they can get it at all. As others have said, patients are often asked to repeat the same details over and again—not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East rightly said, because it gives a richer experience but simply because people do not have the information. Better joined up records have the potential to improve care.

We have, however, been here before. I was a lot younger—we all were—but back in 2002, the national programme for IT, under the last Labour Government, was a £10 billion unmitigated disaster, which the Public Accounts Committee described as

“one of the worst and most expensive contracting fiascos in the history of the public sector.”

I want to make sure that there are safeguards, from both a contracting and a data safety point of view, so that we do not go down that route again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East clearly outlined, creating such a record is fiendishly complicated from both a technology and patient information point of view and from a data sharing and data protection point of view.

The record could contain some of the most sensitive information about people, so Parliament has the responsibility to make sure that the legal framework is right. We also know that the record will work only if the data in the single patient record is worth the electronic paper that it is electronically printed on. As I am sure the Minister knows from her time in the NHS, the information is getting better but continues to be patchy across the country. Different trusts and organisations record things in different ways. I take my hat off to those who work in clinical coding, as they do one of the most difficult jobs in a trust. Again, we need to make sure that the data is accurate. Someone mentioned AI earlier; I think AI could help with that, but we are still some way off.

I want to canter through my concerns about the breadth of the powers being given under the clause. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing the system and to decide how it operates. Those regulations may require or authorise the sharing and processing of patient information, decide who can access the information and create enforcement powers and financial penalties. Some of those important questions are not answered in the Bill. Parliament is being asked to approve a broad framework before seeing some of the detail.

My second concern is that the Bill says little about patient choice. There is no clear statement about whether patients will have the right to opt in or out and no explanation of whether patients can restrict access to all or part of their records. There is no mention of whether someone could choose to limit access to particularly sensitive information, such as mental health records, sexual health information or information about substance dependence. There are major questions for public trust but those are left, I would say, entirely to future regulations. We need clarity about them now.

My third concern is the scope of the information that may be included. The definition of “patient information” is extraordinarily broad. It covers information about physical health, mental health, diagnosis, treatment and care, including social care. The definition of “patient” includes people receiving social care or having their care needs assessed. What we do not know from the Bill is exactly how that data will be presented. Will it use language that a patient can understand? Will it talk about having a heart attack, or will it use medical information that a medical professional will need to assess? Or will it include both, so that the patient knows that they have had a heart attack, for example, but the medic can see the precise detail on what sort of transient ischaemic attack it was. We need to understand what the data is recording and at what level of detail.

[Dr Johnson]

If it is to include both, who will translate it into the simplest form and how much will that cost?

[Gregory Stafford]

Precisely. These questions need to be thought about when the Government are creating this system.

As hon. Members have described in their speeches and in their amendments, the system could contain much wider information, including highly sensitive information about disability, safeguarding, care assessments, addiction, pregnancy, military service, caring responsibilities and many other personal matters. This is not simply about a hospital record; it is about bringing together health and social care information. That makes it even more important—indeed, essential—that safeguards be clear and robust.

That leads me on to my fourth issue, which is confidentiality. The Bill says that where information is processed under the regulations, doing so will not breach any duty of confidence. I think that that is a significant legal challenge and change. Confidentiality has been one of the foundations of healthcare. Of course there are already situations in which information can and should be shared, but where Parliament is creating a new legal basis for disclosure, it is reasonable to expect strong safeguards alongside it.

That brings me to my next concern. The Bill says that the Secretary of State must have regard to the need for “adequate safeguards”. That is welcome, of course, but the Bill does not say what those safeguards are. There is nothing in it about role-based access controls, audit logs or whether patients would be able to see who had looked at their records. There is nothing about minimum cyber-security standards, about how inappropriate access will be detected or about independent oversight. Those matters may appear later in regulations or in guidance, but they are not guaranteed in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The clause says that information could be made available

“to people involved in the provision to patients of health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands”.

That implies that the English system will be used to share information with people outside England—in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—but it does not imply that those areas will necessarily have the same systems to share information with us.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is an interesting question. I do not know the answer, but perhaps the Minister can pick that up.

The Bill also creates powers for financial penalties. It sets out a process for notices and opportunities to make representations and a right of appeal. Those procedural protections are sensible, but the Bill does not tell us who might be fined or what conduct would trigger a penalty, and it does not set out a maximum penalty level. Those decisions, again, are left to regulations.

It is also important to remember that the Bill does not replace existing data protection law, as I think the Minister outlined in her opening remarks. Organisations will still have to comply with the Data Protection Act and other UK data protection rules. However, the Bill would provide a new statutory basis for processing information through the single patient record. That makes the wording of the Bill especially important. Ultimately, public confidence will determine whether the system succeeds. People are generally willing for information to be shared when it improves their care, but they also expect transparency, security and accountability and expect to know who can see their information and why. Those expectations are entirely reasonable.

There are several questions that I believe the Committee should ask before these powers are granted. Will patients have a genuine choice about participation? Will they be able to restrict access to particularly sensitive parts of their records? Who exactly will be able to access the system? Will patients be able to see a record of who has viewed their information? What minimum standards will apply? How will misuse be identified and punished? What independent oversight will exist? Those are not technical details; they are central to public confidence.

In conclusion, the clause will create a legal framework rather than a system itself. It will give broad powers to establish the single patient record while leaving many of the most important questions to future regulations. Clearly most people support the goal of improving patient care, but because the system will involve some of the most personal information that people have, Parliament should ensure that patient rights, safeguards, transparency and accountability are clearly built into the framework from the beginning. It should ensure that questions are asked now rather than decided on later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Clauses 49 and 50 explain our approach to the transfer of NHS England’s existing data and information functions to the Secretary of State. Slightly counterintuitively, I will start with clause 50 before turning to clause 49.

Clause 50 inserts schedule 7, which takes existing NHS England information functions and transfers them to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as part of a single centre for data and digital policy in the NHS. The schedule also includes changes to existing information functions. This will support the shift from analogue to digital and allow us to make the most of opportunities from data and AI, as set out in the 10-year health plan. The changes will not weaken the fundamental safeguards in place to protect health and care data, nor fundamentally change rules relating to how confidential patient information can be used.

I will now outline some key changes made by the clause. It will ensure that information systems for the NHS are set up, where appropriate, not just for the collection and analysis of data but for processing more generally. This will make it easier to support machine learning and artificial intelligence activities, among other uses of data.

The clause extends the extent of chapter 2 of part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to the whole of the UK, and provides for the Secretary of State to establish information systems in the interests of the health service or adult social care in England, or in connection with the provision of care across the British Isles, as NHS England currently can.

The clause enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance to health and social care bodies on the processing of information. It transfers to the Secretary of State NHS England’s powers to require and request information, and such requests will be able specify the form, manner and time within which the information requested is to be provided.

The clause also allows the Secretary of State to publish information obtained in the operation of an information system, including information about service providers. Where NHS England had a duty to publish such information, it is right that the Secretary of State should retain discretion in that regard. Obviously, there may be circumstances in which the publication of data would not be appropriate, and the clause does not give the Secretary of State complete freedom to publish personal information. The Secretary of State may publish personal information without patient consent only where it is for the protection of life or health, or for the protection of public safety or security. It is possible that there could be circumstances—for example, in relation to infectious disease—in which information is published that could lead to an individual being identified. None the less, the change simplifies the process of publication while maintaining a high bar for the publication of personal information.

The Secretary of State’s power to disclose information—for example, to health bodies—other than by publication will be slightly different from NHS England’s current power. The grounds for disclosing personal information will largely mirror the current grounds, with a few additions, including in respect of facilitating clinical trials or other research. This will help to address barriers to data access for research while preserving existing rules on confidentiality. As with his powers of publication, the Secretary of State will also be able to disclose information for the protection of life or health, or for the protection of public safety or security.

The Secretary of State will be bound by certain existing duties on NHS England, including a duty to have regard to any relevant advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group when publishing or disclosing information in accordance with his data functions. The Secretary of State will retain the regulation-making power to establish an accreditation scheme for information service providers, which will now include a broader range of providers, including public bodies.

Clause 49 permits the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions relating to health and care information. Currently, some of those functions can be delegated by NHSE via arrangements with third parties or under regulations. The clause will insert new section 251ZF, which allows the Secretary of State, by arrangement, to delegate to persons specified in regulations functions relating to information standards.

Information standards help to reduce fragmentation in digital and data services. They include mandatory requirements for how information is recorded, shared, governed and supported by IT. Increasing interoperability and consistency in digital and data is essential to increasing value for money, reducing the burden on staff and, ultimately, improving the quality of care. The continued use of information standards is key to the 10-year health plan’s aim of improving the interoperability of digital and data services across the health and care system. This will provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to delegate such functions to persons who have the required technical expertise, where necessary.

Clause 49 will also insert new section 277G, which enables the Secretary of State to direct public bodies to exercise a wider range of his information functions, defined as “relevant information functions”. This includes not only information standards but other information functions, such as the Secretary of State’s duty to establish and operate information systems. The measures will provide the Secretary of State with important flexibility to delegate such functions to persons who have the required technical expertise, where necessary.

In all, the changes are necessary not just to effect the transfer of data functions to the Secretary of State but to enable better data use for the benefit of the NHS now and into the future.

[Dr Johnson]

I have a couple of questions. In lots of ways the provisions derive from clause 1 and the abolition of NHS England. Schedule 7 refers to operating a system in the interests of the health service, which is not the same as operating it in the interests of the patients. Does the Minister have any comments on that? The Nuffield Trust has pointed out that schedule 7 would not pass over to the Secretary of State NHSE’s duty to report to Parliament. Is that because the Minister thinks that duty is duplicated elsewhere and is therefore not necessary?

Under the previous legislation, the Care Quality Commission was slightly stronger and could make a mandatory request that NHS England establish a system, and NHS England had to comply with that unless it related to an existing exception. Now if the CQC makes a request, it goes to the Secretary of State, and whether it is agreed to is then somewhat more optional. Will the Minister say why she needs to change that power?

[Helen Morgan]

I want to speak to amendment 6, which is tabled in my name, and amendment 7, which is consequential upon it. Amendment 6 would ensure that the CQC and NICE can

“continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system”,

as they currently can with NHS England. At the moment, NHS England has a duty to co-operate with the CQC and NICE, and that is often enough for a collaborative approach that allows the CQC to access the data it needs.

But the duty that applies to NHS England is not being passed on to the Department of Health and Social Care. The CQC raised the issue in written evidence to the Committee, saying that the duty

“has been an important mechanism”

that has

“supported receipt of patient safety incident reports…information sharing between regional teams, and the development of central data sharing solutions.”

The CQC went on:

“Without an equivalent duty, we would be reliant on there being sufficient capacity and willingness within DHSC to share information, with no statutory backstop. This could inhibit our ability to receive the information”

needed

“to keep people who use services safe. Challenges in this area are often cultural and rely on the subjective judgment of individual data controllers as to whether particular data sets can be shared, how these should be used and what the timeliness of sharing should be, leading to protracted piecemeal conversations and delays.”

As we have harrowingly heard over the past week, there is often reluctance to share data, particularly when there is a defensive culture in certain NHS institutions. Our amendment seeks to address the gap. I hope that what I have outlined is an oversight from the Government, not a deliberate attempt to reduce transparency or reduce regulator access to key data. The wider changes in schedule 11 will omit section 288 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Government are dropping this key wider duty in a schedule entitled “Minor and consequential amendments”. We do not think it is minor. It holds major implications for patient safety and transparency.

On a wider note, it seems counterintuitive that the CQC, as regulator, does not have easy access to the data collected nationally in the health service.

Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Morgan]

The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on behalf of the approximately 1.2 million people in England who live with myalgic encephalomyelitis, because five years after the introduction of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG206, little has changed. Service provision according to NG206 remains patchy and poor, with many patients having traumatic experiences. The amendment would require a period to be set in which integrated care boards and other health bodies must comply with the guideline, and the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NG206 across the NHS in England.

The introduction of the guideline after sustained campaigning represented a major reform after years in which ME was treated as a psychiatric condition and patients were pushed to follow graduated exercise therapy. Often, GET had disastrous consequences, precipitating serious deteriorations that patients never recovered from. Credit is due to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the current Minister for Public Health and Prevention, for her determination when in opposition to bring about the change.

In a written answer published last week, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention confirmed that all ICBs have a statutory obligation to ensure sufficient care provision for their population, but the experience of those with ME is that that obligation is far from being fulfilled. In some ICBs, no services for ME are commissioned; in others, the provider has a history of providing services that reflect not NG206, but the old and condemned approach of GET. Some services are provided out of psychiatry departments, which is a huge red flag for those with ME, and information on the quality of services is patchy. Results from a big survey of more than 5,000 people with ME or long covid in late 2025 painted a bleak picture: more than half said that they had been disbelieved by an NHS healthcare official, one in three had been made to feel that their ME was their own fault, and almost two in five had had an encounter with a clinician that was traumatic or traumatising.

Five years after its introduction, NG206 is far from being complied with, and so members of the ME community—approximately 1.2 million people, as I said—are desperately asking that something be done to address the situation. The amendment represents a route that offers hope for many long-neglected and mistreated people. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about improving the consistency of provision for people with ME.

Moving to the clause generally, we broadly support the intention, but think that more safeguards need to be built into the principle, given the powers that are being handed to the Secretary of State. The clause makes provision for the period for compliance with a NICE recommendation, but gives no detail of how that will work in practice or how often the Secretary of State will change the standard three-month rule that NICE requires. No ceiling is put on the compliance period, no criteria govern when the period may be extended, and there is no duty to consult or set out reasoning.

What will the process be when the Secretary of State intervenes in the period of time for compliance with a NICE recommendation? We thought that there would be some mix of evidence requirements, consultation, statement of reasons, impact assessment and some kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State should at least have to set out their reasoning why the new power has been used. The value of the current requirement is almost entirely due to the compliance period being short and fixed. The three-month rule gives a positive NICE recommendation practical force. A power to lengthen or vary that period without constraint weakens the requirement in substance while leaving it formally intact. The right is not removed but its timing is made discretionary. For a patient awaiting treatment, that does not amount to the same thing.

A variation power is not new. Since the introduction of the budget impact test in 2017, NHS England has been able to apply to NICE to extend the funding period for medicines with a budget impact above a defined threshold, but, importantly, that period is criteria-based, triggered by a defined financial threshold, subject to a defined process and time-limited in effect. We are not overtly opposed to the power in principle, but more safeguards should be built into the criteria for its application. I would be grateful for some guidance from the Minister on that.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I have sympathy with the principle behind amendment 58, in the name of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. The hon. Member for North Shropshire is right to say that individuals with ME have not always received the best quality care. In many cases, ME is a debilitating and incredibly frustrating condition, and around 10% to 25% of sufferers have severe ME, meaning that they are housebound or bedbound. We know that some patients are sadly not believed by medical professionals.

In 2021, NICE said that most medical students have little or no training on the condition. The Government have previously committed to increasing the uptake of ME modules among NHS professionals. What progress has been made on that in the last couple of years? The Government also committed in the ME/CFS action plan to develop and run a public awareness initiative, with implementation expected by May this year. Has the Department developed that initiative yet? If not, what is responsible for the delay? It is not marked as complete on the Government website.

The amendment would put guidance for medical professionals into legislation, though, and my concerns about that are twofold. First, it may slow down improvements in the future. If individuals have to legally follow that guidance, how can they innovate and improve treatment without having to come back to Parliament for more primary legislation? That will take time and may mean that people with ME get worse rather than better care in the short term.

The requirement would also limit clinical judgment. A patient may have a particular set of symptoms or conditions or be on a particular set of medications that mean that the doctor or clinician looking after them needs to vary from the guidance. NICE intends the guidance to be just that, guidance, not law, but if guidance becomes law, the doctor or clinician will not be able to vary from it. My concern is that the amendment would be overly restrictive. Although it is well-intentioned, and it is a good idea to ensure that guidance is followed where possible, it would be too rigid. I therefore do not support the amendment, while continuing to support the aim of better treatment.

Clause 58 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by inserting a new section 237(8A), which states:

“Provision made under subsection (8)(b) may include provision about the period within which a recommendation is to be complied with (including provision for the period to be determined by NICE or the Secretary of State).”

At the moment, NICE technology appraisals check the value of a product, whether a drug or a technology, then NICE makes a recommendation. It is then supposed to be the case that within 90 days or three months, ICBs ensure that those technologies are available, but we know that in the real world it can take longer—sometimes 12 to 24 months—for some things to become available. That could be because technology needs to be bought or training needs to take place.

I understand why there could be variation and why the Government may want to consider varying the period, but it is not clear why they need to do so in legislation, because it is possible now to vary the period on an individual basis. For example, the Government imposed a five-year limit rather than a 90-day limit for the introduction of hybrid closed loop systems for diabetes, because that is a technology that requires proper training and they were never going to be rolled out in such a short period. The other product that notably has a longer time is tirzepatide, which is more commonly known as Mounjaro. I suspect that that is down to cost, but I am not certain.

Why do the Government want to change the 90 days? The patient’s right to treatment with a NICE-approved product within 90 days will become a right to getting the product when the Secretary of State says so. That is not really a right at all, because it does not give patients any comfort and may mean that products are received later. The Government have put this power into the Bill, so they clearly intend to use it. Given that they have the power to vary on an individual basis, why do they need the power to vary on a blanket basis? Do they intend to extend the 90-day limit across the board? If so, by how much? There is no ceiling. The Committee received written evidence from Henry Burkitt from Oxygen Strategy, who made the point that there is no ceiling, no maximum time, no duty to consult and no necessity for the Secretary of State or NICE to give reasons why a delay has occurred.

The life sciences industry talks about how it wants products to be rolled out. When it is investing and doing research in this country, it wants to see new products rolled out as quickly as possible once they have been approved, and the clause is a sign that roll-out might be delayed. I understand that the Government might want to be able to vary on certain products, but they already can; why do they want to vary on a more general basis? It is presumably to slow down roll-outs, but by how much?

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am a parliamentary patron and champion of Action on ME. I feel I ought to put that on the record, as we have an amendment on ME.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Of course, patient safety is what we need to get right. I will come on to that point, but there is a lot to get through with this clause. We can see its importance from the number of organisations and channels that exist. I have said that before, and I am sure we have all struggled as constituency MPs to support our constituents—either patients or staff—through the system and to understand the best route forward on patient safety. We all have the same aim, and we should be clear that the issue is how best to achieve that aim. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The test is about impact, learning and making the system and the culture change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East asked me about confidence, and the fear that staff sometimes have about speaking up, which is obviously an important part of that landscape. We want to make sure that we take forward the learning on both those points into the new body.

The new framework ensures that the essential characteristics of safety investigations are preserved. The commission will have a flexible power to investigate qualifying incidents that have or may have implications for patient safety, with a clear statutory purpose of identifying risks and improving systems and practices. We are maintaining the principle of safe space and introducing strong safeguards in the process, so that staff and the public can trust that they can speak of their experiences openly, without fear or favour, to provide learnings for the system.

We have included protections for safe space materials and restrictions on disclosure, including within the regulatory functions of the CQC, and limits on the use of reports in legal proceedings. That is designed to support openness and candour, and to provide confidence in the impartiality and independence of patient safety investigations. There are clear mechanisms for transparency and accountability, including the publication of reports, requirements to respond to recommendations, and oversight through a statutory review of the commission’s investigatory functions.

Clause 59 also provides the commission with the necessary powers to carry out investigations effectively, including powers to require information, enter premises and co-ordinate with other bodies while maintaining appropriate protections such as legal privilege and safeguards against self-incrimination. Although the commission will decide which incidents to investigate, the clause preserves a power for the Secretary of State to direct it to investigate a specific qualifying incident or category of incidents. That ensures that where issues of significant public concern arise, or where urgent scrutiny is needed or there is particular risk, there is a clear mechanism to ensure that issues are investigated.

The struggles of the Care Quality Commission have been well documented. We will only commence these provisions when we are satisfied that the CQC has improved. The CQC has been supported and held to account to recover its effectiveness, and we will continue to support it and work closely with the newly appointed chair on its journey to rebuild. We will work closely with the CQC to ensure its readiness to receive the investigations functions from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Maintaining a centre of excellence for investigations will be integral to the CQC’s culture. Without the clause, the opportunity to deliver the ambitions of the 10-year health plan would not be realised, nor would the broader patient safety landscape, as set out in the Dash review, be fully addressed. It is therefore a necessary and integral reform.

Clause 60 makes provision for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body to the Care Quality Commission in connection with the abolition of the former and the assumption of its functions by the latter. It is a key technical provision to ensure an orderly and legally complete transition between the two bodies. Where functions are transferred between public bodies, it is essential that all associated assets, obligations and legal arrangements are also transferred in a way that ensures continuity and legal certainty. The clause provides the statutory mechanism to achieve that.

The clause provides a flexible framework to enable the continuation of HSSIB’s actions and ongoing matters, including legal proceedings, and ensures that references to HSSIB in existing documents are treated as references to the Care Quality Commission to avoid legal uncertainty. The clause provides for staff protections equivalent to TUPE and allows for shared ownership or use of property where needed, supporting a smooth and effective transition.

The overall effect of the clause is to enable a smooth, comprehensive and legally robust transfer of HSSIB’s property rights and liabilities to the Care Quality Commission, ensuring continuity of function and avoiding disruption to ongoing operations. Without the provision, there would be risk of legal uncertainty and operational disruption during the transfer process.

Clause 61 is a necessary and practical provision. At its core, it provides a power through regulations for His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that transfers made from HSSIB to the CQC are delivered smoothly and on a tax-neutral basis. Like the equivalent provision for the NHS England transfer in clause 3, it allows the Treasury, by regulations, to vary the way in which relevant tax legislation applies in relation to anything transferred under a transfer scheme or anything done in connection with such a transfer. That will ensure that the tax consequences of the transfer can be properly aligned with the policy intention of a smooth and orderly transition.

Importantly, the scope of the clause is limited to specified “relevant taxes”, including income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax. As with clause 3, without this power there is a risk that the transfers could trigger unintended tax liabilities that would divert public money away from frontline services and undermine the policy intent of the legislation. Clause 61 therefore protects value for money and ensures that organisational change does not come with avoidable fiscal cost.

Clauses 59 to 61 and schedule 8 are necessary to strengthen the framework for patient safety investigations and ensure a more coherent and, crucially, effective system for learning from incidents across health services to make all our constituents and patients safer. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

These clauses are about patient safety. As has been pointed out this morning, patient safety is the absolute key here: that is well recognised across the House, among the public and across the national health service. Before going any further, I declare an interest as a patient of the NHS, a member of the British Medical Association, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a consultant paediatrician.

When I was interviewed in 2012 for my current consultant role, I was asked to deliver a presentation about how I could demonstrate to the trust board that the paediatric services in the hospital were safe. The first question I posed—Members will be pleased to know that I will not go through the whole presentation—was: “What is safe?” Are football stadiums safe? Is the London underground safe? Are aeroplanes safe? Broadly, yes, I think we would say they are safe, but they have not been without incident or safety issues.

Healthcare is similar. It involves millions of people, clinical judgment, human decision making and huge variability in the way that patients can present with different symptoms for different problems at different times. Is healthcare safe? Yes, it is safe. Again, however, we know from the many reports we have read that there is a long way to go to make it better and we need to prepare for that. We need to make sure that we design out room for error—that we design processes that limit the opportunities for error—use technology to limit the risk of error, and train people in a way that reduces the risk of error.

One of the key factors in that work is accepting that where there is human decision making, mistakes can happen, and that we need to identify and learn from those mistakes. One of the main ways of doing that is striking a balance between accountability and blame. If there is insufficient accountability, there can be an unclear escalation process, such that people do not know who to go to when they identify a problem. There can be a careless culture, which can develop in places where there is not enough accountability. However, if there is too much focus on fault and determining whose fault something is, we can get a blame culture. That can lead to a failure for people to come forward and therefore to a failure to learn from mistakes. It can lead to a culture of cover-up, whereby people try to avoid getting either themselves or their colleagues into trouble.

That is where HSSIB comes in because, like the air accidents investigation branch and the similar bodies for rail and shipping, it provides a safe space. That safe space is important in ensuring that people can speak up freely without fear, and know that we can get to the bottom of a problem and understand why and how something went wrong, because that is how we fix it.

At the time that HSSIB was established, there was consensus about it. The General Medical Council said:

“We support the creation of a ‘safe space’ approach to investigation. This is consistent with our guidance to doctors about their responsibilities to learn from mistakes and reflect on their practice, and their duty to take part in systems of quality assurance and quality improvement to promote patient safety.”

The British Medical Association told Parliament:

“We welcome the establishment of the HSSIB…Doctors must feel able to report errors and reflect on their own mistakes openly, without the fear of these reflections being used against them at a later stage. Only then can true improvements to patient safety be made.”

Similarly, NHS Providers told Parliament:

“NHS Providers welcomes the creation of the HSSIB as an opportunity to develop a just culture in the NHS and a focus on learning…For the HSSIB to succeed in contributing to improved patient safety, any investigations associated with it must be carried out independently and without conflict of interest, and be perceived as such.”

Indeed, the Minister for Secondary Care herself is on the record as having said:

“HSSIB is a really important new body…It must absolutely be built on the highest standards of trust when it comes to the wider system and the general public.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 564-565.]

I think that I have demonstrated that the creation of HSSIB was a matter of consensus and it was confirmed that it was the right thing to do.

In order to work, HSSIB needed to be independent and without conflict of interest. NHS staff backed it, the providers backed it, the patients backed it and even the Minister backed it. That is what makes the Government’s plans for HSSIB so perplexing. I am not aware of a single royal college or union that supports folding it into the CQC.

Essentially, Ministers have said that this is being done because of the Dash review. “The Dash review says so,” they argue, “so that’s what we’re going to do.” I have huge respect for people who say, “I’ve asked for some experts’ advice, and they have given it, and therefore I should follow it.” However, Ministers also commissioned the report by Lord Darzi, which said that

“a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and integrated care boards is neither necessary nor desirable”,

and yet here we are, doing exactly that. It is perfectly possible for Ministers to take one report as gospel and another as guidance. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.

The other reason given for this measure is that it will declutter the landscape, yet few people outside Government seem to think that HSSIB is responsible for cluttering the landscape. For example, the Health Foundation wrote in its submission that

“the government needs to do more to explain how the abolition of HSSIB and transfer of its functions to CQC will meet its aim of reducing complexity and, most importantly, maintain the essential focus on improving patient safety.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

This subject is of particular interest to me. For quite a few years I was a trustee of a charity that supported evidence-based medicine and quality improvement. The hon. Lady talked about a no-blame culture. We now tend to use the term “just culture” but it is the same kind of thing: we must have a safe space for people to come forward, like in the airline industry. We want to encourage reporting not only of mistakes but of near misses so that improvements can be delivered without tragic incidents having to take place. If we are to create a culture in which people will come forward to admit even potential mistakes and near misses, they cannot in any way fear punitive punishment under regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that folding HSSIB into the CQC will make it difficult to create a culture in which people feel confident enough to want to come forward with and overtly discuss mistakes and errors?

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. When someone comes forward, they need to have trust in the system. If they think that coming forward will harm their job or career, or perhaps their colleagues’, they may be more reluctant to do so. There is a difference between a mistake and a reckless act. If people behave recklessly and badly, that needs to be dealt with for the sake of accountability, but if an individual is aware of a mistake, or aware of a loophole through which a mistake could have been made if only something else had not happened at that moment, they need to come forward and say so. It would be much more difficult for them to do so if there was a culture of fear.

Dr Benneyworth made it clear to the Committee that

“we are still working in a culture of fear”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 24, Q40.]

and that makes it difficult for people to come forward. People come forward now because they know that HSSIB is independent, but they will be less likely to come forward when HSSIB is an office in the CQC that is independent in name only. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), said that

“people cannot sit at desks near other people who are making decisions and at the same time be perceived as entirely independent. The perception of independence cannot be legislated for—the perception is everything”.—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 915.]

[Gregory Stafford]

As my hon. Friend said earlier, the problem comes when this new body within the CQC has to investigate the CQC. In the oral evidence session, I asked Dr Dash what would happen if the problem was CQC, and she gave what is probably the most extraordinary answer out of the many extraordinary answers she gave. It is worth repeating:

“Well, we then have to deal with that as a problem. That is the same as saying, ‘What happens if the problem is this organisation or that one?’…What if the GMC is a problem? What if the Nursing and Midwifery Council is a problem?”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 8, Q9.]

She did not answer my question at all. In fact, she entirely sidestepped it. How can we have confidence in the Government’s proposal if the architect of the procedure cannot answer the most basic questions about the investigatory framework?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That answer was quite shocking, really. The pause before it and the reaction was remarkable. The purpose of HSSIB is to investigate without fear or favour, and to enable people to come forward in a safe way, but if it was folded into the CQC, as the regulator, and the problem was the regulator, how would it investigate itself? How would it make recommendations to itself? What if it thinks the board that it works for is incompetent? Is it going to tell its boss that it is incompetent? How does that work? No one seemed to know the answer.

It also seems that Ministers have not thought about how the HSSIB unit will be vulnerable to political pressure. Under the Bill as drafted, the Government are planning to direct the “vast majority”—according to the impact assessment—of the investigations, and the quality board is going to have some influence over the recommendations, again under the direction of the Secretary of State.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendment 5, which would require the appointment of a committee. That idea is well intentioned, and we recognise the same problems and the same flaws in the Government’s approach, but I do not think it is enough to solve the problem. Even if the law says that the oversight of the investigative units will remain operationally independent, I just do not see how that is possible. I can see that the hon. Member for North Shropshire is trying to help by creating something better than what the Government have produced, but I do not think it is enough.

We have also tabled some amendments, including new clause 42, which would ensure that there is some operational independence in the choice of investigation by requiring the Secretary of State to adequately fund and resource patient safety investigations, including some of those initiated by this unit within the CQC.

Amendment 55 is a probing amendment. We noticed that much of the legislation has been lifted and shifted from the previous Act, but some things are missing, including national security grounds. We want to understand why that ground has not been included in the Bill. Very occasionally, health events have national security connotations—the Salisbury chemical weapons attack, for example. In such circumstances, restrictions on investigatory capabilities could be necessary. I do not know—I was just interested in why the Government have chosen deliberately to remove that particular clause.

Amendment 56 would allow

“the Commission to recoup charges in excess of the costs incurred in providing assistance.”

The HSSIB programme is world-leading. People look at it from across the globe, and some have asked for training or information on it, for which we have been able not just to recoup costs but actually charge. I do not understand why the Government have removed that provision, because it is an opportunity for them to get extra money without taking it off people in taxes. Do the Government want HSSIB to lose its international standing, or do they want British taxpayers to subsidise training for foreign health services? It is not clear. I would be grateful if the Minister explained that.

We need to come back to what the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said at the beginning: what is the purpose? The purpose is patient safety.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

The point about patient safety is absolutely important, as every Bill Committee member would agree. The number of patient safety incidents has been going up for the last 10 years. Between 2015 and 2022, there was a 62% increase in patient safety incidents in this country, and since the creation of HSSIB, the number of incidents has again gone up. Does the hon. Member agree that the CQC, which has access to all patient records and all documentation in any healthcare settings in real time, would be able to monitor the improvement and progress that each provider is making following the learning from each incident? That would be important and helpful, as the HSSIB has limited ability to look into documentation and clinical notes.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I think this comes to part of the problem. When producing a list of faults—of things that are wrong with the service—and saying, “We need to improve the culture; it needs to be better”, we need to ask, “Okay, but how? What will be the deliverable, measurable way of doing that? How will we go about improving things?” For example, let us say that there is a problem with patients with aortic dissection, so how will we prevent that? The benefit of HSSIB is that it produces a plan, the plan is implemented and patients are safer. Part of this is about the delivery plan.

As for the other part, the hon. Member talked about monitoring progress, but that is not the job of HSSIB. If a mistake or an event happens, it is investigated by HSSIB—HSSIB produces a set of investigations based on understanding how and why it happened, because of the safe space—and then those recommendations are put forward to the Government. The Government then, ideally, implement those changes. The Minister is there to ensure that those are implemented. It will be her job to ensure, having decided which recommendations are to be implemented, that that is done fully and properly. It is a separate function. The CQC is a regulator, HSSIB is an investigator, and the Minister is there to ensure that things are delivered properly.

Going back to patient safety, at the end of my interview, I essentially told the panel, “I cannot tell you that anything is 100% safe”. The assurances that can be provided are that the staff and equipment are available, that training is available for people to do the job, and that processes are in place to identify shortcomings and learn from them, so that they are not repeated. That is key: to find the learning and spread it more widely. As the hon. Gentleman said, implementation is a challenge. It is possible to implement this on an individual basis or to implement a lesson in a unit that has had an error or mistake. Spreading it more widely, so that this is heard in every unit across the country, is more challenging. Fundamentally, I do not think I have heard anything from any of the Ministers, and I do not think it is in the Dash report either, to explain why the Government believe that rolling HSSIB into the CQC with all the problems that it might cause—the risk of it suing itself over whether the safe space is available or not—makes patients any safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am particularly keen to speak on clauses 59 to 63, because HSSIB was a key part of the Health and Care Act 2022, which I took through as a Minister. At that time, I was grateful for not only the fearless and tough questioning from the now Minister, who was on the Opposition Benches, but for her support. She said:

“HSSIB is a really important new body”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 564.]

She also said that it is a

“new and important body, which we are all desperate to ensure works well.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 566.]

It is fair to say that it does work well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out clearly in his detailed remarks. The thread running through his remarks, which is particularly important in this context, was trust. People who have had something go wrong and have reported a problem need to trust that it will be looked at independently and dispassionately.

I fear that what is proposed here results from a deeply misguided decision, which has at the heart of its logic a fundamental flaw. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, the decision fails to recognise that HSSIB’s role is fundamentally different from the role of CQC. It is an independent investigator; it is not a regulator or an enforcer, yet that somehow seems to be conflated in what the Government are trying to do here. They have simply failed to make a logical case for the change.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who I always listen to with great interest on these matters, highlighted that patient safety should be at the heart of this legislation. That is absolutely right, but patient safety goes hand in hand with the confidence of those working in the system to speak out and put forward evidence that will improve patient safety. It is not an either/or; one is complementary to the other. It is important that this safe space remains, because that provides the conditions in which patient safety can be improved.

In her evidence during the first session of this Committee, Dr Dash stated that she found more than 150 organisations operating in this space when she undertook her review. However, in Hansard, she went on to say:

“I was asked by the Department of Health and Social Care to look at that landscape. I was asked to focus on six organisations”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 5, Q2.]

Only six out of 150? That does not ring true. That is not a tidying-up of the landscape but a very narrow focus. When the Minister comes to her concluding remarks, can she answer who specifically determined those six organisations for Dr Dash and told her to look only at those, ignoring the other 144-plus organisations? We all know that what a review comes up with is, to a large degree, determined by the scope set for it. By picking a mere six out of 150-plus organisations, I fear there is a risk that the scope has effectively, to a degree, stacked the outcome of what would be looked at and what would be concluded.

Before addressing specific concerns about the approach being adopted with the abolition of HSSIB, I want to highlight a real challenge with—even if one accepted the premise, which I do not—where it is proposed the functions are transferred to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out.

Dr Dash said in her evidence that the CQC

“still has a way to go, and we all need to acknowledge that.”

She went on to say:

“I would have hoped that, by now, many of those challenges had been addressed. Some of them have been, but some of them have struggled.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 4, Q2.]

We are talking about moving an effective organisation into another organisation which, quite apart from whether the merger is appropriate given their different remits, is—by the review author’s own admission in evidence—basically not in a fit state to receive those new functions. I think that has been tacitly acknowledged by the Minister in saying it will only be done at an appropriate time, when the CQC is ready. Therefore, why make those changes at all? At the moment, it does not look like the CQC will be ready, at least in the near future, based on the evidence we have heard.

[Dr Johnson]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is not the only thing that the CQC is being asked to take on. It is also being asked to take on the regulation of event healthcare, which is another new function for the CQC, all at a time when, as he says, it has its own difficulties to manage.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is right to highlight, for want of a better way of putting it, the cumulative challenges that will potentially be piled on the CQC, on top of the pre-existing challenges with how that organisation is functioning.

I read with great care the Adjournment debate that took place last night in the Chamber, which has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, and I pay tribute to him for his work in this space. I worked closely with him in the context of the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, and I know that the issue of patient safety is fundamental to what he seeks to improve and achieve in this House. I agree with him: I fear the Dash review simply fails to make the case for those changes. Also, as hon. Members have set out, it sadly appears to contain a number of errors and assumptions that are inaccurate, which I will turn to in a moment.

The fundamental challenge is to establish a way for people to feel confident and trusting in challenging a culture of denial and blame. We have seen this most recently in the context of maternity failings and scandals. The need for that safe space, and for an organisation able to challenge the institutions, is very clear, and I fear that this change actually weakens the ability to do that. Dr Dash’s review, I fear, fails to fully recognise just how important the safe space concept is—not just in how it is drafted and framed legally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, in how it is perceived by those who need to use it. The CQC, of course, has a legal duty to act on information it receives, but that risks being conflated here.

I saw this illustrated last night, for example, in the Adjournment debate, in a comment made by the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), when she was responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. She was talking about the criteria for disclosing protected information outside the investigative function. She said:

“Those criteria set a high bar for any disclosure—as high as it is currently with HSSIB—and the CQC will publish further guidance setting out much more detail.”

This is the key point. She went on to say:

“As the Bill sets out, the CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether the case matches the criteria and whether it warrants information sharing outside the safe space.”

And this is the crux of it:

“That person is likely to be the CQC’s chief executive officer.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 147.]

That is an inherent conflict. If the person who is the head of the regulatory body is making the decision on whether information should be disclosed by HSSIB in its folded-in form, that will do nothing to inspire confidence in disclosure and the safe space provisions. I fear that drives a coach and horses through some of the arguments being made that there are sufficient safeguards within this merger to ensure HSSIB can continue as it has done thus far.

The crux of some of Dr Dash’s arguments appears to be that there are, as the Minister also alluded to, too many recommendations being made and that it is a complex landscape. Yet HSSIB, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex set out yesterday, has made 56. He went on to say that the 30 or so public inquiries and other investigations have delivered 1,400, so it simply does not follow that HSSIB is the problem in that complex landscape.

What was made very clear by, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is that, of course, the concern is not the recommendations. It is not the organisation making the recommendations that is responsible for the fact that they are not implemented. It is the NHS itself, its inertia, its unwillingness and the Department’s unwillingness to take them forward in a coherent fashion—to drive the recommendations through and monitor whether they have been delivered on by the NHS.

[Dr Johnson]

On pages 8 and 9 of the Dash review, Dr Dash talks about this. She states:

“Recommendations are…focused on inputs, rather than outputs or outcomes, and fail to…balance…risks within organisations and across systems…the existence of so many recommendations causes considerable confusion for staff. They result in more clinical staff moving into supervisory roles to check that other…staff are adhering to the recommendations. The overwhelming majority of recommendations lack data as to the cost of implementation or the expected impact.”

She recognised, did she not, that there was a problem with people being asked to check up on one another’s work and check up on their work? But the recommendations do not deal with that, perhaps because the scope, as my right hon. Friend has described, is so narrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is, of course. I have been focusing on public perception, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that that is only one part of it—an important part of it. Probably, the most important part is what actually happens, and that requires the NHS to learn and improve, which is very unlikely to be improved by this proposal.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very important case about the importance of the perception of independence and the safe space actually being safe. There is a risk that people feel that they will be hounded or—

[The Chair]

Order.

Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East just said, new clause 6 seeks in essence to ensure that we have good data security and control, with which I agree. Trust is important, data security is important and supporting research with anonymised data is a good thing to do.

What would the new clause do? First, it would establish an independent body known as a sovereign health data trust. In essence, that is a group of people who have been put together. The new clause does not say how big the group would be—I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire had its size in mind—but it describes a group of people with

“a diverse range of backgrounds…and…health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.”

Are the first group intended to be laypeople, rather than experts? What does the hon. Lady mean by a “diverse range of backgrounds”? Does that relate to protected characteristics, or is she looking for a farmer from Northumberland and a lawyer from Islington, because they have different backgrounds? It is not entirely clear what she means, so I would be grateful if she clarified that. Additionally, however big that group is, who would decide how it is composed and by what criteria? Who would be responsible?

The sovereign health data trust would be charged with creating a health data charter. That leads me to my second question: what is a health data charter? In essence, a health data charter—as defined in the new clause—must

“set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS”,

and, as my hon. Friend the for Isle of Wight East said,

“include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data”.

That is important, because we have heard in the media several examples of data being put up for sale or leaked, and the problems caused by that.

The charter must also

“ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs”.

I am glad to see that bit about relevant opt-outs. We have talked about the importance of the record being shared not as a whole, but in pieces. Things such as obstetric or sexual health ought perhaps to be consented to separately. Patient control of the data is important. How would the hon. Member for North Shropshire deal with safeguarding issues in the control of data, particularly in relation to children?

The new clause sets out that the charter must

“provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment”—

which seems reasonable—and must

“set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS”.

Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Lichfield and I discussed the important value of the NHS data—I think he said that it was the most valuable dataset in the world, and he might well be right. I was a bit confused by that part of the new clause, because we talked earlier this week about the Health Services Safety Investigations Body being able to sell time and training and share expertise, including with private sector organisations overseas. The Government changed that in the Bill, so that they would only be able to retain costs and not make any money for the Treasury. When we put amendment 56 to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained. I do not know what the difference is between using NHS data for research and the HSSIB using their expertise for training overseas organisations. I would be grateful to understand that.

The charter must be

“designed in such a way to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space”.

The European Health Data Space regulations were introduced in March 2025. We are in a transition period, and they will be implemented in 2027 and 2029. It should be interoperable in technical terms

“through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles”.

What is the European Health Data Space? Essentially, it is a single patient record for Europe. Its instructions say member states may—I underline the word may—offer

“an opt-out option for the cross-border exchange of electronic health data under EHDS.”

I do not understand the Liberal Democrats’ argument for that, because they have made a strong argument throughout Committee stage that data needs to be shared carefully. They advanced some clauses that will ensure that data is held in the United Kingdom and that we use British tech where possible. New clause 6 would make us interoperable with the European system and presumably move us towards European systems.

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not mean this as a cheeky point, but is it not the case that clearly, as with everything, the Liberal Democrats think that the European Union can do no wrong? They do not see the same problems of data that they have expressed in other clauses because they want to rejoin the European Union. Therefore, they conceive that it can have no possible harm to British subjects.

[Dr Johnson]

Indeed. When reading it, it is ironic to me that they seem comfortable with data being shared across the EU but not across our own country. It did not make complete sense to me, but the hon. Lady for North Shropshire may be able to tell us more about that in her summing up.

What else will the sovereign health data trust group do? It will have

“continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment”.

Having oversight over “all health data” is quite a big job. Again, what sort of resources does the hon. Lady think that will entail, and what does she have in mind in terms of the cost and bureaucracy of that? It would also

“have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit.”

What is the threshold for that? A lot of these organisations will be working in a commercial environment; if they receive a letter, potentially from a competitor, saying there is a concern, does that meet the threshold? What would the threshold be?

Having decided that the data might not be used for public benefit, what investigatory powers does the hon. Lady envisage the trust having to establish whether that is the case or not? What if it does receive some concerning correspondence, it does the investigation under the investigatory powers that it has been given, it decides that it does not think it is being used for public or patient benefit, and it restricts the organisation’s ability to access data? That will potentially have a significant financial penalty and it may affect patients’ access to healthcare, too. What right of appeal would the organisation have? Who would they appeal to and how would it work? On the wording, commercial activity may well benefit patients, which is sometimes forgotten.

The next thing the data trust will have to do is

“ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available”.

I would like some more detail about that. Would that include anonymously provided data? What effect would that have on the research environment and the integrity of research done under commercial arrangements? What about the costs? Would any costs be shared and what effect would that have on future commercial negotiations when the Government are trying to get the next organisation to look at the data? What level of detail made publicly available in the contract would need to be provided?

The trust would need to publish minutes of their meetings, which seems reasonable. It would need to

“ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.”

Do the Liberal Democrats really intend for all data collection to go through public consultation? If, as we talked about regarding corridor care, the Government wanted to know how many people are waiting more than 24 hours in A&E, would they have to do a public consultation to collect that data? It seems overly bureaucratic.

[Gregory Stafford]

Is that not part of the problem with the wording of the new clause? It is not clear, from the new clause, what is NHS data and what is the patient’s data, and who owns which bit of it. The problem with the drafting of the new clause is that it appears to cover every single piece of data held by the NHS, whether it directly relates to a patient or not. Additionally, if the Government were to collect any other sort of data, even if on an aggregate basis, it would come under this. That would be totally unworkable and put an enormous burden of bureaucracy on the health service.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I would be interested in whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire has made any estimates of personnel time or cost that the proposal would entail.

In summary, the new clause would create an unelected committee removing democratic control. Essentially, it is asking a committee of unelected individuals to write and implement policy, which is the job of the Minister. That should be under ministerial control.

[Joe Robertson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an overarching issue here of public confidence in the safety of their data? That is not about one company or another; it is about ensuring that robust safeguards are in place for everyone and for every provider of a data and record-keeping system. If the public do not have confidence, they will understandably withdraw consent for their data being held. That will undermine the single patient record and the whole way in which health can be delivered efficiently in the best interests of patients.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. I am sure that the purpose behind the new clause is to ensure that data is safe, but it removes democratic accountability from the process of developing the policy, which may reduce the public’s confidence in it. I agree with its underlying principles, but much of it is cumbersome and, as yet, undefined, so it is important that we get more detail and specificity.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for tabling this new clause. I am sympathetic to its intentions: the security of data, the transparency of use and even realising the value of data. Its principles are in the interests of the public and the NHS, but we do not consider it necessary to achieve our aims. It would impose onerous operational requirements and could have a damaging impact on the ability of the NHS to function.

There is also a significant overlap with the role of the independent national guardian and potentially that of the information commissioner. Once the functions of NHS England have transferred to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to respect and promote the privacy of recipients of health services and of adult social care in England, which is in addition to the requirements already set out in UK GDPR. The Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to the health and care sector relating to the processing of information to which NHS bodies must have regard. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to have regard to guidance given by the Health Research Authority on the disclosure of confidential information.

The proposed trust functions would also encroach significantly on the operational role intended for the health data research service, and would place cumbersome constraints on vital data collecting and sharing within the NHS. The new clause would mean that all health data collections and data-sharing initiatives would have to be preceded by public consultation. That would capture any of the essential collections that NHS England undertakes, and indeed any collection by NHS organisations, not to mention the use of that data. The burden would be considerable, with very real consequences for the ability of the NHS to use that data to improve outcomes for patients.

Likewise, I cannot see how requiring all health data to be held anonymously and accessed only through a trusted, secure research environment would be compatible with delivering direct care to a patient or using confidential patient information for planning and commissioning services or research. It seems that the new clause would prevent such uses. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Helen Morgan]

Hon. and right hon. Members on the Committee will understand that we are talking about a single patient record that we do not understand much about yet, because most of the detail will come later. This new clause is attempting to establish what guardrails we would like to see for the protection of patient data when the single patient record is brought into existence

There are very genuine concerns about people’s health conditions becoming individually identifiable. If there is an individual in a single postcode with a rare condition, anonymising the data can essentially never happen. That is a genuine concern that people have. I hope that, when we get to Report stage, the Government will be able to give us a little more detail on what safeguards they intend to put in place over the use of that data. To that end, I do not intend to press this new clause to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take into account the concerns we have expressed about building trust and protecting data privacy, and will give us further reassurance at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Directors of public health

“After section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—

‘7BA Directors of public health

Each integrated care board must, for the purposes of exercising any public health functions directed by the Secretary of State, appoint a lead director of public health.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Directors of public health: requirements and functions—

“After section (73C) of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—

‘73D Directors of public health: requirements and functions

Directors of public health must—

(a) be an officer of the local authority and shall have responsibility for its public health functions,

(b) be an NHS consultant in public health responsible for giving independent professional public health advice and for promoting public debate on health matters,

(c) be a corporation sole and NHS body for working with others to initiate measures to improve the health of the people,

(d) be an officer of the Crown responsible for such functions as the Secretary of State may specify,

(e) as an officer of the Crown have power to draw the attention of the Chief Medical Officer and the Attorney General to events within the area of the local authority creating circumstances in which it might be appropriate to bring proceedings in the name of the Crown for public health purposes,

(f) be an officer of the National Health Service responsible for promoting the provision of services which are outcome-focused, are provided following a proper needs assessment and pay attention to the promotion of health and the prevention of illness,

(g) as an officer of the NHS, have power either personally (in the case of a body which primarily serves the population of the local authority which appointed the DPH) or through joint arrangements with other Directors of Public Health (in the case of a body which primarily serves the population of several local authorities) or through a collective arrangement established by the Chief Medical Officer (in the case of a body with a national remit) to appoint, or approve arrangements for the body to appoint, a consultant in public health to serve on the governing body of any NHS body (other than an NHS body which is a local authority), any NHS Foundation Trust, any of the bodies established under this Act or any of the bodies established under the Health & Social Care Act 2012 or any other legislation relating to the governance of the NHS (for the avoidance of doubt the consultant so appointed may be, but need not be, the Director of Public Health personally).

(h) as an officer of the NHS and of the local authority, have power either personally (in the case of a body which primarily serves all or part of the population of the local authority which appointed the DPH) or through joint arrangements with other Directors of Public Health (in the case of a body such as a joint board or combined authority which primarily serves the population of several local authorities) to appoint a consultant in public health to attend any local authority meeting and to advise the meeting whilst it is in session on matters affecting the health of the people (for the avoidance of doubt the consultant so appointed may be, but need not be, the Director of Public Health personally and a different consultant may be appointed for different meetings).

(i) be contractually required, subject to law, to carry out the functions in subsections (b) to (h) herewith as an independent health professional treating a population as a patient and pursuing the improvement of its health and to be contractually entitled not to be subject to any detriment by the local authority or by the Crown for so doing.’”

[Dr Johnson]

I want to briefly discuss these new clauses because I think that they are important, particularly because they were tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is an expert in the field. New clauses 11 and 24 relate to directors of public health. We know from the Government that prevention, and therefore public health, is extremely important. New clause 11 says:

“Each integrated care board must, for the purposes of exercising any public health functions directed by the Secretary of State, appoint a lead director of public health.”

New clause 24 sets out the requirements and functions of directors of public health—what such an individual will do.

Currently, every local authority must have a director of public health, which is set out in statute. They focus on three areas: health protection, health improvement and healthcare public health. They take the evidence in relation to their population, produce a vision, develop aims, deliver those aims and then produce a report annually to say how they are getting on with that process. The National Health Service Act 2006 says that that must be done across an upper tier or unitary local authority area, and that directors of public health must provide advice about public health to any ICBs that overlap with their area. ICBs also have a legal duty to seek advice on protecting public health when they are exercising their functions.

I think that we all agree across the Committee that public health is important, but I do have some questions. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not a member of the Committee, so she is not able to respond to any questions today. We have talked in this Committee about the representation of local authorities on ICBs and the fact that Government cuts of 50% have led to a merging of ICBs in a somewhat haphazard fashion, which means that there can be a clash between different areas.

I guess that my question for the Minister would be this: if this clause were to come into force and the ICBs that are no longer coterminous with the local authority upper-tier or unitary authority areas, would there be a duplication of work? My other concern would be that it would lead to a situation where there might be one director of public health with a vision to go one way, and another with a direction to go the other way. If that happened, how would the negotiation process work? I think this measure was brought in with good intent by a lady who is an expert in the field, but I have more questions than answers about how the clause will work in practice.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is very important that we consider these new clauses and amendments carefully, not least because, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, the hon. Member for Worthing West, who tabled them, has considerable expertise, being a public health consultant herself. I have the pleasure of sitting with the hon. Member on the Health and Social Care Committee and she brings her expertise to every single sitting. I am sure that the Minister has welcomed her questioning when she has appeared before that Committee.

It is really clear that, if we are going to make a success of the Bill, public health in all its guises needs to be at the forefront of our thinking about how we achieve better patient outcomes, better health and, more specifically, the Government’s stated aims in the 10-year plan to, first, shift care closer to home and, secondly, focus more on prevention rather than treatment. I am sure that across the House we agree with that ambition and therefore I can totally understand why the hon. Member for Worthing West has tabled these new clauses.

I suspect that the new clauses are also a reaction to something that we have already discussed in this Committee, which is the dislocation and now the separation of local authorities from ICBs, with the removal of their statutory functions on those boards, to be given to strategic mayoral authorities. Some of those strategic mayoral authorities exist but, as we have discussed at some length in the Committee, many of them do not exist and might never exist. I can see why the hon. Member for Worthing West is trying to ensure that the vital work of directors of public health in local authorities for their population areas is somehow safeguarded and included in the Bill.

That being said, I have some reservations about how these new clauses are currently drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already outlined many of them. Although strengthening public health leadership is an essential objective, new clause 24 defines the statutory role and legal status of directors of public health in this context without providing sufficient clarity about accountability or governance, or about how these new powers would interact with existing NHS and local authority structures. Potentially, there is a risk of creating overlapping responsibilities, blurred lines of accountability and additional bureaucracy at a time when integrated working should be simplified rather than made more complex.

Obviously, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not here to answer my questions. I ask the Minister this: if these new clauses are not pressed to a vote, or if they are but are not accepted by this Committee, how can she reassure me and the hon. Member for Worthing West that public health will still be at the forefront of the Bill, and that the removal of local authorities from ICBs will not have the impact that I think the hon. Member, who tabled these new clauses, is concerned about?

[Karin Smyth]

Further to that point, I absolutely want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, who is not a member of this Committee, and indeed the members of this Committee that the Government fully appreciate the important role of public health professionals. They bring critical expertise in population health intelligence, epidemiology and community co-design, and those capabilities are integral to the role of ICBs as strategic commissioners.

On new clause 11, there is already a statutory duty on ICBs to seek advice, and a statutory duty on local authorities to provide public health advice to ICBs. However, that does not mean that ICBs should be required to employ a director of public health directly. Local authorities already employ a director of public health and we expect ICBs to work collaboratively with their local authority partners and not to duplicate their work.

NHS England recently published the strategic commissioning framework and guidance for ICBs on strengthening the public health advice, both of which are clear that ICBs should work with local public health teams and stakeholders to draw upon their expertise to ensure a strong evidence base for commissioning decisions.

As the responsibilities of ICBs for commissioning NHS public health services grow, we expect them to continue to draw on the skills and expertise of local authority directors of public health, as well as other specialist public health expertise, including screening and immunisation leads, and the UK Health Security Agency. I absolutely agree that public health expertise is essential for ICBs to commission effectively and we have set out how they will access that; the basis for all this is of course the joint strategic needs assessment. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to require an ICB to appoint a lead director for public health in order to have access to such advice.

On new clause 24, as the Committee is aware, local authority directors of public health are advocates for the health of their population. They have a professional leadership role across the three domains of public health: health improvement, health protection and healthcare public health. Their work spans organisational boundaries. Although they are employed by local authorities and appointed jointly with the Secretary of State, their role is designed to bridge local government and the NHS. They are also required to provide objective, evidence-based advice, without political interference, and they are expected to be suitably qualified and regulated public health specialists who take a population-wide perspective to health outcomes and health inequalities.

At the heart of their role is their statutory responsibility to prepare an annual report on the health of their local population. That crucial document underpins the plans of health and wellbeing boards and, through them, the ICBs. Directors of public health are also required to be members of health and wellbeing boards, which will be the central mechanism for partnership working between local authorities and ICBs in the new neighbourhood health system. As such, directors of public health will be well placed to help to shape ICB system-wide plans and strategies on public health issues going forward, something that we discussed earlier in the Committee.

There is a statutory duty on ICBs to obtain appropriate and expert public health advice, and a legal duty on local authorities in turn, carried out by the director of public health and their team, to provide public health advice to ICBs. Beyond those requirements, the NHS, including ICBs, is of course free to employ its own senior public health professionals.

The proposed new clause risks creating some significant ambiguity around accountability and risk, constraining rather than enhancing the independence of directors of public health, which I am sure is not the intention of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham or of the Committee. I hope I can offer reassurance to the hon. Member and indeed to the Committee that we are proud of our strong and coherent public health system, that this Bill does not alter its importance and that we will continue to champion the role of directors of public health and ensure clarity in the new architecture. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Corridor Care Accountability

“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the prevalence of corridor care in NHS hospitals.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an analysis of data on the number of corridor incidents at the national, integrated care board, trust, and hospital level,

(b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken that year to reduce the number of corridor care incidents,

(c) the Secretary of State’s plans to reduce the number of corridor care incidents in the coming year, and

(d) information regarding the amount of funding directed toward reducing the number of corridor care incidents that year and funding allocated for such efforts in the future.

(3) Following the publication of a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must give evidence in front of a panel (to be called the “Corridor Care Tribunal”) including—

(a) patients,

(b) bereaved or affected families, and

(c) frontline NHS staff who have been impacted by corridor care.

(4) Panel members for a Corridor Care Tribunal under subsection (3) shall be identified by local Healthwatch organisations and NHS Royal Colleges.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.—(Helen Morgan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 84, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, suggests that we collect and publish the data so that patients and the public can see it, and the Government can act on it, either in their position as the controller of healthcare or by encouraging ICBs, as the providers of local healthcare, to make improvements. That seems to me a more sensible, appropriate and proportionate approach, rather than setting up another bureaucratic oversight body with no real sense of how it would operate, what it would investigate or the possible outcomes of its investigations.

[Dr Johnson]

New clauses 12, 56 and 84 are about care in our accident and emergency departments and care in corridors. I do not want to rerun the debate on corridor care that we had in the Chamber last night, but corridor care does not provide safety, privacy and dignity, and it is unpleasant for the patient, their family and staff. If someone is in a corridor, how can they get changed, or use a commode or a bed pan? How can they be examined privately, and give information about their medical history without being overheard by a person walking down the corridor or the person in the bed next to them? Corridor care also has safety issues; for example, a patient may not be proximal to as much equipment, such as oxygen supplies and other equipment that might be required in the event of a collapse or arrest. It is not right and should not be the case that patients are cared for in corridors.

The hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett talked about the history, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East that the current situation and the future are what is important. A&E services are under pressure. Attendances went up by 2.5% last year, but in March 2025, 46,766 people waited more than 12 hours in A&E following a decision to admit before being moved to a more appropriate bed. That figure is up 8.8% on the previous year. The Government’s urgent and emergency care plan sought to improve that poor performance, but things have got worse. The latest NHS figures, from May 2026, show that more than 50,000 patients waited more than 12 hours following a decision to admit—17.1% higher than the May 2025 figure. The narrative that there was a problem but now things are getting better is not necessarily accurate. We keep being told that waiting lists are coming down, but they are higher than they were a month ago, and for those waiting for an admission or procedure, they are than they were a month ago and higher than they were a year ago.

[Dr Prinsley]

I wonder whether the hon. Member remembers that in 2010, when I believe there was an election—[Interruption.] Yes. The point I wish to make is that at the end of the previous Conservative Government, before Labour came back into office, waiting lists had reached an absolute record. Under the previous Labour Administration, waiting lists came down to almost nothing, but after 2010 they crept up and up, and by the time of the election in 2024 they had reached a record. I think she will recognise that Labour Governments have had strong records of reducing waiting lists, which is what we are doing now. We are only getting started, but it would be good to have some words of encouragement.

[Dr Johnson]

I am always happy to encourage the hon. Gentleman; I hope that in the impending reshuffle, he is given the opportunity to put his experience into practice. I have one word for him: pandemic. The pandemic made a huge difference to the numbers on waiting lists, and there is no current pandemic. It is possible to make arguments about whether the Government at the time—I was not in the Government at the time—were too harsh in their policies around elective care, whether patients would have come into hospitals for elective operations during covid or whether they would have preferred not to, and whether the waiting lists grew more than they may have done in other circumstances, but to try to say that the pandemic had no effect is going a stretch too far.

[Karin Smyth]

To correct the shadow Minister, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said that; he said the waiting lists have gone up. To be clear, in case her memory eludes her again, they were at 4 million before the pandemic and the Conservative party—her party, whose manifesto she stood on—did not meet a single target since before 2015. That is important for people to remember: 4 million people were on waiting lists before the pandemic started. The NHS went into crisis under the Conservatives’ leadership. Even if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East thinks it is tedious to remind them of their record, no member of the public thinks it is tedious; they will never be forgiven for that record.

[Dr Johnson]

I think what members of the public want is the people who are in government now to do something to improve their lives. I am in danger of repeating myself, which could present an extra concern when so many people are questioning my memory, but there has been a 2.5% increase in the number of A&E attendances, but a 17.1% increase in the number of people waiting more than 12 hours after a decision to admit. That suggests that the Government are not going in the right direction. The public may enjoy a history lesson from time to time, but what they really want to know is what is happening now to make their lives better. I am sure the Minister will give us the answer to that in her summing up, but at the moment the Government are not bringing down the long waits in A&E.

Let me return to the new clauses. Corridor care needs a whole-pathway approach. In last night’s debate we talked about the importance of preventing admissions—I know that is one of the Government’s shifts—in order to increase hospital capacity. The hon. Gentleman for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about capacity and the number of beds having reduced over a long period—another history lesson—but when my mum had me, a good few years ago, it was common for women to stay in hospital for quite a long time after having their child, and it was quite common for people to stay in bed for many days after having an operation. We now know that it is better for people to be up and about, and people leave hospital more quickly. That is a good thing. The reason for bed numbers coming down over successive Governments of different parties is clinical as well as managerial. I think that is worth saying.

Will the Minister answer a question that I asked in last night’s debate but, unless I missed it, she did not answer in her summing up? Does the NHS have more beds now than it did when Labour came to power in July 2024, or fewer? I believe the answer is fewer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Prinsley]

rose—

[Dr Johnson]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, but I need to answer my right hon. Friend’s question first. My right hon. Friend has a much better memory than me—I was much younger then—so I am sure his statistics will be accurate.

[Dr Prinsley]

I think the principal reduction that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston described was a result of the change of practice in the way that psychiatry was managed. During that period, we closed the asylums—large hospitals on the outskirts of almost every town and city. That was the result of a change in clinical practice—the idea that patients should be managed within the community. However, we continued to close acute beds, and it is the acute beds in the district general hospitals that are the problem we are talking about.

[Dr Johnson]

I think we are going back full circle to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, when he suggested that the problem was that beds had historically been closed. Now he is making the point that there were clinical reasons why that happened, not just managerial reasons. I think that is an important thing to note.

Moving on from capacity, we also need to look at the workforce. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how soon “imminent” is in terms of the workforce plan. There was also a point picked up earlier—I cannot remember who picked it up; it might have been the hon. Member for North Shropshire—about discharge from hospital and pharmacies. One of the challenges that I find as a clinician is that hospital pharmacies often close relatively early, which means that it is more difficult to discharge patients in the evening. That is something for the Minister to look at. There is also, of course, the importance of social care, and ensuring the provision of social care beds both to prevent admission and to get people out of hospital as quickly as is safely possible.

That is the background to this group of new clauses. New clause 12, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, would require a report on corridor care to be produced six months after the passage of the Act, and then every 12 months, containing data at the hospital, trust and ICB level on the number of individuals receiving care in an inappropriate place. That seems sensible data to collect, but I believe the Government may already to be collecting it; the Minister may be able to enlighten us on that. The report would also set out the steps taken in that year to reduce the number of patients in inappropriate care spaces, the plans for the coming year to reduce that number further—as I said, it is going up at the moment—and the funding allocated to that. There is some sense to that. Then the Secretary of State would have to give evidence in front of a panel, called the “corridor care tribunal”, which would include patients, affected families and impacted NHS staff, who would be selected by Healthwatch and NHS royal colleges.

I have just a couple of points on that. One is that Healthwatch will be abolished by the Bill, which would make that challenging—perhaps the new clause would need to be redrafted. Also, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and an NHS consultant paediatrician and, as far as I am aware, the royal colleges are independent of the national health service. They are separate; they are connected in terms of training, standards and advice, but I believe that they are organisationally independent. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have got that wrong.

I wonder whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire has considered whether the Health and Social Care Committee, which is elected and politically balanced, might be the right body to scrutinise those Government plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, who is a member of the Select Committee, is not here now, but—

[Gregory Stafford]

I am, too.

[Dr Johnson]

Sorry; I forgot. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon will tell me if I am wrong, but that is an elected Select Committee, with political balance, that is set up specifically to scrutinise the work of the Department of Health and Social Care. If the Department is working to try to reduce the number of patients receiving corridor care, and to measure it, it seems to me that the right organisation to scrutinise that work is already in place: the Health and Social Care Committee. I therefore think this measure would be a duplication. However, I understand the need to get patient voice into the picture; that is why it is unfortunate that the Government are choosing to abolish Healthwatch, which I think would do that very effectively.

New clause 56, also in the name of the Member for North Shropshire, talks about A&E waiting times. I will start by saying that we all want A&E waiting times to be shorter—we all want people to be seen quickly and do not want patients to suffer—so the intent behind this proposal, to get people seen more quickly, is obviously a good one.

However, the new clause would require, within six months, provision to be made requiring

“every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.”

I have a question about the wording of that, because my understanding is that someone is admitted to A&E when the decision is made to admit them to A&E and they become an A&E patient. I wonder whether the hon. Lady intends it to mean admission to an appropriate bed, whether in the trust or elsewhere. Usually, people waiting in corridors or in A&E are waiting for admission to the ward, rather than for someone to make a decision.

New clause 56 would also require the Secretary of State to establish and implement an A&E scheme to help trusts to achieve that requirement, and provides that the scheme must consider creating safety nets, step-down beds and a dedicated workforce plan for A&E—it will be nice to see the workforce plan, which the Government are supposed to have written—and mandating the presence of a “qualified clinician” in the waiting room. Will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell the Committee what she means by a qualified clinician? Does she mean a consultant, a senior nurse or a healthcare assistant? What sort of qualifications does she think that they must have? The Secretary of State must also have regard to Baroness Casey’s report, but that is not due to be written in time for the new clause, which creates a little tension. However, again, I agree with the principle that social care is important in this context.

In summary, the principle of new clause 56 is good and important, but I think that there are some issues with the drafting of it. New clause 84 in my name, which has been well covered by my colleagues, would just require the publication of data. In her speech earlier, the hon. Member for North Shropshire gave a figure of 15,000, but I looked back at Hansard and last night she said that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine reported that long waits caused 15,860 deaths. That figure tells us what a serious problem this is. Being able to measure that figure and, I hope, see it falling would be a helpful step.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 14, 79 and 80, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in England and then to produce a strategy every two years to meet that target. This is not the first time the House has heard about life expectancy targets; as I am sure you will remember, Ms Lewell, the previous Government’s 2022 levelling-up White Paper talked about narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy between the areas where it is highest and lowest, and aimed for healthy life expectancy to rise.

As the hon. Member for Winchester said, life expectancy has increased quite dramatically over the last century, but that is largely due to improvements in child mortality. That is a good thing, but it is worth looking at how healthy life expectancy is calculated. The Sullivan method starts by looking at mortality rates over a specific timeframe for a specific population, and then takes data from a cross-sectional study where people are asked to rate their own health, multiplies them together and produces a figure for healthy life years. Therefore, the main element that separates healthy life expectancy from unhealthy life expectancy is survey responses; it is not a clinical metric. If somebody on a huge amount of medication and treatment feels healthy, they are healthy. If someone on very minor treatment feels unhealthy, they are unhealthy. It is a self-reported measure.

The Government’s website says that if mortality improves by 2%, healthy life expectancy increases a very small amount; if self-reported feeling healthy goes up 2%, there is a much bigger increase in healthy life expectancy. We want people not just to live longer but to live well, but it is a case of how we measure it and how we ensure that there are no perverse incentives. We should look at it over time in the same individuals. How do people feel when they get up in the winter, when it is cold, dark, raining or icy? They may feel less healthy than when the sun is shining, it is the weekend or England have won the world cup.

The Government’s own figures show that musculoskeletal health is particularly important. Musculoskeletal conditions are prevalent among 17.2% of the population, and people with them are three times more likely to have self-reported ill health. We have asked before if the Government will introduce a modern service framework on musculoskeletal disease, having scrapped our long-term conditions strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government have given more consideration to that and are now willing to do an MSF on musculoskeletal health.

New clause 79 would require the Government to create a committee across Government, including the Prime Minister, all Cabinet members and one Minister from each Department. The idea behind the new clause—that we need to work together—is important, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how feasible, practical and effective that would be.

Finally, new clause 80 concerns the duty to promote public health. Of course, it is the Minister’s duty to do his or her job, and part of that is promoting public health. What does the Minister think the practical effects of that new clause would be on bureaucracy in Departments?

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording.

New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers—I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy committee. There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point about prevalence in the north-east. Often, the prevalence of these diseases is also to do with post-industrial work, which many people had to do without concern or knowledge about the effects on their health.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East mentioned practical examples as well: the opening and building of things such as community diagnostic centres in places that are accessible and open to the public, and neighbourhood health. That is entirely the drive that we have: for services where people are, and where the greatest health need is, and not expecting people to travel.

In terms of smoking, one of the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government was of course the ban on indoor smoking. My mother was a barmaid for all her adult life; it is hard to imagine that people were just standing there at her place of work, blowing smoke at her while she was working. I tell my children, “Yes, we used to sit on aeroplanes with people smoking,” and that, unbelievably, some people smoked at the back of buses on the way back from school, and so on and so forth. It is really quite shocking.

The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which we have also talked about in this Committee, is also a real testament to the work of this House, but didn’t it take a long time, Ms Lewell? I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for pursuing that in the face of great adversity from his own party at the time. That was not, obviously, by the Members present, who all have a high concern about health, but perhaps by others on the Conservative Benches at the time, and then indeed in the Lords, who sought to thwart it—thwart is a strong word in this context; obviously, they made their points, but they sought to stop that Bill making progress at various stages.

Some of my colleagues were coming back at different times, saying that they were working on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and I said, “What, still? Really? Has it not come through yet?” That showed how hard it is, when something so well evidenced and so supported by public health experts, on something so detrimental to public health—particularly for people living in poorer communities, such as the one I represent in Bristol South—still takes such a time to get through.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is very, very aware of my views and opinions on the Tobacco and Vapes Act, particularly on vaping and stopping vaping among children. That Act, a bit like this Bill, left lots of opportunities for the Government to provide for regulations. Anyone who has been in a shop in the past few days will have seen vapes still behind the counter, still very visible, very colourful and in lots of different flavours and suchlike. Can the Minister update the Committee, and therefore the House, on when she expects the regulations provided for by the Tobacco and Vapes Act to come into force, so that we can actually apply the law, as opposed to just having it sat on the statute book?

[Karin Smyth]

Well, I thank the hon. Member for her support. As I said, I did not expect that people here present, who understand the impact of that work, were the ones who were thwarting that. I do not have off the top of my head exactly when the regulations under that Act will come forward, but I am sure we can furnish the hon. Member with details as soon as possible. We all want to see that happening—in particular, the work going on around high streets, such as prevention of fraud by shops for all sorts of things, not just vapes. Obviously, that is high on the agenda, as it is for some of my colleagues as well. Those places and people are blighting our high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise and that work on the Home Affairs Committee. Again, it shows the Committee the wide range of work that goes on. Of course, many hon. Members are campaigning and working hard. Those shops are blights on our communities, and as with most illicit drug dealing, they affect the most vulnerable in places where they can pick on the most vulnerable. They are in areas of high deprivation, and that is something we need to stop. I commend all the communities and community leaders that work so hard to stop that happening in their areas. We must address it.

Returning to new clause 14, while I fully recognise and share the ambition that sits behind the new clause, introducing a new statutory duty is not the right way to achieve it. A healthy life expectancy is a long-term outcome shaped by a wide range of factors across society and Government, many of which cannot be meaningfully addressed through a rigid statutory timetable. Requiring the Secretary of State to set a statutory target within six months, publish a refreshed cross-Government strategy every two years and make formal statements to Parliament risks creating a process-heavy framework that prioritises reporting over delivery.

What matters most is sustained practical action to improve prevention, tackle health inequalities, expand access to care and address those wider determinants of health. That is why the Government have already published our 10-year health plan to improve the nation’s health, of which healthy life expectancy is one measure. That is central to us in bringing forward the 10-year plan. Publishing a new strategy every two years would be duplicative and would not help to deliver the plan that we already have in place. Work is already underway, and I am sure the House will hold us to account for the progress we make, as it rightly should. I believe we share the same aim that the new clause seeks, but we differ on the best means to get there.

On new clause 79, I assure the Committee that the Government are already working across Departments to improve health and reduce inequalities, ensuring that action on health is embedded across Government. For example, through the warm homes plan and rented sector reform, we are supporting healthier homes and reducing health harms associated with poor housing. Through the “Keep Britain Working” review, we are addressing the links between work, health and wellbeing. Through the environment improvement plan, we are tackling the health harms of air pollution, and in lifting hundreds of children out of poverty, we will transform their health and life chances.

Those endeavours demonstrate that improving health outcomes is already embedded across Government activity and does not depend on the creation of a new statutory committee. While I have considerable sympathy with the aim of the new clause, and I am a strong supporter, as I hope I have assured the Committee, of supporting those wider determinants of health, I am not persuaded that placing detailed internal Government structures into primary legislation is either necessary or desirable. We heard well from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield about some of the unintended complications about the new clause.

As we have repeatedly said, in the Bill we are not seeking to be unduly prescriptive or create unnecessary bureaucracy that may risk slowing down delivery. Indeed, we are aiming to reduce that bureaucracy. Furthermore, the Government must retain the flexibility to organise in a way that best supports delivery as the context evolves. The Government already bring Departments together to advance shared goals and will continue to strengthen collaboration wherever it is needed.

On new clause 80, I am again not convinced that creating a new statutory duty on every Minister is either necessary or the most effective means of achieving the objective of the hon. Member for Winchester. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care already has a statutory duty to protect public health and powers to take the appropriate steps to improve the health of the people of England. We have already discussed clause 4, which reformulates the Secretary of State’s duty on health inequalities. Those provide a clear statutory framework for improving health and addressing inequalities.

Beyond that, the Government do not operate in departmental silos. Ministers consider the implications of decisions and work collectively in the public interest, including on health impacts where relevant, which is particularly important to this Government. The proof is in the action we have started to take across Government to improve health. Although I agree entirely that health should be considered across Government, imposing a broad new legal duty on every Minister would risk creating unnecessary bureaucracy without meaningfully improving outcomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield highlighted.

Creating new procedure and reporting requirements is not in the spirit of this Bill, which has flexibility and a focus on delivery at its heart. We also heard that from the shadow Minister. Our focus is and must remain on delivering improvements in health outcomes, supporting prevention and tackling the causes of ill health, rather than creating additional statutory red tape. The objective of new clause 80 can be achieved without placing a new statutory requirement on every Minister.

The shadow Minister asked me about plans for a modern service framework for MSK, and we currently do not have plans to develop one. The national quality board will assess all proposals for new MSFs against clear criteria, which we have highlighted before, ensuring that we prioritise the area where a framework will have the greatest impact for patients.

[Dr Johnson]

I understood that one of the Government’s greatest priorities was to reduce waiting lists, but one of the things that people are waiting for the most is musculoskeletal or orthopaedic treatment. Why is it not a priority for the Government?

[Karin Smyth]

There is a long priority list for MSFs that was left by the last Government for different reasons. There are lots of things will bring down MSK waiting lists, such as more diagnostic facilities. As the shadow Minister knows, 80% of people on the waiting list are waiting for diagnostics, which is why we are fast-tracking and pushing more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East said, community diagnostic centres in places such as Croydon East will get people through for the diagnostics they need. There are also some things that the shadow Minister’s party seems to continue to oppose, such as advice and guidance for GPs so that, if there are alternatives to deal with MSK, of which there is already a lot of evidence, they can refer people to a more appropriate or faster access route in the meantime. Those actions are being taken.

She is quite right that orthopaedics is a large part of the waiting list. However, diagnostics, access to faster treatment and using the independent sector where appropriate will particularly target orthopaedic waiting lists as part of our elective reform plan.

[Dr Johnson]

I am not opposed to the principle of GPs seeking advice or guidance; the issue is the compulsory nature of that and GPs not being able to refer.

[Karin Smyth]

The shadow Minister is tempting me to divert away from addressing the main point, but I will take her point on board. I am glad that the Conservatives do not oppose the principle of advice and guidance, because evidence suggests that it is a good route to patients having care closer to home and getting faster treatment. She knows this because it has been clarified, but if there is any doubt: there is no compulsion on GPs to do that.

The hon. Member for Winchester talked about his expertise and blowing his own trumpet with regard to antimicrobial resistance. He jests slightly about that expertise, but he raises a really important point about AMR that I am sure we will talk about more when we discuss new clause 32. He is absolutely right that it is an important public health issue that crosses many divides, and I look forward to discussing that later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

New clause 15 would require that the Secretary of State lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require that the arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing be laid before the House to be voted on.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that, by 2036, the UK-US pharmaceuticals deal will have cost as much as £9 billion. That money could be transformative for the NHS. It could be put towards ending corridor care, as the Committee discussed earlier, or towards hiring thousands of ward staff, buying countless radiotherapy machines and starting to deliver high-quality care and help at home for the elderly and disabled.

To make matters worse, Trump’s ambassador hauled in the head of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—the expert independent body that considers value for money in the NHS—to rebuke him over his opposition to the deal. It is utterly outrageous that a British public servant has been dressed down by a foreign regime for putting the interests of British patients and the British taxpayer first. It is crazy that billions of pounds of NHS funding is being spent to placate Trump, at the expense of the patient wellbeing. We want to support the British life sciences sector. That should be a domestic matter for the UK Government to address holistically, through negotiations with the sector; it should not be dictated from Washington.

Hiking payments for medicine is the wrong approach for patients who badly need investment in frontline staff, hospitals and equipment. The lack of transparency over the full cost has already created great uncertainty in the sector, and it is astonishing that such a major decision will be made without the say of the British people via a vote in Parliament. The Government refused even to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal, which has raised suspicion and caused some to think that something is being hidden. Through the people who elected us, this House—not the White House—decides on matters of national importance. The Liberal Democrats have tabled these new clauses to allow the House to have a proper vote on the deal.

[Dr Johnson]

I will be relatively brief. New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require the arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be laid before the House to be voted on.

A key concern is costing. There have been various estimates of the additional cost of medicines. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said that he would not change or cut the NHS budget to pay for that increased cost. Will the Minister tell us the estimated extra cost of medicines, and where that money will come from, if not from the DHSC budget?

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Like the shadow Minister, I will be relatively brief. [Interruption.] It was not clear whether that was a sound of appreciation or disappointment from the Minister. I will assume that she receives everything I say with the same noise and grace.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I sit—and was questioned at some length by the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), about the UK-US trade deal. It was striking that the Secretary of State appeared unable to answer the basic question of whether an impact assessment could be presented to the Committee—under whatever terms of secrecy or confidentiality the Department wanted to place on it—to allow us to assess the costs, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, and, one would hope, the benefits.

The Secretary of State was very clear that there were benefits, but he was unable to outline what they were. He cited commercial confidentiality, which I do understand; there will be commercially confidential elements to the deal. What was really striking, however, was that even though the Select Committee was very happy to receive the information under whatever strictures he wanted to put on it, so that we could scrutinise it, it was not given. That is serious cause for concern.

I understand what the hon. Member for North Shropshire seeks to achieve through new clauses 15 and 76, but there are some problems in their drafting. There will be commercially confidential elements to the deal, so laying it before the House essentially completely unredacted, as new clause 15 would require, might pose real problems. Likewise, I assume that the intention of new clause 76 is to focus specifically on the UK-US trade deal as currently formulated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.

[Dr Johnson]

This Government came to power saying that they would be more transparent, but they have not been. It took us months to get numbers out of the Government about the Chagos Islands deal.

[Dr Chambers]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that intervention.

Unless something changes significantly by the time we get to vote on new clause 76, which I understand will not be today, we will press it to a vote for transparency’s sake, but we will withdraw new clause 15. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers

“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—

‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers

(1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers 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 carers,

(b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health,

(c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and

(d) the need to ensure carers 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—

(a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes,

(b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and

(c) provide carers with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing.

(4) In preparing a Joint Forward Plan, an integrated care board must include—

(a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of carers within its area,

(b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for carers, and

(c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by carers.

(5) In this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

This group of new clauses is about carers and how we look after them. They do so much work for so many people across the country by looking after their loved ones. Many of them are not necessarily in good health themselves, and some are even children. These new clauses have a positive intention: to try to improve carers’ lives and make sure that they are recognised.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on his success in keeping open his respite care centre. Perhaps he could share his notes with me, because the Reform county council in Lincolnshire is currently trying to close Swallow Lodge, a respite care centre that provides for people of working age who have severe disabilities. The council wants to close it, and the people there are devastated by that suggestion. We had a public meeting, which many people came to, and they had not been consulted at that point. I think that an assumption was made that they are not able to communicate, but many of them are able to do so with support. However, that communication had not happened.

It has caused fear for people. They are worried about where they will go instead and whether it will be suitable. What about the people they made friendships with at the centre? Many of them have elderly parents—in their 80s, in some cases. It is also economically short-sighted, because people may end up going into full-time care, which will ultimately cost the council more.

The council has now been persuaded to do a full consultation, which will happen over the next few months. If the hon. Member can share anything with me that was successful for him that could help me keep Swallow Lodge open against the Reform county council’s changes, I would be very grateful.

[Sojan Joseph]

As the chair of the APPG on adult social care, I pay tribute to unpaid carers for the enormous contribution they make to their families, their communities and wider society. I often have meetings with them, and as part of my job before I became an MP—I worked in the NHS—I had a lot of contact with carers. I have seen so many vulnerable patients benefit from the enormous amount of work that carers do. In some services, such as the mental health service, there is already provision for identifying carers, carers’ assessments and support for carers. Carers provide extraordinary support, often at great personal sacrifice.

Although the intention here is to make the wellbeing of carers a statutory duty, we need to be careful that we do not put any statutory responsibility for that on the NHS and create more administrative burden for it. I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that point, and if the Government would consider something to support carers, while not putting any more administrative burden on the NHS, where we are focusing on providing more support on the frontline.

New clauses 16 and 17 would impose new obligations on integrated care boards to promote carers’ wellbeing and to identify and record unpaid carers whenever they come into contact with NHS services. I want to make it clear that we should not create any more administrative burdens for NHS frontline services. Although identifying and supporting carers is important, the requirement would add to the administrative burden on NHS organisations at a time when they should be focusing on delivering frontline care.

We should be cautious about creating new statutory duties that divert resources and staff time away from patients. The proposal for a national respite care scheme is similarly well intentioned, but it risks imposing a centralised, one-size-fits-all model across a system that already makes local authorities and health boards responsible for assessing local needs and delivering support. Again, although we need more support for carers, we should be careful that we are not duplicating any of the services that are already available. Some charities also do a brilliant job of supporting carers. The provisions in these new clauses should be looked into, but we need to be cautious that we do not create more burdens for our existing systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. All Members are committed to ensuring that carers receive the care and support they need. The Government recognise that unpaid carers play a vital role in sustaining the health and wellbeing of millions of people across our country. I pay tribute to them, and recognise all the work they have contributed to. I also note the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford on the APPG with Members from across the House.

The hon. Member for Winchester highlighted the shocking impact on the physical and mental health of people who are caring, which we heard about in the evidence session. That is an important issue, and it is good that we can now talk more about the mental health of carers. As he rightly said, many of us are carers. It is not an easy thing to do.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his comments about the importance of wraparound care to people who do not want to leave the one they care for. I recognise that respite care is important.

I wish the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham good luck in her campaign in her constituency with the Reform council.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for her good wishes. The council has not just proposed closing Swallow Lodge; it has also recently closed the memory support service. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said about services for people with dementia, and this is another area where people will suffer because of the closure of vital services.

[Karin Smyth]

When the hon. Lady gets back to her constituency, I am sure she will be campaigning heavily on behalf of her constituents.

We acknowledge the need to support carers’ health and wellbeing, but we do not think new clause 16 is necessary, because the existing legal framework already requires the system to support them. The new clause duplicates existing duties and risks adding complexity, rather than improving support in practice. Carers are explicitly referenced in the NHS constitution, which establishes the principles and values of the NHS in England and sets out the aim of improving the health and wellbeing of the population. The Secretary of State for Health, all NHS bodies, private and voluntary sector providers supplying NHS services, and local authorities in the exercise of their public health functions are required by law to take account of the constitution in their decisions and actions. Local authorities and NHS bodies also have a duty of co-operation in respect of their functions relating to carers.

Finally, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will take on NHS England’s role in promoting the involvement of each patient in decisions relating to their illness, care or treatment. That duty includes the involvement of carers and representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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 62—Family support duty following serious childhood diagnosis—

“(1) Where a child is diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must, within 14 days of diagnosis, ensure that the child’s family is offered appropriate information, support and coordination services.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the responsible NHS provider must offer—

(a) access to a named family support coordinator;

(b) information regarding welfare benefits, financial support and relevant public services;

(c) information regarding employment rights and workplace support available to parents and carers;

(d) signposting to appropriate mental health and psychological support services;

(e) information regarding relevant local and national charities, support organisations and peer-support services;

(f) a written Family Support Plan setting out the support available to the family during treatment; and

(g) notification and information sharing in accordance with subsection (3).

(3) The responsible NHS provider must provide the child’s registered general practitioner and where different, the registered general practitioners of the child’s parents or primary carers, with a Family Support Summary.

(4) A Family Support Summary must include—

(a) the child’s diagnosis;

(b) the proposed treatment plan;

(c) the expected duration and intensity of treatment, where known;

(d) information regarding the potential impact of the diagnosis and treatment on parents, carers and siblings; and

(e) any recommendations regarding wellbeing support, monitoring or referral for the family unit.

(5) Following receipt of a Family Support Summary, the relevant general practice shall be encouraged to consider the wellbeing needs of parents, carers and siblings and, where appropriate, provide information, assessment, referral or signposting to suitable support services.

(6) NHS England must publish guidance for NHS providers on the discharge of duties under this section.

(7) In this section—

‘child’ means a person under the age of 16;

‘family’ includes parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings;

‘life-threatening condition’ means a condition designated as such by the Secretary of State in guidance.”

This new clause places a duty on NHS providers to offer practical information, coordination and support to families within 14 days of a child being diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition.

New clause 63—Parent mental health and bereavement support duty—

“(1) Where a child is diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the psychological wellbeing of parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings is considered as part of the child’s care pathway.

(2) Within 14 days of diagnosis, the responsible NHS provider must offer—

(a) a parental psychological wellbeing assessment;

(b) access to a designated family support practitioner, psychologist, counsellor or other appropriately qualified professional;

(c) information regarding the psychological impact of serious childhood illness, including trauma, anxiety, depression, stress and bereavement;

(d) a written Family Mental Health Support Plan;

(e) notification to the child’s registered general practitioner and, where different, the registered general practitioners of parents or primary carers.

(3) During active treatment, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that parents and primary carers are offered periodic psychological wellbeing reviews.

(4) The responsible NHS provider must offer an additional psychological wellbeing review following any—

(a) significant deterioration in the child’s condition,

(b) relapse,

(c) progression of disease,

(d) transition to palliative care, or

(e) other material change in prognosis.

(5) The responsible NHS provider must ensure that support under this section is offered proactively and must not be dependent upon a parent, guardian, carer or sibling requesting support, identifying their own need, or making a self-referral.

(6) Following the death of a child, the responsible NHS provider must—

(a) offer a bereavement wellbeing assessment to parents or primary carers;

(b) offer access to bereavement counselling, psychological support or equivalent specialist services;

(c) make proactive contact with the family within 14 days of the child’s death;

(d) offer further follow-up support at intervals specified in guidance issued by NHS England;

(e) ensure that referral pathways are available where significant psychological distress, trauma, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress symptoms are identified.

(7) The responsible NHS provider must ensure that information regarding available support services is provided to siblings and that age-appropriate emotional support pathways are available where required.

(8) NHS England must publish guidance regarding—

(a) parental psychological wellbeing assessments;

(b) family mental health support following serious childhood diagnosis;

(c) bereavement support following the death of a child;

(d) support for siblings affected by serious childhood illness;

(e) referral pathways into specialist mental health services;

(f) minimum standards for proactive family mental health support.

(9) NHS England must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on compliance with this section.

(10) In this section—

‘child’ means a person under the age of 16;

‘family’ includes parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings;

‘life-threatening condition’ means a condition designated by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(11) The Secretary of State must, within three years of the commencement of this section, undertake a review of its operation and lay a report before Parliament.”

This new clause would establish a statutory duty on NHS providers to identify and support the psychological wellbeing of parents, carers and siblings following the diagnosis of a life threatening childhood condition. It would create a proactive, opt-out family mental health pathway from diagnosis through treatment and, where applicable, bereavement.

New clause 64—Review of uncertain imaging findings in high-risk childhood illness—

“(1) Where imaging undertaken in relation to a child with a high-risk cancer or other life threatening condition identifies findings that are—

(a) inconclusive,

(b) indeterminate, or

(c) suspicious,

the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the findings are reviewed by a consultant clinician responsible for the child's care.

(2) Following such review, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the child’s parent, guardian or primary carer is informed—

(a) of the nature of the uncertainty identified;

(b) whether disease progression, relapse or recurrence can be confidently excluded;

(c) what further investigations or surveillance are being considered; and

(d) the risks and benefits associated with immediate further imaging, alternative imaging modalities, or continued observation.

(3) Where disease progression or relapse cannot be confidently excluded, the responsible NHS provider must consider whether additional imaging or investigation should be undertaken within 14 days or as soon as clinically practicable, whichever is sooner.

(4) The outcome of any discussion held under subsection (2), including the views expressed by the child's parent, guardian or primary carer, must be recorded in the child's medical records.

(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the operation of this section, including circumstances in which further imaging should be considered following uncertain or indeterminate findings.”

This new clause requires consultant review of uncertain imaging findings in children with designated high-risk conditions. The amendment also aims to ensure that parents are informed of the uncertainty, the available options and the risks and benefits of those options before a decision is made.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who tabled new clause 25, asked me to speak to it, which I shall do briefly. This is a very serious issue. Critically ill children are infants, children and adolescents with life-threatening illness or injury, often requiring intensive, continuous care to survive conditions from leukaemia to meningococcal disease, traumatic brain injuries and major surgery such as spinal surgery. I should say that I am a consultant paediatrician, but I have worked in paediatric intensive care as a junior—now called a resident—doctor.

The new clause as drafted does not, I think, do what the hon. Member was aiming for. When I read it through, I think he is looking at cases such as the tragic one of little Charlie Gard, whom we all remember died of encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, known as MDDS. It is incredibly rare. That tragic case highlighted the potential for disputes between parents and doctors, which, thankfully, are unusual.

The new clause is headed, “Parents of critically ill children: communication and involvement in decision-making”. Of course parents should be involved in decision making about their children, but it is worth noting that the median time that children spend in ICU is two days and that, thankfully, most of them get better—very few do not. The new clause talks about teachers being involved, which in most cases is unnecessary and impractical; in many cases, a child may be admitted on a Friday and discharged from the ICU by the Monday. In the majority of cases, there is no practical reason for teachers to be involved.

I understand the desire for parents to be part of every meeting, but sometimes clinicians need to be able to talk frankly about cases. Sometimes they will have multidisciplinary meetings where they talk about a plethora of different cases, or they may compare one case with another in terms of what they have seen, the findings of scans and the like, so it is not possible to have parents in every single meeting, although it is of course desirable for them to be aware of the discussions.

Other parts of the new clause, including provision for parents to know about everything and to set out how communication and language needs may be met, seem reasonable. It mentions independent mediation where there is disagreement, which is a beneficial way to go about things, but we must not legislate so as to get in the way of urgent care, because most critically ill children in intensive care have urgent care needs that need dealing with now, not in a week’s time. Forming ethics committees to make decisions takes a long time, and that would get in the way of urgent care.

I think the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley is aiming for legislation that relates to chronically mechanically ventilated children with significant medical conditions, rather than children with an acute critical illness, but I said I would move the new clause and I have. I think he is trying to provide better care for some of the sickest children. That is a desirable aim and I know he cares deeply about it, but the new clause as drafted would not do what I think he aims for, and it could get in the way of paediatricians and others managing some of the sickest children in the country, so I will not press it to a vote.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley for tabling new clause 25, and grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her comments on it. It is a genuine pleasure to hear the expertise of clinicians such as her who work in the field of children’s health. She is obviously very passionate about that, and I thank her for bringing her expertise and commitment to looking after children, including critically ill children, to the Committee.

I recognise the profound impact that receiving a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition has on a child and their wider family. At such an overwhelming time in their lives, it is vital that families feel supported, informed and able to navigate the care and services available to them. We recognise that families can face huge variation in the support available and that they have to navigate complex systems at a particularly difficult time. I know that many hon. Members support many families in such circumstances in their constituencies. The Government are committed to ensuring that families have access to the support they need in the most straightforward way possible.

New clause 25 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards on communications with parents of critically ill children and on parents’ involvement in decision making in respect of the treatment or care of their child. We heard from the Opposition spokesperson about some of the operational issues with some of its provisions, but there are no issues with its intent: of course parents should be involved and have good decision making at such a time.

Decisions about the care of a critically ill child can of course be distressing. We need to ensure that we get the process right from the beginning. That starts with good communication, sensitive handling and ensuring best practice across the system. Healthcare professionals should always act in the best interests of their patients; the views of parents are of course very important, but the child’s best interests are paramount, and we should not do anything that undermines that crucial principle. It is important that families and medical professionals communicate and, where possible, reach agreement on the care and treatment that is in the best interests of the child.

To support that, there are already many excellent examples of guidance and best practice across the health system. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is currently updating its framework for clinical practice on navigating decisions to provide, limit or withdraw treatment towards the end of a child’s life. That framework will include communication principles, legal and ethical principles, and clinical and practical considerations, including the role of clinical ethics services. It will also include guidance on navigating disagreements for professionals, children, young people and their families. An e-learning platform is available to staff working at all levels in children’s healthcare. The training programme provides professionals with a suite of resources to enhance knowledge, skills and confidence. It supports healthcare providers to recognise, manage and de-escalate conflict between families and healthcare providers where it occurs, and to signpost to both professional resources and resources for families. The actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is setting out the important guidance that can be provided to clinicians managing the care of children who are seriously unwell. I want to add for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which is producing that guidance; I am grateful to her for setting out its importance. End-of-life-care decisions are very difficult. They need to be taken in conjunction with families but—the Minister is absolutely right—they must be made in the best interests of the child in all cases.

[Karin Smyth]

I am sure that the college will make best use of the hon. Member’s clinical expertise and her expertise as a legislator to get that guidance right. We work with royal colleges to ensure that we get the best clinical evidence into guidelines. I hope the actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice, training and guidance on shared decision making and dispute resolution, so that it is embedded across the system.

There are a number of other important measures in this group that have not been mentioned. Let me just say that, alongside some of the things I have outlined, we want to progress system-wide reforms to improve the way children and young people, and their families, are supported across many conditions. We are working to bring forward a modern service framework for children and young people that will set out how we will improve quality for children and young people’s services in the longer term, as part of our 10-year health plan.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Appeals against health and social care provision in EHC plans

“(1) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1530) are amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) After regulation 42, insert—

‘42A Other matters relating to EHC plans against which appeals may be brought

(1) In addition to the matters set out in section 51(2) of the Act, a child’s parent or a young person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the matters set out in paragraph (2), subject to section 55 of the Act (mediation).

The matters are—

(a) a decision of a local authority, following an EHC needs assessment, that it is not necessary for health care provision or social care provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan;

(b) where an EHC plan is maintained for the child or young person—

(i) the child’s or young person’s health care or social care needs as specified in the plan;

(ii) the health care provision or social care provision specified in the plan.’

(3) In regulation 43 (appeals), after paragraph (2) insert—

‘(3) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c);

(b) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d).

(4) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) the health care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) are amended;

(b) the social care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) are amended;

(c) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) where those needs have not been specified in the plan; and

(d) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) where those needs have not been specified in the plan.

(5) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g);

(b) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h).

(6) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) the health care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) is amended;

(b) the social care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) is amended;

(c) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan; and

(d) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan.

(7) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of health care needs or health care provision, it must send a copy of the order to the responsible commissioning body.

(8) When sending a copy of an order, the First-tier Tribunal may also send a copy of the decision which disposes of any appeal brought under section 51(1) of the Act or under regulation 42A to the responsible commissioning body.

(9) The responsible commissioning body must respond within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order to—

(a) the child's parent or the young person, and

(b) the local authority that maintains the EHC plan.

(10) The time limit specified in paragraph (9) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply for the responsible commissioning body's response.

(11) A response under paragraph (9) must—

(a) be in writing,

(b) state what steps, if any, the responsible commissioning body has decided to take following its consideration of the order, and

(c) give reasons for any decision not to follow the order, or any part of it.

(12) The local authority must send a copy of the response received from the responsible commissioning body under paragraph (9)(b) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date it was received.

(13) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of social care needs or social care provision, the local authority must issue the amended EHC plan to the child's parent or the young person within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order.

(14) The time limit specified in paragraph (13) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply.

(15) The local authority must send a copy of the amended EHC plan under paragraph (13) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date on which this is issued to the child's parent or the young person.’

(4) The Special Educational Needs and Disability (First-tier Tribunal Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1306) are revoked.

(5) In consequence of the revocation made by subsection (3), the following 15 provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 are also revoked—

(a) regulation 10(3)(e);

(b) regulation 14(2)(e);

(c) regulation 201(11)(e);

(d) regulation 21(10)(e);

(e) regulation 22(5)(e);

(f) regulation 25(2)(e); and

(g) regulation 31(3)(e).”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause extends the powers of the First-tier Tribunal so that when it is determining an appeal it may order that Education, Health and Care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on these matters.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Chambers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 28, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, extends the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when it determines an appeal, it may order that education, health and care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters.

I am sure all Members are probably in a similar situation in that EHCPs, in their various forms, are one of the main reasons we get contacted by constituents; they certainly fill up my inbox. Following the Education Committee’s report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”, which identified significant gaps in accountability and engagement from the DHSC and health services in the special educational needs and disabilities—or SEND—system, the Health and Social Care Committee held a one-off evidence session to build on those findings, looking at the delivery of the health aspects of EHCPs.

The Health and Social Care Committee followed up a recommendation that the Education Committee had made that the powers of the SEND tribunal service should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. SEND tribunals are independent national tribunals that decide appeals against local authority decisions about the special educational needs of children and young people, including decisions made about an EHCP. Currently, they can make binding recommendations in relation to education provision, but not in relation to health and social care needs.

The Education Committee argued:

“This would ensure that when a failure to deliver a health provision specified in an EHC plan occurs, health bodies are legally obligated to take corrective action.”

When the Health and Social Care Committee raised that with witnesses in its evidence session, several were supportive of placing this duty in legislation, although they noted that it would require other reforms to workforce and commissioning arrangements to be successful. New clause 28 would provide a level playing field between education bodies and ICBs, so that ICBs are also under a legal obligation to comply with recommendations from SEND tribunals.

[Dr Johnson]

I should say that I am a member of the Education Committee. As the hon. Member for Winchester says, new clause 28 would extend the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when determining an appeal, it may order that EHCPs must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters.

It is clearly important that children with special educational needs get the support they need. We are all very aware, from our inboxes, that that does not always happen. I do not know whether putting this into legislation would make it happen, or whether it would need much more work than one clause, but clearly it is a very important aim and I support the principle of it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how she thinks this could work in practice and whether it is legislation or a more widespread plan that is required.

[Gregory Stafford]

I rise briefly to speak on this as well. I should note for the record that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities.

The hon. Member for Winchester, on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, made the case very strongly. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we took evidence as he described. The lack of a statutory obligation in the current EHCP process is a fundamental problem. We need to ensure that the health elements are put on the same footing as the social care ones. As I am sure is the case in every hon. and right. hon Member’s constituency inbox, the number of children who are receiving or require support with special educational needs and disabilities, and the frustrations with the process both locally and nationally, are rightly something that we, as parliamentarians and policymakers, need to get a grip on.

Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

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 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

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 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second 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 Johnson]

I will take an intervention.

[Gregory Stafford]

Well—I just say carry on, that’s what I say!

[The Chair]

That is up to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Johnson]

I am very happy 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Ultimately, whether to take strike action is a decision for trade unions. At the same time, we want to work constructively with all unions to avoid disrupting services for patients. On the Opposition spokesperson’s point, it is disappointing that the consultants have balloted to potentially go on strike. Obviously, we will make every effort to work with them constructively, as we are doing with all service groups, to avoid that situation and to build an NHS fit for the future, which is something that we need to do with them in a constructive way. For those reasons, I ask her to withdraw the motion.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I wish to press new clause 83 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Correct.

[Dr Prinsley]

Does it actually say that in the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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.

[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.

[Liz Twist]

I too want to see a strategy—a strong strategy—and I will continue to talk about that, but will the hon. Lady acknowledge that the strategy has been talked about since before the general election? We needed to see action then, as we need to see action now.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.