Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 47, page 34, line 29, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must make provision for medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.

(3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of introducing a statutory requirement for mandatory medical markers for firearms licence holders to be used by those relevant in providing patient care.”

This amendment would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, in clause 47, page 34, line 29, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must make provision for prior membership in the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record.

(3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of making prior membership in the armed forces visible on the single patient record.

(3C) A report under subsection (3B) must consider—

(a) the ability of veterans to access the necessary NHS support, and

(b) the ability of medical staff to provide former members of the armed forces with appropriate care.”

This amendment would require prior membership in the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record and require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior membership in the armed forces visible on the single patient record.

[Dr Chambers]

The amendment was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.

I will not read through all my speaking notes but, in a nutshell, a person rightly undergoes mental health checks before they acquire a firearms licence, but that will not be reviewed until they are due to renew their firearms licence a few years later. If their mental health status changed during that time, the amendment would enable them to be flagged to healthcare workers and GPs as a person who has a firearms licence, so that any necessary proactive measures could be taken to ensure that they are still safe to have that licence, or should have it removed, rather than waiting for them to apply for a new licence in a few years’ time.

The British Medical Association supports the amendment and the Royal College of General Practitioners thinks it would be valuable. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of health issues that could have an impact on the certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Quite often, however, the GP is not aware that the person is in possession of a firearms licence.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

In essence, we debated the amendment in a Westminster Hall debate some months ago, when I had the dubious honour of being the shadow spokesman for the Conservative party despite not being a Home Office shadow Minister. It became clear in that debate that mandatory medical markers do not exist. It is still a voluntary system. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to make the system equitable?

The hon. Gentleman and I support mandatory medical markers, and there seemed to be cross-party support for them in the Westminster Hall debate. If they are not mandatory, some people will potentially be put under a different system, because their sufficiency or ability to hold a shotgun licence could be taken away from them, while those who are not on the system, because it is not mandatory, would not lose theirs. How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the equity issue and the potential for some people to be missed?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Chambers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will, but first I want to be kind to the hon. Gentleman and say that, as with his previous amendment, he has opened up a conversation about the single patient record that we really need to have, to ensure that what is on it needs to be there for the treatment of patients. As legislators, we need to have a wide conversation to decide what it includes and how it is going to be used.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points, especially given his experience as the Conservative spokesperson in the Westminster Hall debate on this subject, for which he did a lot of research. I do not think we need to worry about medical professionals seeing that someone has a firearms licence and potentially treating them differently because of assumptions they make about them. Medical professionals are trained to be dispassionate, and they try to show little bias. I would be very surprised if a doctor, seeing it flagged on a single patient record that someone was in possession of a firearms licence, changed their attitude towards or approach to the treatment of that individual. I think that particular point is probably not relevant.

[Gregory Stafford]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s optimism. I am not belittling his point—I, too, hope that no one would be treated, both in the traditional sense and in the medical sense, based on their background or anything else, including their recreational hobbies. Unfortunately, we have seen cases in the NHS in which someone’s religious background has led to antisemitism and other unfortunate issues. Unfortunately, sometimes the system itself has a problem. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report relatively recently on black maternal health. We could see the difference and the fact that, unfortunately, black women experience a worse level of care, often because of assumptions made about their backgrounds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I hope everyone is treated dispassionately, but I am afraid it does not always happen. We need to make sure that we root out that kind of behaviour, but we also need to protect people from it.

Amendment 72 is another that was tabled with the best of intentions. The improved identification of veterans is an interesting idea, because I do not think many veterans actively identify themselves when they access healthcare. A visible marker could help to ensure that healthcare professionals are aware of a patient’s service history without relying on self-disclosure. There may be direct benefits to a veteran, because they may be eligible for dedicated NHS services—including mental health, rehabilitation and other veterans’ healthcare pathways—through the armed forces covenant. A marker could, then, assist clinicians in directing patients to appropriate support more quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank all hon. Members for their input, and the Minister for her insights. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 47, page 34, line 38, at end insert—

“(6A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.

(6B) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must consult all stakeholders the Secretary of State considers relevant, including patient representation groups.

(6C) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard for—

(a) those without access to a suitable electronic device,

(b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity,

(c) those with physical and/or mental disabilities,

(d) those belonging to groups considered socially excluded, and

(e) those considered lacking digital skills.

(6D) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the risk assessment under subsection (6A) before both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I will speak to clause 47 and to new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The sector has been calling for a single patient record for decades, and it is the single most impactful part of the Bill. It could be transformational for patient experience, care, outcomes, consistency of treatment and reducing errors.

Members have talked about the hassle of people having to tell their story repeatedly or recollect the history, which many people cannot do accurately, so the clause could be hugely impactful. Polling shows that nine out of 10 Britons want better access to medical records. Many assume that a single patient record already exists and are often quite surprised when they go to another hospital and find that it has no record of what has been done in the county next door.

Although the public are rightly concerned about the use of their data, especially outside of direct care and for planning and research purposes, we wholly support the idea of a single patient record. The plan is for people to be able to see their primary, secondary and social care records all in one place, all in the NHS app. It will be transformational, but patients should be in control of their data. They should be able to see who is accessing their records and should be able to opt out of sharing data. It is essential that there is sufficient control and guarantees around the sharing of data, whether for research or other reasons. The Bill does not go far enough to provide reassurances that patients will ultimately be in charge of their own data and how it is used.

Trust among medical staff, patients and the public is essential for this much-needed system to succeed, and we have only to look at the pushback on the federated data platform to see that. Sufficient guardrails are necessary to make sure that secondary uses of health data are allowed only when they deliver a clear public benefit. Rules need to be future-proofed so that they are not vulnerable to change depending on the political or economic situation. There should be meaningful checks, balances and transparency.

We want to make sure this technology is focused on enabling and delivering healthcare. We know that, in the US, Palantir is providing health data to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is then used to support deportations. We would be really concerned if people were too worried to come forward for medical treatment because they thought that their immigration status might be passed on to another Department.

There was a Westminster Hall debate recently on the concerns about Palantir and about the single patient record being abused. From an economic point of view, it seems a lost opportunity to have such a huge infrastructure project farmed out to foreign companies based abroad. First, this is a huge opportunity for companies in the UK to boost our economy, provide employment and drive innovation. Secondly, if we are reliant on foreign companies to deliver this service, we could lose our health sovereignty and their motivations might change depending on the political and economic situation of the country in which they are based.

There have been recent examples of NHS staff inappropriately accessing the private health records of the victims of the Southport and Nottingham terror attacks. The decision by the University Hospitals of Liverpool Group not to inform patients of the breaches understandably raised privacy concerns. The Government must therefore ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and guardrails, and that they are communicated clearly to the public to build trust.

The single patient record needs to happen, but in the right way. The issues with the FDP’s uptake have shown that patient and staff mistrust can significantly undermine a system’s effectiveness. The most important safeguards should not be left entirely to later implementation. They should be laid out in primary legislation at the beginning of the process. The Bill should be more explicit on who is responsible for decisions about access, sharing, liability and redress. That is why we have tabled various amendments, which we will get to later, most notably on our health data charter, setting out the key principles of how health data should be handled and a duty to prioritise domestic suppliers in technology procurement.

We welcome Opposition amendment 49, which we debated earlier—I believe it was echoed by the NHS Alliance—suggesting that a plan should be laid before Parliament for a minimum three-month public information campaign before the system goes live. The discussion on this needs to be constructive, not alarmist, to make sure that the SPR is rolled out in a safe fashion and so that we all get to feel the benefits.

Public involvement should be ongoing, visible and tied to real implementation decisions. Past NHS data reforms show that support depends on people feeling informed, heard and able to challenge decisions. Any red lines should also be clear. For example, there should be consented use for marketing or insurance purposes.

We also need to discuss the role of GP practices in this debate, given that they work within the NHS but are also private businesses. GP records are among the NHS’s richest data assets, and GP practices are to remain independent data controllers. I have spoken to three different practices in Winchester, and the practice managers are quite concerned that GPs will be required to share data much more routinely than they do now, but they will still carry the legal and professional risk and will likely act as the channel to explain to patients how their data will be used. GPs will need to be brought on side for the SPR to work, and that will depend on who decides, what safeguards apply and how burdens on practices are managed. Recent experiences show the sensitivity of the issue. The British Medical Association has stated that it may consider collective action on GP data sharing. The 2022 roll-out of automated prospective GP record access through the NHS app was paused after concerns about safeguarding and the burden on practices.

Will the Minister expand a little on the detail and on how all this will be implemented? What precautions will be taken to ensure that patient data is protected? Will she consider the Lib Dem proposal for a health data charter that sets out principles and responsibilities for handling NHS data?

[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.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 43, page 30, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on Primary Care services.

(2B) The increase in spending set out in subsection 2B must be in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”

This amendment would introduce the primary care investment standard, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 61, in clause 43, page 30, line 39, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A) and (2B)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on primary care services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

To deliver the 10-year plan’s shift towards care closer to home, local leaders must have the flexibility to invest according to the needs of their populations and the evolution of local services. A statutory investment standard would risk being overly prescriptive, constraining that flexibility and diverting resources from other areas of greatest need. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member for Winchester withdraws the amendment.

[Dr Chambers]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Chambers]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 43, page 30, line 36, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”

This amendment would place the original mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in clause 43, page 30, line 39, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on mental health services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.

New clause 27—Duty of integrated care boards to meet Mental Health Investment Standard—

“In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 223GC insert—

‘223GC A Duty of integrated care boards to meet Mental Health Investment Standard

(1) An integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to ensuring that expenditure incurred by the board in a financial year in relation to mental health complies with the Mental Health Investment Standard.

(2) For the purposes of this section, expenditure by an integrated care board complies with the Mental Health Investment Standard where the expenditure is greater than or equal to the amount specified for that board by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3).

(3) The Secretary of State must specify an amount of expenditure for an integrated care board which secures that the proportion of the board’s expenditure in a financial year in relation to mental health is larger than the proportion of the board’s expenditure in relation to mental health for the previous financial year.’”

This new clause puts the Mental Health Investment Standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure.

New clause 33—Review on mental health treatment delays across rural and urban areas—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider any disparities in the number of length of delays between rural and urban areas.”

This new clause 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.

New clause 34—Duty to promote mental health wellbeing—

“(1) It is a duty of 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.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State and/or any relevant body must have regard for—

(a) the prevention of mental illness,

(b) the promotion of positive mental health,

(c) the reduction of stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, and

(d) the provision of accessible and appropriate support services to individuals experiencing mental health challenges.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty under subsection (1), including an assessment of—

(a) progress in improving mental health wellbeing amongst the people of England, and

(b) any barriers to promoting mental health wellbeing for such persons and proposed actions to address them.

(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1) for which any relevant body or authority to which subsection (1) applies must have regard.”

This new clause creates 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.

[Dr Chambers]

Amendment 9 would place the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring ICBs to increase mental health spending at least in line with the growth in their total programme funding. Amendment 10 would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply. New clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), is similar. It is quite reassuring to see that the policies of the Liberal Democrats and of the Health and Social Care Committee are fairly well aligned.

The Darzi report highlighted that 20% of the NHS caseload is mental health, yet at the time it was receiving just under 10% of the NHS budget in funding, and now it is receiving 8.4%. To put that in the context of real lives, when I was first elected in 2024, there were just over half a million children and young people on mental health waiting lists; as of last week, there were 1 million. While the Government have done commendable work in reducing waiting lists for physical conditions, mental health cases are increasing—and fast.

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

I am very interested in the increase in the number of people waiting for mental health care, particularly mental health assessments. Does the hon. Member think that that is because the funding is inadequate, or is there some other reason why the waiting list numbers have been shooting up?

[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]

My hon. Friend touches on what I will come to as I conclude my remarks on the next new clause. He is absolutely right. The wider determinants of mental health need to be part of developing these services, as with physical health.

On new clause 34, I reassure the Committee that the Government are taking significant steps to improve mental health services in this area. We have recruited over 8,500 extra mental health workers since July 2024, we are accelerating the roll-out of mental health support in schools and colleges, and we are investing a record £16 billion in NHS mental health services this year. Furthermore, there will remain a requirement, as introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022, for mental health expertise on local integrated care boards.

However, as my hon. Friend just said, we know that good mental health and wellbeing requires more than improving NHS services. It requires concerted action to promote positive mental health and tackle the causes of mental ill health. That is why we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England, to be published later this year. It will take a whole-system approach, recognising the role of schools, employers, the voluntary sector and local government, and representing all parts of the country in promoting positive mental health and preventing mental health ill. The strategy will also go further on reducing the stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, with a focus on improving mental health literacy across the population.

Finally, the new clause risks imposing unnecessary burdens on local systems. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester not to press it. I hope he feels assured that the Government will take forward many of the Committee’s concerns in the mental health strategy.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank hon. Members for their insightful input to the discussion on mental health in general and for their thoughts on our amendments. It is reassuring to see the cross-party concern for mental health and the recognition that it seems to be an increasing problem.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a good point about the causes of mental health problems. We know that people in debt are three times more likely to have mental health issues than people on an average income, and that people who have served in the armed forces are at a higher risk. A whole combination of non-clinical things, such as insecure housing, zero-hours contracts and even social media for adults and children, are potentially adding to the mental health challenges that we are facing.

I appreciate the Minister talking about the new cross-Department mental health strategy. It sounds valuable and it seems to address a huge number of the multifactorial issues that have led us to this point. I will happily not press any of the amendments apart from amendment 9. The mental health investment standard is one of our absolute core priorities, and I would like to press that to a vote. I thank everybody for their contributions and insight into this.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham covered most of the points I was going to make, so I will be very brief. The changes that are proposed to the better care fund seem like another example of decision making being taken away from local authorities and other organisations, which are often the ones that are best placed to understand the health and care needs of their local populations. This measure centralises power rather than devolving it.

Ultimately, the Bill leaves the impression that social care is being pushed more and more on to local authorities. That seems like an ill-judged move, given the ongoing stand-offs we have on the funding of social care and continuing healthcare up and down the country, and it is hardly encouraging the integrated working that everyone accepts is needed to address the joint issues in social care and the NHS. We are worried that there are multiple measures in the Bill that are separating social care and the NHS at a time when greater integration and closer working are so clearly needed. If we want to grasp the nettle on corridor care, overcrowded hospitals, ambulance delays and delayed discharge, we need to get the NHS and social care working together. All those issues seem to have their roots in social care—or the lack of it.

Taking these changes alongside others, such as the removal of local authorities and GPs from ICBs, it looks as though ICBs will not be capable of living up to the ambition of acting as joint committees that co-ordinate care with local trusts, GPs and social care. In summary, this all boils down to the fact that we cannot keep treating NHS services and social care as separate entities.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 47, page 34, line 19, after “behalf” insert “, including nominated carers”.

This amendment makes it explicit that nominated carers can access the single patient record on behalf of those they care for.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 65, in clause 47, page 35, line 6, after “treatment” insert

“, or to any specific support needs or reasonable accommodations required for the effective provision of such care or treatment”.

This amendment aims to clarify that “patient information” held on the Single Patient Record would also include any specific support needs or reasonable accommodations, such as those arising from health conditions or disabilities, that a patient requires for the effective provision of their care or treatment.

[Dr Chambers]

All the stakeholders have said that the single patient record is part of the Bill that could be genuinely transformative. I would also like to note the Bill’s many references to carers, including the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill is currently quite vague as to whether carers will be able to access the single patient record, and we want that to be made explicit. We want to reiterate the lack of focus on social care, which is the biggest issue facing the NHS, and emphasise our call for carers in general.

The benefits that the single patient record could bring to patients have been well-established, and it is well-supported, but we believe that the single patient record could also be of huge benefit to carers. It could allow them to care more effectively for their loved ones, and it could allow it to be flagged on their own records that they are carers, so they receive the support that they need.

[Gregory Stafford]

I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment and what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve through it. Does he have any idea of how a patient would nominate a carer in such a circumstance? Indeed, would it be done by the patient themselves? If not—for example, the patient might have mental health issues or capacity issues—could the carer be nominated by a health professional or a statutory body?

Although I absolutely agree with the intentions of the amendment, could he give some examples? For instance, would a carer be able to access all of the patient’s record, or just the part for the period in which they have been providing care? It is entirely right that a carer should see the patient record relating to whatever it is they are providing care for, but—I am not trying to be flip—should carers know that at 17, the person who they are caring for was treated for a sexually transmitted disease or something similar, which the patient might not want them to know?

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. Obviously, the whole point of this amendment is to equip people who are providing what is often the daily care for someone else with the information they need to provide that care. My family cared for my father at home for many years when he had dementia; he was on medication for other physical health issues as well, and he was not capable of administering his own medicine, or even of understanding what he was on half the time.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I am very sympathetic to this amendment, and to the argument that patients and carers should have enough information about what they are providing care for. In the current system, carers get a copy of the care plan, which states what the patient’s care needs are, as assessed by health professionals. Does the hon. Member agree that carers need to see only the care plan for the patient, rather than the patient’s whole record?

[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—

[Dr Chambers]

It is by design.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank everyone for that very useful discussion. I was pleased to see everyone broadly in agreement that we need to work out how we can provide the necessary information to provide better care, and to balance that with privacy. Everyone made really insightful points on that.

I just emphasise that, as we all know, there is a difference between treatment/prescription and compliance, and compliance is where many medical treatments fall down. It is once the medical staff are not involved on a day-to-day basis, when the patient is not under their direct care or in the facility of the medical treatment, that most of the care takes place, and that is when successful or unsuccessful treatment for the medical condition occurs. If the people providing the daily care are not empowered properly, it is—well, not a complete waste of time, but the efforts of the medical staff are in vain if the compliance day to day is not accurate.

I thank everyone for the discussion. I will not press the amendment to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am not convinced that clause 24 delivers the transformation that the Minister claims. At its core, it appears to be little more than a rebranding exercise. It replaces joint local health and wellbeing strategies with neighbourhood health plans, but does remarkably little to strengthen the underlying duties on local authorities or integrated care boards. Merely changing the name of a document does not improve patient outcomes, reduce waiting lists or deliver more integrated care.

The duty created by the clause is also remarkably weak. Local authorities and ICBs need only prepare a plan and then “have regard” to it when exercising their functions. That is one of the least demanding obligations available in legislation. It requires consideration, not compliance. An ICB could acknowledge the plan, but decide to depart from it and still satisfy the legal test. If neighbourhood plans are genuinely intended to drive local health policy, the Bill should do a lot more to require decision makers to act in accordance with them, or at the very least to explain publicly why they have chosen not to.

I am also concerned that the clause creates additional bureaucracy without any clear accountability. It requires the production of another planning document, another consultation exercise and another set of reporting expectations, but provides for no—for want of a better phrase—enforcement mechanism or measurable outcomes against which success can be judged. There is a risk that local systems will spend their time drafting plans rather than delivering services. Public involvement is of course essential, and indeed welcome, as we have heard, but the clause offers no detail about what meaningful involvement looks like and contains nothing to prevent a token consultation from satisfying the statutory requirement. If the objective is genuine neighbourhood-led healthcare, the legislation needs to be drafted much more tightly.

Moving on to new clause 70, I do my absolute best not to be flippant when it comes to Lib Dem amendments and new clauses, but once again we have an idea that is fine in principle—in fact, I think we would all support it in principle—yet the hon. Member for Winchester could hardly articulate how the new clause would work and whom it would involve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. It is helpful to understand that the Liberal Democrats will not press the new clause to a vote, but if we are to use probing amendments effectively, they need to be drawn much more tightly, so that a Minister does not have the opportunity—I am sure that today’s Minister would not do this—to wriggle out of it because it is so poorly drafted.

[Dr Chambers]

What we are desperately trying to do is ensure that we are drawing on the expertise of primary care providers. The hon. Member seems not to understand that talking about 40 new hospitals the whole time with no plan to deliver them is looking at the wrong end of the health service. We need to try to keep people healthy and in the community. The new clause is an attempt to refocus thoughts on keeping people healthy in the community, rather than talking about hospitals that never existed.

[Gregory Stafford]

We can go back to the record in Hansard, but I do not remember mentioning anything to do with hospitals in what I just said; I may have had some sort of amnesia at that point. If the hon. Member is referring to the plan of the last Government, which was fully costed, for 40 new hospitals, then I am afraid I did not mention that. On his wider point, Conservative Members want to understand how local authorities and deliverers of primary care—dental services and so on—will be included and can have influence over the plans and strategies that ICBs draw up. I fully support that ambition; I just feel that, if we are to have that ambition, we need to table amendments and new clauses that the Minister might actually accept, so that we can go forward.

Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

Others will have a lot to say, so I shall take no more time, other than to commend amendments 45 and 46 to the Committee. They would ensure that we have good representation on the ICB, particularly of social care, and that we get a co-ordinated, joined-up and well delivered commissioning process.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

We have a few concerns about the clause in general, especially about the removal of local authority and primary care representation on the ICB. Some ICBs are already stepping back from joint commissioning arrangements with social care and the health and wellbeing boards, and it is vital that social care has a seat at the table. We have talked about this extensively in many Committees and in the Chamber, but the Liberal Democrats have been emphatic that we cannot solve any of the problems in the NHS without solving social care. At any given point, our hospital in Winchester certainly has 160 people in it who are well enough or would be better cared for in the community with a social care package; instead, they are stuck in a hospital, obviously affecting flow through the whole hospital and even affecting A&E waiting times.

Combined with the changes to the pooled budgets that will affect the better care fund, we are seriously concerned that the Bill is increasingly separating the NHS and social care just at a time when the service and experts are screaming out for greater integration and collaborative working. We discussed GPs this morning. They have long-standing concerns about getting their voice heard, given their unique place in the health system. They are the front gate to the NHS and they have the most patient contact of any NHS service. Removing the duty seems to be a step in the wrong direction in that regard.

Finally, the change will leave in limbo areas such as Hampshire that do not yet have a fully functional mayoral authority—our elections will be in the next couple of years. There has not yet been sufficient clarity about what the interim arrangements will be.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. At risk to my political career, such as it is, I also agree entirely with the hon. Member for Winchester, who made a very good point in drawing the Committee’s attention to something that should not need to be said, which is that the provision of healthcare and social care go hand in hand, and if either part of that equation does not function, the other part will not. He highlighted a good example, and I visited Winchester hospital when I was a Minister.

If we do not have a functioning social care system, or a social care system that is closely integrated in and working closely with the NHS, we see the knock-on effects pretty swiftly in terms of the large numbers of people medically fit for discharge who are unable to be discharged, which then impacts on the flow through an acute hospital setting. That is one of the big factors we see in A&E backing up, because people cannot be discharged, people cannot get into beds because the beds are full and then the ambulances are queuing up outside. The hon. Gentleman illustrated that point extremely well.

[Dr Chambers]

On the economics, it costs around £850 a night to keep someone in a hospital bed and a fraction of that for a social care package. This is an absolute false economy, even if we ignore patient experience and patient recovery.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right from the financial perspective. As he mentioned, there is, of course, the human perspective and the impact on someone’s recovery and their health, as well as their psychological health, if they are in hospital when they simply want to get home, because they have no medical need to be in hospital.

My worry about clause 21 is that it essentially seeks to undermine the whole concept that ICBs rest upon. ICBs were conceived to bring together all the NHS services in a particular area, but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon highlighted, to make sure that the NHS footprint mapped on to the geographical footprint of the upper-tier local authority delivering social care, so that the ICB is looking at the same geographical area for the two key parts of the system and they neatly map on to one another.

With changes, mergers and acquisitions—as well as a whole range of other changes—that link is already breaking and weakening, as ICBs start covering larger areas and look in different directions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out, and as I think the hon. Member for Winchester highlighted in an earlier sitting, because we do not know what local government reorganisation will look like in the years to come, we increasingly run the risk of creating something that again will not map on to a geographical footprint and may have to change.

In a number of areas—take my area, Leicestershire—we do not have a mayoral authority. At present, there is no plan or proposal before us for one. Yet the ICB is merged with Northamptonshire, which does not have one either. We will see a real gap in representation.

We are moving away from what we sought to do with ICBs. During the passage of the 2022 legislation, I always used the phrase—the Minister probably heard it until she wished to hear it no more—that we were seeking to be permissive, not prescriptive, where we could be. However, this was one area where it was not just us in the then Government who were trying to put a bit of a guardrail around the membership of ICBs. We were pushed by the now Government, then Opposition MPs, to go further in what we prescribed for the membership of an ICB.

Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Morgan]

Well, I will just move on a little bit. The important question is: can this be achieved this overnight? Clearly not; we need additional clinicians in the service. The Liberal Democrat view is that the extra—I think 1,000 or 1,500—GPs that the Government have recruited so far is a welcome step forward, but that does not go far enough over the course of a Parliament.

As I was saying earlier, when patients cannot access their GP surgery, they end up, more often than not, in accident and emergency departments. That is no good for anybody. It overburdens the A&E department, leaves people who genuinely need urgent care getting a substandard level of care, and costs the NHS far more. We think it is really important that we put the resource in the right place.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Just to reiterate what my hon. Friend is saying, in Winchester we are now putting an urgent treatment centre in front of the A&E, staffed by GPs to do the triage, because so many people who turn up are only there because they cannot get a GP appointment. So we now have hospital trusts paying for GPs to provide same-day GP appointments, and that is coming out of the secondary care budget instead of the primary care budget. That is obviously the most expensive place to treat patients for routine things.

[Helen Morgan]

That is exactly what new clause 2 seeks to drive at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful for that clarification. I am conscious that we have to finish at 1 pm, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.

We can all see the intent behind new clause 2; we can all feel that intent in correspondence we get from constituents. Having taken legislation through the House, my concern is that often the challenge is in the drafting of such clauses: while the objective may be honourable, the opacity of them, or the lack of some detail, can risk creating an expectation while not actually setting out how that can realistically be met. My worry here is about the practicalities, in an era where expectations are being set and dashed and that is causing challenges for our democracy.

[Dr Chambers]

Even when the right hon. Gentleman criticises, he does so in a charming way.

None of this is moving the discussion to how we keep people healthy and treat them early. He may criticise our funding models and challenge the detail for achieving this measure, but if we flip that round, the previous Government promised 40 new hospitals, which were not hospitals and did not materialise. The entire focus of healthcare has been on treating people once they are sick, while people cannot get GP appointments.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the thrust of the argument is to try to keep people healthy and treat them early, before they end up needing hospital treatment, and that that is what we should all be focusing on. If he wants to help with the details in order to get 8,000 GPs by the end of this Parliament, he can submit his suggestions to the Liberal Democrat website.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a typically reasonable way. Of course, he is right to talk about the need to shift, where we can, from acute settings to either community settings or, ideally, a preventive setting or focus. The Minister may well disagree with me, but I think that is a desire or thread that, however well implemented or otherwise, runs consistently through Governments. It ran through the Blair-Brown Government, the previous Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition, the Conservative Government and into what the previous Secretary of State announced and what the Minister today is seeking to achieve. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. We will always need those acute settings for particular treatments and cases, as well as for those very specialist pieces of work or for people with significant illnesses.

There has always been a desire to push the care into the local community. GPS are a central part of that, as are—to address the points raised by my hon. Friends earlier—our community pharmacists and other pharmacists. Pharmacies remain an improving but underused resource as part of that preventive picture. I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Winchester in that, but one can agree with the objective, but nonetheless gently push a little on the detail. As we know, the devil is in the detail, and people will want to see a deliverable plan.

That is one of the challenges that I have had in Melton Mowbray, where the ICB says it will do one thing and then says, “Actually, no, we can’t do that anymore.” Expectations go up and down and people are understandably frustrated. When we put such proposals forward we need to be robust in how we are going to achieve them and in their practicalities. The Minister may wish to make further observations.

Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East highlighted extremely well the difficulties of accessing hospital services on an island, but it can be a problem anywhere, including in rural constituencies. Winchester is about 60% rural. Since I was elected, an issue that I have had a great deal of correspondence about—even protests and petitions—has been the cancellation by Hampshire county council of bus services, particularly from rural villages such as Colden Common. People need buses for a variety of reasons—obviously to get to work and school—but the No. 1 issue concerning people is that of mainly elderly people using the bus to access hospital and GP services. They are really worried. It is causing a huge amount of stress that they will not be able to access hospital and GP services and not be able to remain living independently in the village that they have lived in for years.

One of the new hospitals in Hampshire is due to be built in south Basingstoke. Extraordinarily, the consultation on the location of the new hospital did not include consultation with the South Central ambulance service. When moving an A&E department and maternity service to another location, it seems blindingly obvious that the ambulance service should be heavily involved in deciding where a new hospital may be located, given that it is primarily responsible for ensuring that people can get there in a timely manner. Although there is obviously a need for local councils to ensure their constituents can get to a local hospital, it is important that we have some kind of obligation. I assume it would have been an obligation that when setting up the location of new hospital services, the ambulance services must be consulted and engaged with to get their input.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

On amendment 13, the shadow Minister asked why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South felt the need to table amendment 13. One can only assume it is because health inequalities have continued to widen for far too long. In a 20 or 30-minute drive across my Wolverhampton North East constituency, life expectancy drops by seven years. I accept that tackling health inequalities is not just about health; it is about a wider web of societal issues, including educational, employment and housing inequalities. That very long list is beyond the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Amendment 13 will put the tackling of preventable ill health and health inequalities at the centre of national decision making by ensuring that the Secretary of State must consider not just NHS treatment but wider social and economic factors. Will the Minister assure the Committee that future Secretaries of State will not overlook the wider social and economic factors that drive ill health and unequal life expectancy, and that there will be a responsibility to work across Departments to tackle that wider and growing inequality?

Health Bill (Third sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I approach this with a sense of déjà vu—standing in a Committee Room in the Palace to debate a Health Bill opposite the Minister for Secondary Care, the only difference being that our sides and places have swapped over in the interim. It is a pleasure to be on this Committee opposite the now Minister.

I will focus my remarks largely on clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised a number of questions about clauses 2 and 3 and their breadth, but I consider them to be necessary and consequential on clause 1, so I will focus on the points made in that clause, which sits behind them. One thing I want to address is the Minister’s question about why, in the Health and Care Act 2022, the Conservatives did not abolish NHS England. I have to say that arguments were made on both the pros and the cons, but the simplest answer is the context of that legislation. At the time, we were just emerging from a pandemic, and I wanted that legislation to retain a clear focus on my vision for the NHS: a linking of ICBs at the local level with the upper-tier local authorities, so that we could deliver social care through a permissive model, rather than a prescriptive one, allowing that local co-operation. I was also conscious that, emerging from the pandemic, there was only so much that the system could realistically bear while it was still grappling with its immediate aftermath, hence the approach we took.

In reality, it cannot be disputed that, inevitably, this is a top-down, centralising reorganisation, and it was not in the manifesto. As Sarah Woolnough said in her evidence on Tuesday:

“These arguments were very well rehearsed by the previous Secretary of State. He undertook personally that he would not follow this course of action, exactly because these things take longer and cost more, and because the benefit realisation case is not always clear.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 10, Q23.]

On that point about centralisation, Jon Restell in his evidence said:

“Obviously, some functions of NHS England moving into the Department, with powers going to the Secretary of State, feels like a centralising measure… On the whole, it is probably more of a centralising measure.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 79, Q122.]

We have to recognise that this is a centralising measure, rather than any sort of devolution that provides local areas with greater autonomy.

For me, there is a worrying lack of clarity at this stage in the process—around 15 months later—on the actual plan and approach. The hon. Member for Lichfield gave a very good speech that not only highlighted the local issues but drew a national read-through from those local examples, and he rightly highlighted that he did not want a protracted reorganisation. However, 15 months on—with the hare having been set running by the Prime Minister’s announcement back in March 2025— we still have protracted uncertainty on what will happen. That is having a very real impact on not only staff but the opportunity cost, through its impact on how services are actually being delivered and what the NHS is focused on.

On that lack of clarity, when asked how this measure will work and whether it can save money, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund said:

“I think, on the basis of the question, we do not know. Our worry has been about the opportunity cost. The Government, when in opposition, said that they would not launch wholescale reorganisation, because they understood the potential opportunity cost on time and other resources. As this has played out, taking longer than anticipated, we have had multiple examples of teams left in limbo about where they will end up in the target operating model.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 10, Q12.]

Jon Restell also highlighted the impact on staff when he said,

“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”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 80, Q125.]

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I too think the hon. Member for Lichfield gave an excellent speech on the need for clarity, but there is another factor to consider. Not only is NHS England being abolished, and ICBs are having their budgets halved, but in Hampshire and other areas we also have local government reorganisation. We are going from having district councils and county councils to unitary authorities, and a mayor will be coming in next year. This is another level of reorganisation in the delivery of healthcare and social care, so there is a huge amount of change. However, there seems to be no clarity, at any level, on how this will affect services on the ground, because there are so many moving parts coming in at once.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very clearly and he is absolutely right. Not only is there a lack of clarity in the legislation and in the plans for how the NHS will look, but, as was alluded to during evidence, the missing bit from the Bill, which is highly relevant, is social care. It will be deeply concerning if, when the implications of local government reorganisation emerge from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in a few weeks’ time, the two are not properly meshed together, because we will risk, yet again, a widening disconnect between the two vital parts of our health and social care system, both of which have to work well in tandem for the whole system to function. The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. He also highlights ICB budgets. I suspect hon. and right hon. Members around the country are already seeing the genuine impact of those changes to the budgets, which are actually pulling through into the frontline services that our constituents receive.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about our health and social care services, and has a wealth of experience from in this place and outside it. Given the comments from our witnesses and the impact assessment, which has page after page listing the risks associated with this approach, I ask her how she will mitigate that loss of focus and that distraction, which is an inevitable human reaction when there is uncertainty. When she comes forward with the plan to merge NHS England into the Department, how will she ensure that she retains the best, most experienced staff? In any organisation where there is a change, it is often the most able and experienced who find it easiest to go to another role, by virtue of their skillset. How will she ensure that there is not a loss or drain of that expertise and knowledge?

I turn to a deeply concerning element that links to the lack of clarity. The impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England is pretty much silent on the monetised costs and benefits and specific figures. The first two pages with the boxes and the summary just say “N/A” in pretty much every box on assessing the costs. If I flick through to the section headed “Monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of each option”, I see page after page. There are lots of words but virtually no figures, and where there are figures, there is no breakdown of how they were reached, and no explanation of the degree or range of confidence in the few figures that are there.

I ask the Minister whether a detailed spreadsheet of all the statistics, costs and benefits, risks, confidence levels associated with the numbers, and the phasing over years of savings and costs will be published during the Commons passage of the Bill so that Members of the House can consider it. If not in Committee, could it be published at least before Report so that we can have an informed debate? More broadly, once the Bill in whatever form is passed—I expect, given the Government’s majority, that it will be—what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that when a target operating model and all the other details are available, Parliament will have an opportunity to not only debate them, but have a meaningful say, potentially with a vote, be it through delegated legislation or in the House?

Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

On wraparound care, we have a fantastic initiative in Winchester where Citizens Advice spends time with patients at Melbury Lodge, the in-patient unit, to help them deal with all their life admin, such as debt issues and money issues. It has been shown that those who receive that service have a shorter stay in hospital, are significantly less likely to be readmitted and are more likely to engage with social services once they have been discharged. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the team to discuss that initiative? For every £1 spent on it, £14.08 is saved in cost avoidance for the NHS.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the wraparound care in Winchester citizens advice bureau. We need the local health ecosystem to partner with initiatives in the voluntary or charity sector such as that one, and acknowledge their impact, fund and support them. Some may think that things such as debt are basic, but their impact on mental health cannot be overestimated. I am sure that officials will want to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to look at the landscape across the country, because there are some fantastic initiatives that we need to recognise, partner with and support.

The Government are taking action to elevate the status of mental health. For 2026-27, NHS mental health spending is forecast to increase to a record £16.1 billion, representing a real-terms increase of around £140 million compared with the previous year. Alongside that, the mental health investment standard remains in place. Integrated care boards are required to protect mental health spending in real terms over the next three years, ensuring that mental health continues to receive the investment needed to improve services and outcomes.

Investment alone is not enough. We must transform how care is delivered. That is why the 10-year health plan sets out our vision for a neighbourhood health service, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned. That is about bringing care closer to people’s homes, communities creating genuinely patient-centred services, and moving away from a fragmented system that often leaves people navigating multiple services without the support they need. I hope the ICBs are engaging hon. Members in all parts of the House to feed into the design of the neighbourhood health centre model and asking about the unmet needs and service gaps in their constituencies and regions.

Community Pharmacies

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this fantastic and timely debate. I also note the expertise of my friend the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan). Not only did he provide some really good insights—I thought his point about the importance of a single patient record all the way from pharmacy to hospital was especially meaningful—but I love how enthusiastically he agrees with everyone else’s points.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Only the good ones.

[Dr Chambers]

Yes, the good ones.

There has been a general consensus that pharmacies are often overlooked as a source of care for those in the community. I have visited many pharmacies in my Winchester constituency: there is Eric, who runs Springvale pharmacy up in Kings Worthy; there is Colden Common pharmacy in Colden Common; and there is the Wellbeing pharmacy on Winchester High Street, which gives me my flu jab every year. The people there actually make having a flu jab a lot of fun; we always have a great laugh. I never thought having a vaccine would be something I would look forward to, but I love going in and seeing them.

We know about the 8 am rush for GP appointments, so the fact that a high street service exists where one can drop in for advice and consultations is absolutely brilliant. Pharmacies allow us to siphon off some of the pressures on GP services, but—as pharmacists have been telling me repeatedly since well before I was elected—pharmacies are currently under immense pressure.

Adding to that pressure is the increase in national insurance contributions, which has saddled pharmacies and GP surgeries with additional costs. As a consequence, many local pharmacies have had to limit opening times and staff numbers. In Alresford in my constituency, the hard-working staff at Wessex Pharmacies have had to close shop on Saturday afternoons. That service will be sorely missed, particularly by those who are in full-time education or work during the week and who relied on being able to pick up their prescriptions at the weekend.

In addition, shorter opening times mean that if a patient sees their GP later in the day, the required prescription is delayed by a day if the paperwork is not registered in time. For a patient with an urgent need for medication, that extra day can be extremely frustrating and worrying.

Although we really do welcome the recent 10% increase in Government funding to community pharmacies, it is worth pointing out that that is giving with one hand and taking with the other. In the wake of rising costs for energy, staff and medicines, this funding increase was the first in 10 years, so it was sorely needed, but unfortunately, it did little to alleviate the extreme pressures heaped on community pharmacies in the Budget.

That point comes into focus when we consider the rise in drug costs: a 20% to 30% rise for things like paracetamol and hay fever medications, and an elevenfold rise in the cost of cancer drugs since February, while the funding provided to community pharmacies has dropped by more than 20% in real terms since 2015. That is why we are calling on the Government to invest in pharmacies in smaller towns, particularly in villages and rural areas such as mine in the Meon valley. In places such as Bishop’s Waltham and Colden Common, people need access to a community pharmacy, and not only for convenience: Conservative-run Hampshire county council has cut vital bus services to the nearest big towns, which means that people without a vehicle, especially older people, absolutely rely on local pharmacies for their medication.

We are also calling for a new, long-term, sustainable model for pharmacies and an expansion of Pharmacy First to give patients more accessible routine services so that we can free up GPs’ time. We want an exemption for pharmacies from the national insurance contributions increase so that funds can be spent on patients and vital medications.

I come to my final, key point. I have spoken to many pharmacists since I was elected and before that, and I have had very long, in-depth conversations with them. I have also attended events in Parliament organised by the Royal College of Pharmacy and the National Pharmacy Association and I have discussed their issues with the NHS pharmacy contract. Given my professional background, I am used to sourcing, dispensing and prescribing drugs. However, the contract is so complicated that, despite my extensive conversations with those organisations, I do not fully understand it. The key message that comes out is that it costs pharmacists to dispense NHS medication in many cases, and that NHS medication is sometimes being subsidised by other sales in shops. I even met two pharmacists who said that their personal finances are subsidising some NHS dispensation. That is clearly not tenable in the long run.

[Lee Pitcher]

Standardisation and consistency in services are really important. A person in my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme is living with poor mental health. His pharmacy has stopped doing nomads, and it is too far for them to travel to the next pharmacy, where those are not paid for. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that consistency in how we support pharmacies is massively important to help people such as my resident?

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree. All businesses need predictability and stability. It appears that, week to week, pharmacists are trying to work out how to source drugs with changing prices, and there is an NHS contract that is not meeting their needs.

When we talk about community healthcare and provision, it is important to remember that having good, well-run pharmacies means that people are being kept out of GP practices and that they are less likely to turn up at A&E. That is even better value for money for the NHS and, ultimately, for the taxpayer. There is no downside from a Government point of view to investing and heavily supporting community pharmacy, because the savings made upstream will be hugely significant. At the moment, we are treating people with conditions that should be treated in the community with the most expensive part of the NHS, in A&E and hospital, when they could quite possibly have avoided going there in the first place.

[Monica Harding]

Accessibility is paramount. The costs that are pushed on to pharmacists mean that they cannot remain sustainable and that they resist opening pharmacies in smaller places, because it will take away business from them. Therefore, those pressures take away accessibility, which is needed.

[Dr Chambers]

That is another legitimate point, and it was made in my second to last words, so I thank my hon. Friend for contributing. I thank the Minister for listening to our concerns.