Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Edward Argar Excerpts(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford
For me, the key thing is that we must have equity of access to the single patient record. If somebody wishes to see their own medical record, they should be able to do so, whether they are digitally savvy or not. As far as I can tell, that is the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment.
However, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. We are seeing this already, but the more we go down the digital route—because it is more efficient and straightforward, and takes out the unnecessary bureaucracy of having a human interaction to book an appointment or whatever—the more likely it is that this will become the portal for all interactions. I am not saying that that is the Government’s intention, but he raises a point, perhaps inadvertently, that we need to think about.
To conclude on amendment 70, before we proceed any further, the Government should be able to demonstrate that no patient will receive a worse service, face greater barriers to care or lose access to information simply because they are older, disabled or less digitally connected than others—that goes to the heart of fairness and equity of access in our NHS. I am absolutely certain that the Minister does not wish that to happen, but it would be interesting to hear how she will ensure that it does not happen.
Amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a public awareness plan had first been published and laid before Parliament, and a minimum three-month public information campaign had been conducted before the system went live. That seems eminently sensible, and I hope it is something that would be not just welcomed by Ministers, but on their agenda already.
Patients clearly have a right to know what information is being held, who will have access to it, how it will be used, what safeguards are in place and what rights they have in relation to their own data before the system goes live. A three-month campaign to give them that opportunity would be appropriate, because the things that I have outlined are not technical details that need to be buried in some Government website or hidden in the small print of a privacy notice; they are fundamental questions that deserve proper public engagement.
I am especially supportive of amendment 49 because of the impact on older people, disabled people and those who are less digitally engaged. I do not think that most of my constituents spend their time reading NHS policy documents online—my notes say “most”, but I think none of them do, unless they are involved in the health world themselves—and they should not wake up one morning to discover that a major change to the management of their health information has already been implemented without their knowledge.
A public information campaign is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is a democratic necessity. If Ministers are confident that the single patient record will improve care, strengthen efficiency and protect privacy, they should be eager to make that case to the public and should therefore welcome the scrutiny, transparency and informed debate that a three-month public information would bring.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I want to speak primarily to amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the shadow Minister, and to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has just said. Sadly, there will be a large number of people who do not follow the debates in this House or this Committee in great detail, however fascinating they may be. That is perfectly understandable.
The single patient record has genuine potential. It has the potential to put all the different bits of data in one place, so that when, for example, someone is blue-lighted to hospital, their consultant or the doctors treating them in A&E can access the information they need about their medical history and any medications they are on, which could improve clinical outcomes for patients.
I can entirely see the potential of the single patient record, but I am also conscious of the genuine concern among those of our constituents who are aware of this about what it might mean in practical terms for them and their data—it is important to remember that it is their data. They will have concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out, about who can access it, what safeguards are in place, whether they can opt out, and a range of other legitimate questions about how it will work.
I have to say that amendment 49, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is not unreasonable. It would give the Government an opportunity to reassure our constituents and bring them along on this journey, rather than leaving questions unanswered or just addressing them in a Q&A on a Government webpage. People have genuine questions, and in many cases I am confident that the Minister will be able to allay those concerns or put them to rest, but some campaign of that sort is needed.
Such campaigns happen regularly on a range of subjects. The Department of Health and Social Care spends a significant amount of money on public health and awareness campaigns, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs spends a large amount of money on reminding everyone to get their tax returns in on time, in the lead up to that, or to remind them of the penalties if they do not. Government do that day in, day out across a range of services and where major changes are being made.
The Government have a genuine opportunity to accept amendment 49, which will help them to bring the people we serve on this journey, and potentially help to realise the benefits and allay people’s concerns. I genuinely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or will commit to take it away, look at it, engage with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and possibly bring back a Government amendment that does exactly this on Report.
Dr Johnson
I am advised to declare that, although I am not a licence holder of a shotgun or a rifle, my husband has both a shotgun and a firearms licence.
Sojan Joseph
I agree that we are never going to have 100% proof. There will always be people accessing records. What I am talking about is the existing system, which does have provisions. What we need to strengthen is the training and the audit trail. All staff who do the training are aware that they are not supposed to check patients’ records unless it is relevant to them. Those who access records inappropriately should be identified and action should be taken.
Just because we are moving to a single patient record system, it does not mean that everybody is going to access everything they want. People working in the healthcare system are given access based on their role. Not everybody is able to access everything. Systems are in place, and we need to strengthen those systems and the training. We should not be scaremongering by saying that, because we are moving to a single patient record, everybody will be able to see their records.
Edward Argar
The hon. Member for Ashford made his point very clearly about what happens when something goes wrong and someone behaves inappropriately—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has highlighted some very concerning recent incidents—and was right to highlight the ability to follow an audit trail and take action. He is also right to highlight the importance of training.
However, taking action once inappropriate access is known, and then following the audit trail, deals essentially with the consequences rather than preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why amendment 48, and particularly proposed new section 250E(4B)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006, is important. It describes the technical controls. That goes beyond the audit process and what happens after something has gone wrong. It is about what can be done to build safeguards into the system to make it much harder for anyone to circumvent their obligations, and to build those technical safeguards into the overall design of the single patient record. That is a reasonable ask, because such incidents, while hopefully rare, as the hon. Member for Ashford alluded to, do happen and understandably cause concern.
The challenge is that there is potentially a lot more information in one place, rather than being held in different pots, trusts or GP surgeries. For those inclined to break their legal obligations and behave outside the rules, the potential opportunity to access a wider range of information is more significant. The design of the record needs to have those technical safeguards strengthened and built in.
Dr Johnson
If we use the example of Southport, the people who could access those records worked in the Liverpool trust, because that is where the records were stored. With the single patient record, as planned, people would be able to access those records from across the country, if they had a clinical reason to do so. However, someone behaving badly could also potentially do so, even if they did not have a reason.
Edward Argar
That is the challenge. The Minister knows her brief very well—if I may say, I hope that whatever happens in a few weeks’ time, she retains it. She is that rare thing among Ministers in Government: someone who comes to their position with a hinterland of knowledge, experience and interest, which she has demonstrated through her period in office thus far. I hope that she retains her role, because continuity of Ministers in Government is a good thing.
Can the Minister reassure us on the shadow Minister’s point, which is one that I have been seeking to make? Can she reassure us that the system will include barriers to prevent whoever builds and operates it—whether a third party or someone internal—from having inappropriate access to the records? The data must be ringfenced and protected, so that it does not go out of the country and cannot be accessed by those who are technically running or providing the platform. Even within the social care system, there must be very clear and technical restrictions on who can access the records for legitimate purposes, as the hon. Member for Ashford has highlighted. I think that would just reassure people.
As I said in response to previous amendments, I think the potential of the single patient record to improve clinical outcomes in care is very significant, but we need to bring people with us. I suspect that if anyone can reassure us on those points, it is the Minister.
Gregory Stafford
As my right hon. Friend has just said, this is a unique system that will have unique benefits, but it will also have unique risks. Almost in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford, I do not think there is anything—[Interruption.]
Health Bill (Tenth sitting)
Edward Argar Excerpts(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The amendments would introduce a primary care investment standard, requiring the ICBs to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of the total funding that they receive. The Secretary of State would be able to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply.
As the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not need to talk about the importance of primary care, because we all know it is very important and quite efficient. The Darzi report said that primary care is one of the most financially efficient parts of the NHS. The challenge is that demand is increasing across the whole system, and unless overall funding is increased, then giving primary care a bigger share must mean giving somebody else a smaller one.
My other concern is about how the hon. Gentleman thinks this will be measured. Is measuring inputs rather than outputs really the right way to run the health service? We have tested almost to destruction the idea of just giving more and more money, which I suppose is why the Government have introduced this Bill: to try to reform things and make them more efficient. We can argue about whether they are doing that well or not, but that is the thrust of what they are trying to do.
I think the idea behind the amendments is interesting, but I would be interested to hear more about how the hon. Member thinks the standard would work, and in particular whether he thinks it could be justified if there was huge unmet demand in the secondary care or mental health sector. The balance of need may change over time, and if it does, then legislating for a set proportion to go on this or that type of care, rather than on delivering this or that type of outcome, might not be the right approach.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for his explanation of amendments 60 and 61. Like my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I entirely understand what he is seeking to achieve, and also how important general practice is. Access to appointments with a general practitioner or at a practice is one of the most significant issues in Melton Mowbray. Despite the fantastic work that doctors are doing to try to manage that, the pressure continues to be intense, which on occasion is causing real anxiety for patients. Equally, I can see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) are trying to achieve by kick-starting a shift away from acute settings and towards front-loading—for want of a better way of putting it—people’s treatment in the NHS. As he said, Governments of many different complexions have tried to achieve that shift; what he is trying to do is give it a bit of oomph.
I can entirely see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do have some concerns, one of which was articulated well by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which is that the amendments are very much focused on inputs rather than outcomes. With the Health and Care Act 2022, we sought to shift the focus more towards outcomes, and I think the Minister is also seeking to move it towards outcomes rather than purely inputs—she will correct me if I am wrong—so I do worry about that.
Like my hon. Friend, I also have a slight concern about the effect of amendment 60 on the flexibility to address local circumstances and—for want of a better way of putting it—the discretion available to ICBs in determining the local health priorities. The Bill moves us away from the conception of ICBs in the 2022 Act, under which they were essentially mapped on to an upper-tier local authority geography, so that those delivering social care mapped directly on to the same geography and better integrated with it. With the removal of local authority reps and their potential replacement with representatives of a mayoral authority, and with ICBs covering much larger areas, we see a fracturing of the link with social care provision, and also perhaps a lot of local mapping and a local focus from the ICBs. None the less, my concern is that taking a prescriptive approach in primary legislation could further reduce ICBs’ ability to flex in order to address local needs. I can entirely see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and we all want to see primary care—general practice and dentistry—getting the funding it needs to address needs, but I am not convinced that the amendment will not have potential unintended consequences.
On amendment 61, I can again see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell are trying to do: give the shift teeth and make sure that ICBs look at it. The risk is that if they fail to achieve it, they will face financial penalties, which risks compounding the financial challenges they face and potentially reducing the available funds for primary care, mental health and a range of other healthcare services in the vicinity. I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I share the objective, but I have concerns about how it would work in practice and whether it would be overly prescriptive.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have covered a lot of the points I wanted to make, so I will keep this relatively brief. Like them, I entirely sympathise with what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to achieve with the two amendments. I think we would all want to see more investment in primary care. As my right hon. Friend—a former Health Minister—knows all too well, we need to see growth in primary care. The fact that there is not a single dentist’s practice in my constituency taking new NHS patients is a real concern, as are the waiting times for GPs in my constituency.
However, I do have some concerns. The first is that the standard, as the hon. Member for Winchester puts it, would be mandatorily enforced with a potential financial penalty. That takes away from what I think the Government are trying to achieve, which is local flexibility. As far as I can tell from the amendment, it makes no distinction between revenue spending and capital spending. I am still hopeful that my ICB is going to build a brand-new GP surgery and health hub in my constituency—it has been promising that for eight years and it is not here yet, so this may be hope over experience—and that would be a significant capital investment. Would the ICB be able to include that as spending on primary care services and get around the potential financial penalty?
I also worry about pitting one part of health spending against another. The hon. Member for Winchester said that the proposed standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard, but I believe that the Government—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—have relatively recently changed the mental health standard to be in line with inflation rather than overall total spending. Therefore, if the amendment were to pass, primary care budgets would increase in line with total overall spending, whereas mental health budgets would increase in line with inflation. If those two things were out of sync, there would be a problem.
I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve. We all want to see more spent on primary care. The Government’s stated intention is to bring healthcare closer to home, and that can only be delivered, in my view, through primary care services. But there are some unintended consequences of the two amendments, which at least need more exploration before I could vote for them.
Health Bill (Ninth sitting)
Edward Argar ExcerptsTuesday 30th June 2026
(3 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 June 2026 - (30 Jun 2026)
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will endeavour to be relatively brief in my reflections, and I will address, particularly, clauses 35 and 38. I can see a logic to what the Minister proposes in them. On clause 35, we know that foundation trusts face challenges. We saw that writ large with the scandal at Mid Staffs, and in my time as a Minister, several foundation trusts required intervention—maybe not on that scale—or required improvement. I pick on them just because they are in my head—I do not know the situation today. I am looking across at the hon. Member for Ashford, because going back some years to when I was a Minister, East Kent hospitals NHS foundation trust faced some considerable challenges. I am not necessarily saying that that meets the bar for intervention, but foundation trusts have challenges from time to time.
I should also declare an interest: I was born in the forerunner of the William Harvey hospital—the old Willesborough hospital—in the hon. Member’s constituency. I recognise that on occasions foundation trusts get into serious, or less serious but still challenging, circumstances. So I can see where the Minister is coming from, but I have a few questions for her.
First, we recognise that although foundation trusts can get into bother, so too can NHS trusts. NHS trusts can underperform, have safety issues or have financial or other performance issues. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on why she believes that removing foundation status and the organisation becoming an NHS trust will necessarily solve those problems, when many NHS trusts can have equally significant challenges. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
In terms of whether a conversion was to take place—if the Secretary of State determined that that was expedient and it met the criteria—what would the timescales and process be if, further down the line, a foundation trust wished to reapply for its old status, having previously converted to an NHS trust? Would that be possible, and how would it work? I suspect that there would be a significant number of hurdles to get over to prove that it had achieved that status. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that point.
Finally, on clause 38, what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, touched on gives me a little cause for concern. Essentially, this appears to be a further centralisation of powers in the Secretary of State’s hands, particularly with the changes to the role of the CQC. It effectively downgrades the CQC’s power as the independent regulator in these matters. Instead of the CQC being able to initiate the appointment of a TSA where, on safety grounds, they consider it to be necessary and the criteria met, that power will sit with the Secretary of State, who will be required to consult the CQC, but it will seemingly lose its ability to take that initiating step irrespective of what they have seen in any inspections. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed and potentially reassured me on those points.
Karin Smyth
As people who have been listening will know, this is a chunky set of clauses on some technical details. Let me broadly pick up some of the key points.
I want to be very clear about deauthorisation and our seeking to establish, essentially, a more dynamic model. As I said, the coalition Government repealed the legislation on deauthorisation in the 2012 Act. Although other regulatory levers exist to manage poor performance, we are using two core arguments. First, converting foundation trusts into NHS trusts will enable the Secretary of State, if needed, to intervene further through their power of direction over NHS trusts. The Secretary of State will therefore be able to focus on the patient and public interest over preservation of providers’ statutory freedoms in cases of serious failure. I hope that that addresses some of the points that have been raised. Secondly, having a more dynamic environment with the potential for deauthorisation in such cases, and the consequent loss of statutory autonomy, may act as an incentive for challenged foundation trusts to improve, and it would show that there are consequences.
As I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows, the usual processes exist for managing performance across various aspects of the provider. They will continue. This is for exceptional circumstances. As I said, this is about maintaining a more dynamic model than the one we have. The purpose behind her questions about continuous service—the purpose of having a range of failure powers—is to ensure continuity of care for patients and the public. The analogy with general practice does not hold; this is a very different set of circumstances. But, obviously, she raises an important point about public concern relating to the service’s provision, and I assure her on that. We need to make sure that we diagnose the situation, provide the trust with support and assess which toolbox is most applicable.
The CQC can recommend that a trust special administrator should be appointed where it is satisfied that there is a serious failure to provide services of a sufficient quality, and it must provide a report on the safety and quality of services following the appointment of an administrator. The Secretary of State must also consult the CQC before making an order to appoint a trust special administrator.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 39
Joint working and delegation arrangements
Edward Argar
I will be relatively brief, turning just to clause 40. I hope the Minister may be able to clarify something for me. I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for the letter that I received this morning, which was a very prompt response to her promise to write to me last week.
In respect of clause 40 and subsequent clauses, I can see the logic of updating the legislation to reflect the abolition of NHS England and the changes that come with that. I can also see the logic of a consolidated set of accounts so that one can see the national, or overall, picture. In the interests of transparency, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that will be in addition to, and in no way replace, every individual trust having to produce granular public accounts that anyone can inspect, so that we can see not only the overall operation and financial health of the system but that of each of its individual component parts sitting beneath.
Gregory Stafford
I wish to carry on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston has just raised. He rightly says that there is a transparency element to this, so that the public and any other interested party can look at the individual accounts of an ICB or a trust. Going further than that on the technical elements, my understanding is that NHS England’s own guidance notes suggest that consolidation does not just bring accounting under one set of accounts, one umbrella or one document. Within that accounting, however, adjustments and eliminations of transactions between NHS bodies can happen. Therefore, the aggregated figures do not necessarily reflect the financial reality of individual organisations.
I understand why that might be entirely appropriate from an accounting point of view, but it can make it harder for external observers to understand exactly where the pressures are coming from, where they are concentrated and, in a world where we want accountability, who should be held responsible for addressing them. That is all I need to say on that point.
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
Edward Argar ExcerptsTuesday 30th June 2026
(3 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 June 2026 - (30 Jun 2026)
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Does the hon. Member share my concern that what often gets billed as simply streamlining or efficiencies is in fact slimming down, decoupling and weakening?
Karin Smyth
There has been a wide-ranging discussion on this clause. I remind Members that the abolition of ICPs is about reducing that complex legal framework, allowing for local decisions and putting partnership work in place in the most effective way. That is what the measure seeks to do. I do not think anyone has disagreed with the notion that the landscape is complex, and that people are producing a lot of reports. In future, health and wellbeing boards will be the focal point for the collaboration between ICBs and local authorities. They are statutory committees that bring together the NHS, local government and relevant community partners; set the strategic direction for health and care services; and oversee joint working in their area, which we are of course committed to making work in local areas. I do not think many people will disagree with that; I hope that is clear.
There is also an enhanced role, not only for the health and wellbeing boards—as I said last week, I think they have been underutilised in most areas; again, I do not think people generally disagree with that point—but for health scrutiny. Again, across the country, that has not been pursued to the greatest extent to create links with elected councillors in local areas.
We are clear that the role of local authorities is crucial at a local level—as the name describes—and particularly in working on our commitment for neighbourhood partnerships and developing the neighbourhood plan; most of that was covered in our sittings last week. I accept that there are a number of concerns about how that will work in different geographies. I think the Opposition said last week that a survey suggested a quarter of areas will keep those partnerships, which is absolutely fine. That is up to them.
On the one hand, the Opposition say that there is centralisation and a power grab in this Bill; on the other, they complain—I should not say complain, because it is their right and their job to do so—about the move to devolution and the freedom to allow, or indeed encourage, local leaders to work together across authorities on behalf of the populations they serve, even where some of them are politically divided, because the populations they serve voted for different people. It is incumbent on all of us as individual elected politicians to work with people—whoever the population around us voted for. These provisions provide for that.
Edward Argar
Can the Minister set out how she envisages health scrutiny committees having genuine teeth? Our cross-party health scrutiny committee in Leicestershire universally condemned a decision by the ICB—totally disagreed with it—and the ICB basically said, “Thank you; noted,” and carried on anyway.
Karin Smyth
We all have examples of decisions that are made in our constituencies that we do not like. Again, that is part of the democratic process, but I go back to my earlier point: either there is a centralised unaccountable body like NHS England making decisions, or the Secretary of State devolves those responsibilities.
It is incumbent on people and elected leaders locally, and the ICB, which is not elected, to work with local leaders on these decisions. ICBs will be held accountable through mechanisms in the Department of Health and Social Care. There will be decisions that people do not like—that is a consequence of some of these things—but the clause simplifies the landscape.
Health Bill (Seventh sitting)
Edward Argar ExcerptsThursday 25th June 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2026 - (25 Jun 2026)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I will speak briefly about clause 15 and amendment 28, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member.
The amendment is clearly positively intended. We all want the co-production of services, and we have discussed it quite a lot on the Health and Social Care Committee. A number of amendments were tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon but were agreed on by the Select Committee. I think it is fair to say that there are a number of areas that the Committee could not agree on and that are obviously not in front of it, given its political make-up, but we all agreed on the ones she has tabled.
That being said, cross-party agreement often necessitates fairly non-partisan and perhaps non-specific wording, so while I agree with the intention behind the amendment, and while it is clearly important to have co-production when designing services, I am not entirely comfortable with the way the amendment has been drafted. This goes back to comments I made on the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 about how the requirement would operate in practice or how such an approach would be applied consistently across different commissioning functions. Although I am very keen on the principle, I am concerned about the intention.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will not detain the Committee for long, and I will speak primarily to clause 15. I am broadly supportive of what the Minister seeks to achieve, as I understand it, with the clause. It is absolutely right that service users and communities are engaged by their integrated care boards—those commissioning services—in the design of services as well in individual care.
As I alluded to before we adjourned for lunch, however diligent an ICB may be in doing formal consultations or conducting surveys, it is all too easy for that to appear to the actual users of the service as a box-ticking exercise, with the board none the less determined to follow through with the strategic plan that it conceived and consulted on in the first place. We have seen that challenge on a number of occasions in my Melton and Syston constituency, with the recent closure of St Mary’s birth centre in Melton Mowbray. There was a consultation and engagement with the public, but we always feared that, ultimately, a decision to close was what the ICB wanted and, lo and behold, that is what happened. Similarly, the ICB decided to pull away from accepting the need for a second GP practice or enhanced GP services in Melton Mowbray. There was a consultation and discussion, but ultimately the conclusion that we feared at the outset of the process was indeed what was reached at the end of it.
The clause will not necessarily address all that, but it is a step forward in putting pressure on an ICB, or on those commissioning services, whoever they may be, to engage with local communities in a meaningful way.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend is making an absolutely correct point, which I made when we were talking about the Secretary of State’s ability to remove, by sacking or otherwise, the chief executives of ICBs. There is a tension between us as Members of Parliament trying to lobby the Secretary of State for changes in our constituencies when he currently has no power to actually make those changes. The clause will potentially give him the power to make those changes, but being able to sack a chief executive is probably a step too far. How does my right hon. Friend see the powers in the clause, which are probably correct, balancing with the local decision-making process and clinical expertise? There will clearly be a tension between the two.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend comes to this with significant knowledge from his work on the Health and Social Care Committee. He is absolutely right, but that is a tension and a balance that I fear runs as a thread throughout this legislation, between local decision making and tailoring and the genuine need for a Secretary of State to have effective powers. We lobby Secretaries of State; on occasion I have lobbied the Minister, and she has always been very responsive—she does not always agree with me, but she has always been very responsive to me. As Members of Parliament, we do that on behalf of our communities.
My argument is that ICBs need to be more responsive, even when they do consult, to make it clear that the decision is not predetermined by the board and that they are going through the process. In the context of this clause, that also needs to be true of the Secretary of State: it needs to be not simply a formulaic approach but a genuine engagement and consultation. My question for the Minister, in that context, is about how we make sure of what she is seeking to do in the clause. The Secretary of State or those undertaking commissioning on their behalf must pay heed to something, but how do we make sure that that consultation, engagement and feedback genuinely have some teeth in what emerges in the final decision?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon have covered my points so effectively that I will be very brief indeed. How do we ensure that the consultation is not just well meaning and ticking the legal boxes, but actually listened to, so that people’s voices are incorporated into the plans? Also, I appreciate that amendment 28 is a well-meaning intervention, but how do we ensure that all voices are heard in a co-production, not just those who are the most articulate or the most able to engage with a process that they see online?
Helen Morgan
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to some of the difficulties relating to cross-border healthcare in a border area. I represent an area on a border. North Shropshire has a very wiggly, for want of a better word, border with Wales, which means that some English constituents are registered with a GP surgery in Wales but receive their secondary care in England. That causes significant difficulties for them because of the lack of joined-up communication between the two Administrations. I seek assurance from the Minister that as ICBs in England will have to pay regard to people who live near the border in Wales, conversations are going on with the commissioners in Wales to ensure that that process is as smooth as possible.
Edward Argar
The hon. Member for North Shropshire makes the point very well. Back when I was a Minister, and subsequently shadow Secretary of State, she raised that point with me. The clause is sensible. The Minister articulated concisely and reasonably why it is necessary. It is the nature of any devolution arrangements that a little bit of cross-border co-operation is required along the border to make sure that services work effectively for people. This may have changed, but in my experience the majority of those crossing the border were people from Wales coming for secondary care services in a hospital on the English side of the border, so I think the clause is entirely reasonable.
I echo the hon. Lady’s request: I would be grateful if the Minister updated the Committee on what conversations she has had, particularly with the Welsh Government, but also with the Scottish Government, to ensure that there is reciprocity and that they will put an equivalent provision into their laws to ensure that patients in England are taken into consideration in their healthcare planning.
Dr Johnson
The clause imposes a duty on ICBs to have regard to the likely impact of their commissioning decisions on areas of Wales and Scotland close to the border. In some respects, this is like other parts of the Bill—a statement of the obvious regarding a person’s job. Are we suggesting that the Secretary of State, and in particular ICBs, would not consider the effect of their decisions? I hope that they would, but, given that the clause is there, what teeth does it have? What if they do not? Is there any consequence in the Bill if they do not? As others have said, will the Minister confirm whether there is a reciprocal agreement with Wales and Scotland? If there is not, what negotiations has she entered into and what progress are they making?
Karin Smyth
The clause transfers the requirement to conduct annual assessments of integrated care boards from NHS England to the Secretary of State and focuses the assessment on the statutory functions of the organisations. To do that, it removes a prescriptive list of duties to be assessed that was inserted by the Health and Care Act 2022.
ICBs are essential to delivering our health mission. They are responsible not only for arranging healthcare services, but for planning how those services will focus more on prevention, digital innovation and delivery in the community. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should hold ICBs to account and undertake a meaningful assessment of their performance.
Currently, NHS England assesses the performance of ICBs annually, reviewing how well they have performed against a list of duties prescribed by the current legislation. The process for those assessments is set out in guidance each year and is driven by both publicly available performance data and local insight. The results are published online and form part of the ongoing performance conversation between NHS England and each ICB.
Although NHS England can choose to assess more than those statutory duties as part of that process, the duties form a static list of requirements that are already expected as part of the ICBs’ statutory functions. Having such a list may inadvertently skew attention away from other priorities in the 10-year health plan and our mission. As we reform the NHS, the ICB performance assessment will need to adapt to the evolving role of ICBs as strategic commissioners and reflect new models of commissioning. The list of duties will therefore become too prescriptive to provide the accountability intended. The clause allows a more nimble and flexible approach, ensuring meaningful assessment of ICB performance.
Edward Argar
The Minister has saved me from having to give a speech on this clause, so I will ask her a couple of questions instead. Does the Secretary of State intend to publish the list of criteria against which he will require assessment to take place, so that it is transparent what is being considered? Notwithstanding the Minister’s point about the 2022 legislation, the Secretary of State will define the list, so will he publish those criteria? Within what period following the end of the financial year will the Secretary of State commit that the results will be published?
Karin Smyth
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise as a former Minister in this role. I do not want to mislead him, so I will come back to him in writing on both those points, if that is acceptable. He tempts me to be more prescriptive than I think we intend to be at this point, but I will ensure that he gets a proper answer to both questions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that I had not considered before, but she is absolutely right. The upper-tier authorities and strategic mayors might be from different parties, and, where the mayor does not have an actual responsibility for health, there essentially could be democratic deficit there that I had not thought about. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
That democratic deficit will potentially be exacerbated in the other half of my constituency, which is in Surrey. As I have already alluded to, the Surrey ICB has taken on Frimley but is also now merging with Sussex. As far as I can tell, the Government have absolutely no plans to introduce a mayoral authority in Surrey; however, my quick googling suggests that there will be a mayoral authority in Sussex in 2028, so the mayor of Sussex could be sitting on a board where there is no representation from the Surrey side. That is a complete democratic deficit. There would be the Surrey and Sussex ICB, with representatives for the people of Sussex but not for the people of Surrey. That must be an unfairness. I hope the Minister, if she cannot answer now, will at least go away and think about how that democratic deficit will be avoided. I suggest that she dumps the whole idea and goes back to having the people who actually run health and social care in our country on the board.
That is why I am very supportive of amendments 45 and 46, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Reducing the representation to a single mayoral representative is a problem. Reinstating and consolidating the full range of required members and thereby giving the breadth of representation within ICBs that we have all talked about, is essential. It would strengthen the legislative framework, ensuring decision making remains multidisciplinary and balanced and that it incorporates both the clinical expertise, which we are going to lose, and the local authority political input, rather than having a one-sized, over-politicised mayor in charge.
By maintaining that membership, the amendments would help safeguard overdominance by a single actor, support a much more informed and locally responsive decision-making process and, crucially, reinforce the collaborative foundation between health and social care that I thought was a given among all parties in this House. I urge the Minister to reconsider what she is proposing in this clause. She should, at least, give us some clarity on what will happen in the interim period or, at best, go back to the drawing board and ensure proper representation of the people who are actually delivering health and social care in our constituencies.
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.
Dr Prinsley
I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member has to say. I wonder whether he could present us with a concrete example of where precisely elected local government involvement in the commissioning of services in ICBs has been essential, because it seems to me that what an ICB needs is expertise in commissioning. We need people who know how to commission services. Although I understand the importance of representation, I think that what we really need is expertise in commissioning.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point to a degree, but I would refute a chunk of it. We need within the organisation people who have those technical skills and know how to commission, draw up a specification, put it out to tender, or work out what is needed and ensure that what is delivered reflects what was commissioned and that the performance is what is sought to meet the needs of the local area. At board level, we need representation from local authorities and others, because it sets the strategic direction.
The board members are not the people who are going to sit there and write the commissioning document. They will probably approve it, but they are not the experts who will be drafting it. We are talking about two different functions, and I argue that when a board-level decision is being made, we want those voices in the room to ensure that those different perspectives are reflected and there is that critical challenge to what is proposed by the executive directors. We essentially have non-executive directors who are there to challenge, to question—perhaps to agree, but perhaps to push back on things. That is how many boards operate.
In what is proposed, we lose some powerful voices from round the table. They may not carry the day, but those voices should be heard. Having sat where the Minister is sitting now, I appreciate that she may not be willing or in a position to accept the amendments, but I hope that she will take away and reflect further on the challenges of representation.
Karin Smyth
I absolutely recognise that this is an area of huge interest to hon. Members across the piece. I assure colleagues that officials and I have been working with representatives of the Local Government Association and mayors throughout the development of the Bill and the future architecture, and we will continue to do so. We will continue to have discussions and to make sure we get this right, because it is complex and complicated. Given that we are all politicians, we understand. Many of us have been councillors and local representatives, and have spent a lot of our time—sadly, for officials—knocking on doors, going out and persuading individuals to vote for these people. We understand that it is quite personal and we want to get it right.
If I may, I will not take any interventions so that I can address the amendments and our approach to ICB membership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, ICBs are commissioners. This is a fundamental shift, which I will come on to, and it is different from the 2022 work. I now want to outline the board membership set out in clause 21, but I think we will be discussing this for some time.
Lord Darzi’s review found inconsistency in the roles being undertaken by ICBs and concluded that the health and care system would work better if each organisation had greater clarity and focus on its particular role. That is our starting point, and we set out to do that in the 10-year health plan. In future, all ICBs will discharge their common statutory duties through best-practice approaches, getting better at allocating their budgets to meet the population’s needs and securing the best outcomes. The new focus for ICBs is strategic commissioning. All ICBs will, in future, operate at a minimum efficient scale, with a population of around 1.5 million people covering multiple partner local authorities.
Effective partnership working is core to strategic commissioning and is aided, rather than diminished, by replacing ambiguity in roles with clarity and focus. That is why we are altering the membership requirements for ICBs. We are adding a requirement for strategic authority mayors, or a nominated representative, to be appointed to ICBs operating within their footprint. Strategic authorities will increasingly become key bodies for growth and prosperity in their localities. Mayors, or their nominated representatives, will highlight opportunities to improve health outcomes through a joined-up approach to their other devolved responsibilities, such as transport, housing and employment.
Although we recognise that the coverage of mayors and strategic authorities varies across the country, we will provide guidance to ensure that no area is disadvantaged, regardless of how advanced its local devolution arrangements are. In all cases, ICBs will have an obligation to ensure that their boards have a suitable membership to discharge those functions properly.
Given the larger geographical footprint of ICBs in the future, we are also removing the requirement for ICBs to have at least one member jointly nominated by local authorities. At present, local authorities collaborate with ICBs by sitting on health and wellbeing boards and local integrated care partnerships. The multitude of plans, committees and measures have resulted in confusion, siloed working and, too often, inaction. I think many of us would recognise that in our own areas.
I emphasise that we want to ensure a strong voice for local government in the work of the NHS. Our preferred approach is for local authorities to work with the NHS through health and wellbeing boards, co-commissioning and local authority health scrutiny. Those are likely to be more fruitful forums in which to resolve issues, agree joint approaches and tackle the needs of a local area.
As ICBs become more focused on effective commissioning, it is right that we remove any potential conflicts of interest. That is why the 10-year health plan and the Bill propose removing the requirement for one member jointly nominated by primary medical care providers and one member jointly nominated by NHS trusts and foundation trusts. The clause will provide ICBs with memberships that are best equipped to fulfil their commissioning responsibilities and role in health planning.
On amendment 45, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I assure her that the Government fully appreciate the importance of general practice and primary care more broadly, and the role that they play in informing ICB decisions. However, as I have said, health and wellbeing boards should be the key forum for resolving local issues and making planning decisions for their neighbourhoods. GPs are well placed to contribute to those discussions and also vital to them. We expect health and wellbeing boards to ensure that they involve relevant stakeholders, including GP practices and primary healthcare providers, in their work.
There is an opportunity for health and wellbeing boards to play a much more proactive and important role in the local economy. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, we absolutely recognise that place is important in those arrangements. Although I agree that the experience of primary care is important, I hope that I have reassured the Committee that having a member nominated by primary care on the board of an ICB is not necessary.
A similar argument applies to amendment 46, which would require a local government representative on the ICB. I should start by saying that I wholeheartedly recognise the important role that local authorities play in the health and care system. As we have discussed, their work in social care and public health, and their influence on the wider determinants of health such as housing and employment, mean that they have a fundamental role in supporting the delivery of our ambitions to improve the health and wellbeing of the population and implement the three shifts identified in our 10-year health plan.
Rather than one local authority attempting to represent the interests of many on an ICB board, however, we think that it is more effective for local government to use health and wellbeing boards to address local barriers to joint working and support the development of neighbourhood health plans, which will shape the commissioning plans of the ICBs. I assure the Committee that we expect ICBs to work effectively with every one of their partner local authorities in the local authority footprint to deliver the neighbourhood health service and progress the integration of health and care services at that level.
I should stress that our changes are not designed to weaken democratic accountability in the NHS. ICBs are NHS statutory bodies that are governed by a unitary board that is jointly responsible for ensuring that the ICB discharges its legal duties. Given that specific role, the ICB board is not the forum in which democratic leaders hold the NHS to account; rather, that is conducted through the local authority health scrutiny functions and Parliament. Again, this is a good opportunity for those health scrutiny functions to be much more robust and proactive at local authority level.
Amendment 46 also proposes retaining provider representatives on the ICB board. As I said earlier, we think that an ICB should have a core focus on commissioning, so it is right to remove the requirement to have providers on them. That will also support the avoidance of potential conflicts of interest.
We debated these issues many times—the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston referred to it—in this Committee Room, or one very similar to it that was not quite as hot, during the passage of the Bill that became the Health and Care Act 2022. These are difficult and complex issues. I mean no disrespect to him—he had a difficult job to do at the time—but the architecture has not worked. It is confusing, and I do not know any area that particularly thinks it has worked. We think that clarifying the roles will make the system much more effective.
I think we agree that adding requirements for strategic authority mayors to make nominations to their ICB boards is a good thing. It will be an effective tool to harness the benefits of joint planning between an ICB and strategic commissioners and strategic authorities, who will have increasingly significant roles in shaping their areas. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, and I commend clause 21 to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Health Bill (Sixth sitting)
Edward Argar ExcerptsThursday 25th June 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2026 - (25 Jun 2026)
Helen Morgan
We do not consider the right to achieve a cancer diagnosis and treatment to be burdensome on the secondary care providers of those treatments; we consider that important enough to enshrine that right within the NHS constitution, and this would be a similar level of right. I would not imagine that a GP would be worrying about somebody taking them to court, but it would confer upon the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that primary care is adequately resourced in order to be able to meet that commitment.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is typically generous with her time. Can I just seek a little clarification in terms of the right to a GP appointment in new clause 2? Is her intention that that is an appointment with the practice—be that any clinically qualified individual within it—or an appointment with a GP, not with a practice nurse? Would, for example, a telephone appointment constitute an “appointment”, rather than specifically an in-person appointment? I just want to understand a little more about what is expected here.
Helen Morgan
The right hon. Gentleman asks an extremely important question, and I am happy to clarify. It would be an appropriate clinician within the GP practice, and it could obviously be a telephone appointment, because that might be more convenient for the patient. Lots of patients are really happy with telephone appointments and we should be using them wherever that is the patient’s choice, because we want—I think we all do—to see an NHS that is patient-led and not politician-led.
Gregory Stafford
It is for the Minister to clarify that point, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is ironic that we seem to be heading back towards the strategic health authorities of an earlier age. Things in the NHS are neither created nor destroyed; they just go round and round and round. I think we may end up being back where we were 15 or 20 years ago, in an ever decreasing cycle of spending money on changes that are perhaps not wanted or needed.
I have touched on dental services, so I will not go any further on that. On pharmaceutical services, I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about dispensing GPs. That is a big issue. And I have touched on the Liberal Democrat new clauses. In conclusion, although Conservative Members support a number of the ambitions in relation to the group that we are debating, the questions that my colleagues and I have raised require more clarification from the Minister.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. My hon. Friends have addressed at some length the Government new clauses and amendments, so the Minister may get a slightly easy ride from me this time, but I want to pick up on new clause 2 and some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon raised.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire knows that I have huge respect for her. I have worked with her, across the health and social care space in this House, on a number of issues, so I can entirely appreciate where she is coming from on this. She raises an issue that is very important to all our constituents, which is access to primary care when people need it. For example, in Melton Mowbray in my constituency, there have been real concerns in recent months about very long waiting times to access primary care services. That has on occasion caused considerable distress for some patients, who have become more and more concerned.
I have to say that the practice has sought to do a lot to address that. It has brought on board a new annexe and additional services and been recruiting more GPs, but the challenges remain and the concerns are very real and would, I suspect, be shared by all our constituents. One of the key things in how the practice has been seeking to address the issue and how other practices locally, both rural ones and ones in some of the towns in my patch, have sought to address it has been a degree of flexibility and of clinical triage as to what is the most appropriate access point to primary care services for the individual, based on their symptoms and needs.
For me, despite the work being done in Melton Mowbray at the moment to improve waiting times, it remains a very significant concern that despite the integrated care board having a few years ago acknowledged publicly the need for additional GP provision in the town, whether a second GP practice or a new satellite service, it said a few months ago—despite the fact that in the intervening period there has been considerable housing development in the town—that it considers that there is no need at the present time for additional GP provision, and so it does not appear to have a plan to expand that provision. That is obviously concerning. All of us in this House will from time to time have these issues in our constituencies and, I suspect, sometimes get frustrated by the fact that ultimately we can press our ICBs and ask questions of the Minister—who, I have to say, always responds in a courteous and measured fashion—but ultimately the decision maker is the integrated care board’s board and it will do what it wishes to do when it comes to commissioning those services. There is a disconnect there.
My challenge with regard to new clause 2, despite my being in agreement with the need to improve access to services, is that there is a lack of clarity about how that will be done and there is the fear that it may raise expectations that are not necessarily deliverable on in the current context. The Liberal Democrat five-year plan for GPs is in their 2024 manifesto, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire alluded to the commitment to 8,000 additional GPs. It is not my usual habit, but I have read the Liberal Democrat website, which sets out the background. I appreciate that this is from 2024 and the hon. Lady may have moved things forward a little bit since then, but it states that the five-year plan
“gives patients the legal right to see a GP within a week or 24 hours if needed urgently”.
The hon. Lady may wish to respond on that.
Helen Morgan
I am sure the right hon. Member has enjoyed reading the Liberal Democrat website. If he had delved a little further into the policy paper that sits behind that manifesto commitment, he would see that that is with an appropriate clinician and not with a GP. I appreciate that the wording of the new clause says a GP, but it does indicate a GP practice, and would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme that would achieve that. I expect that clarification could be made at that point.
Edward Argar
I am grateful for that, and the hon. Lady has that on the record. As we all know with political campaigning, the headline on the front page of the website may sometimes, although not always, contain the “conditions apply” caveat in the small print. The hon. Lady has read her explanation into the record of the House, and I, as always, take her at her word and accept that explanation.
My concern is how this measure would be paid for—8,000 GPs, of which half were to be new recruits and half were either through retention or by encouraging returners to the profession, with a costing of about £1 billion. That works out at about £125,000 a head, so it is not outside the realms of possibility. That was not going to be paid for through closer ties with the European Union; if I recall correctly, I think it was tagged against hikes in capital gains tax with three new bandings, rather than EU links.
Helen Morgan
I am happy to clarify. Clearly, the world has moved on since July 2024 when we put together our manifesto, but this was a fully costed plan with a number of different changes to tax regimes, including a tweak to capital gains tax and changes to the way that banks were taxed and digital services tax. Since then, we have proposed a number of other alternatives, but the principle of changes to capital gains tax, to the way that windfall profits of the big banks are taxed and to digital services taxes still stands. Plus, we also have a fully fleshed-out plan to actually grow our economy and deal with this problem in the long term.
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.
Karin Smyth
I have enjoyed the “back to the good old days” of the Lib Dem-Tories. They tell us we live in fractured political parties, but I quite like the old days.
On new clause 2, I understand the intention that GP provision is important to us all and to our constituents. We have recruited over 2,000 more GPs since 2024—the highest number of qualified GPs since 2015—and there is provision to ringfence money for even more. We all know the importance of timely access to general practice, and patients need to be confident that they can get that care urgently and receive it promptly.
We are seeing improving signs. According to the ONS, the number of people who say it is now easy to contact their GP practice is up 14% since 2024, and that satisfaction is rising. Importantly, 69% of patients are seen within seven days and 44% are seen within the one day that they have requested an appointment, irrespective of urgency. That is the progress that we are encouraging, but we are not complacent; we recognise that there is more to do.
We also recognise that not everyone not seen within seven days is experiencing an unnecessary delay. Not every patient requires an appointment within seven days, and many people book appointments in advance for routine reviews, medication checks, to ensure that they see their preferred clinician or to fit around work and other life responsibilities. The new clause would cut across that flexibility by imposing a more rigid approach to appointment allocation, weakening both clinical judgment and patient preference. We do not believe that would be the best for patients or safe care. We must protect both clinical judgment and patient choice. We therefore cannot support the new clause.
We are clear that if someone is unwell and a doctor needs to see them urgently, they should be seen that same day. NHS England’s medium-term planning framework, which was published in October 2025, sets out an ambition for all clinically urgent appointments to be delivered on the same day, ensuring that patients assessed as needing urgent care are prioritised appropriately. We have made changes to regulations to require clinically urgent requests to be dealt with on the same day to support that ambition within the 2026-27 GP contract. We will publish data on that progress soon.
On new clause 52, we know that dentistry is broken and that we need to rebuild it. That includes ensuring an urgent care safety net across the country by reforming the dental contract and developing the 10-year workforce plan This new clause is unnecessary; we have delivered 1.8 million more dental treatments, and from April we began introducing a package of reforms to address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will prioritise those with the greatest need, shifting care away from clinically unnecessary check-ups. We are also including dental school places, and we will make more provision in our upcoming workforce plan.
The Government are committed to more fundamental contract reform by the end of this Parliament, which will include publicly consulting on future proposals. I make no apologies for taking the time to get that right. The issues are complex; this has not been done for a long time and there is no consensus on the perfect approach. On that basis, I commend clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Conferral of primary care functions on integrated care boards etc
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 1, page 60, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
This is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 60, line 26, leave out “(a), (b), (c) and”.
This is consequential on NC21.
Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 60, line 36, leave out paragraph 46.
This is consequential on NC22.
Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 65, line 5, leave out paragraph 65.
This is consequential on NS1.
Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 75, line 1, at end insert—
“(4) In subsection (5), in the definition of ‘relevant area’, after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) in relation to an integrated care board, in a case where a person has at any time provided or performed services by arrangement or contract with the board, means the prescribed area (at the prescribed time).’”—(Karin Smyth.)
This adds an amendment to section 259 of the NHS Act 2006 that is consequential on the transfer to integrated care boards of NHS England’s commissioning functions in respect of primary care.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
Health Bill (Fourth sitting)
Edward Argar ExcerptsTuesday 23rd June 2026
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2026 - (23 Jun 2026)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Casting my mind back to before the weekend, we had a wide-ranging debate on clauses 1 to 3 but, I think, substantial agreement about the central proposition to abolish NHS England. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who succinctly put his finger on the key issue: it is fundamentally right that people and their elected representatives should be able to hold Ministers to account for the performance of the health service. It is also right that Ministers should have the tools to make the changes that are needed. The abolition is a necessary result of restoring that principle.
The debate raised a number of questions, a substantial number of which we will address during the course of the Committee as we reach the relevant clauses. However, I will pick up a couple now. I reassure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston that the Government do take the impact of this process on staff seriously. We will treat people with the care, respect and fairness that they are owed through this process, now and in the months ahead. I am also committed to consulting recognised trade unions and I have a joint partnership forum to support ongoing engagement. More broadly, we recognise that change of this type is never easy, but we will need to go through the process quickly, which means, of necessity, proceeding in parallel with the legislation on the detailed internal design work for the new Department. That is in the interests of staff, patients and the public.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the issue of whether the Bill was the cause of delays to the workforce plan. To be clear, it has not been, and we will publish that imminently. She also asked about the opportunity costs for other programmes, and I assure her that the Department, NHS England and Ministers are clear that we are here to deliver the 10-year health plan and other changes that make a difference to patients. We can, should and will do several things at once, and the Bill will help us with that by providing clarity of roles, greater freedom to local organisations and other positive changes.
To take just one example of the real impact, we are already saving on agency costs, and this is the first time in many years that the Department has not had to go back to the Treasury for a further injection of cash mid-year. That is getting a grip on the system. I add that the opportunity costs of not acting are very clear to the public, to staff and to patients in every single staff or patient survey that is issued. Those are the opportunity costs of not doing something; that is why we are acting. Clauses 1 to 3 are a necessary requirement for an NHS that is more effective for patients, delivers better outcomes across the country and achieves the initiatives that are expected of us.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
This brings back memories of being in probably this same Committee Room a few years ago. I made this point during the previous sitting, but is the Minister able to commit that before the Bill leaves the Commons, a full and detailed statistical breakdown of the costs and benefits will be published, given their absence from the impact assessment?
Karin Smyth
I can tell the right hon. Member that we expect that NHS England coming into the Department will deliver up to about £1 billion in annual savings by the end of the Parliament, driven primarily by reductions in headcount, calculated using the average staff costs—about £77,000 per staff member in the Department and £94,000 per staff member in NHS England—including all pension and employer costs, which I think should help contribute to those numbers. As I think he knows, we will publish all accounts in the usual way.
I commend the three clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Reducing inequalities
Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test
Edward Argar Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will seek to speak relatively briefly.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) set out the case behind this petition eloquently, reasonably and with passion. Every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with SMA, with 60% of those having the most severe form: SMA type 1. I was moved to speak in this debate not only as a former Health Minister, but particularly after hearing from my constituent Charlotte. She told me about her son Harvey, who sadly passed away at just shy of seven months old. She very movingly set out her experience to me, and has kindly allowed me to share it with the Chamber today.
I pay tribute to Charlotte and her family for their courage and willingness to share something so personal not just with me as their Member of Parliament, but with hon. Members and more widely. I hope hon. Members will bear with me; I want to quote Charlotte fully, because what she relates is extremely important:
“On 15th March 2017 I gave birth to my first child. A beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed boy—Harvey. He was perfect. He was also unbeknown to us born with SMA Type 1.
As first time parents, having navigated the difficult journey of IVF, we were like rabbits in the headlights and had no idea anything was wrong—but in hindsight the signs were there quite early on. It was only through the concern of a Health Visitor when Harvey was 10 weeks old did the journey to his diagnosis begin. She had sadly come across another baby with SMA 1 earlier in her 30-year career and recognised the signs.
What Harvey went through to be diagnosed via multiple tests and what we went through as his parents was traumatic. Three weeks later we were then told by a room full of medical professionals that he had SMA Type 1 and at the very best he would live to two years old.
I will never forget that meeting, or the box of tissues that were slipped through the door just in case we needed one. I will never forget the walk out of Leicester Royal Infirmary that day, the day our ‘happy bubble’ burst & our lives changed forever. Nor will I ever forget the subsequent times when we had to go back to LRI when Harvey had stopped breathing and I resuscitated him, or to be trained in how to feed him via a nasal feeding tube.
In 2017, treatments were still at trial stage. We as Harvey’s parents decided not to treat Harvey with drugs that hadn’t been approved by NICE, nor did we want to put him through anymore trauma. An unimaginable decision to make, but we decided to focus on him and his needs as they changed whilst making memories together.
Harvey died on 14th October 2017, he was a day shy of being 7 months old.”
Charlotte told me that she and others in her situation were told that change was coming—that there would be an advancement in treatment, and that gene therapy and better diagnosis were on the way. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, those treatments do exist. There are three effective treatments for SMA in the UK, but as with so many health conditions, and as I saw during my tenure as a Health Minister, all too often, speed of diagnosis is everything.
The disease needs to be caught early, hence the benefits of newborn screening. I pay tribute to the former Health Secretary for bringing forward the ISE to October of this year, and I am grateful to him for that, but as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, only 72% of babies in England will be included, so a large proportion—160,000—will not be screened. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has now left, highlighted the divergence in access across different parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland Central.
Until and unless the National Screening Committee makes recommendations on routine screening, many of those babies will miss out. I have seen how systems within the NHS work, often for good reasons—safety and rigour—but sadly that suggests that routine screening will not happen until 2030 or 2031. That is an awfully long time to wait and an awful lot of newborns who will be left unscreened and therefore potentially vulnerable to SMA.
In conclusion, and in paying tribute to Charlotte and her family, I have a question for the Minister, whom I know and have stood opposite on many occasions, both in government and now in opposition. I know that she cares, takes her brief extremely seriously and is a very diligent and caring Minister. My question to her, in Charlotte and Harvey’s name, is very simple: what steps can the Government take to speed up the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test for all newborns in this country?
Health Bill (Third sitting)
Edward Argar ExcerptsThursday 18th June 2026
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 June 2026 - (18 Jun 2026)
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?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
I echo and endorse all the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who was comprehensive in setting out our position. I therefore speak from a broad consensus surrounding the Committee that the final days of NHS England as a body are here, and so be it, because there are advantages to be gained from its abolition. The Minister set out some of the leading reasons why she and the Government are abolishing NHS England. She referred to the growing bureaucracy, the unnecessary complexity, and the overlap of roles and responsibilities between the organisation and DHSC. She also spoke about being able to better focus on delivering care rather than navigating bureaucratic hurdles.
Health Bill (First sitting)
Edward Argar Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sureena Brackenridge
Q
Dr Benneyworth: One of the things that we see regularly in our investigations is that people fall down the gaps between organisations. We have the ability to look right across the system and understand a person’s journey. As a recent example, we looked at medication errors on discharge from hospital. There are a lot of medication errors, and we looked at the process of how information was being shared and what was happening. Those are the type of things where we see a lot of concerns about patient safety. There needs to be much more clarity about accountability for patient safety.
No one is accountable for the discharge of a patient. There is not one person—no single individual—who is accountable when someone is discharged from hospital to social care. You go through multiple layers of accountability. We are keen to learn from other industries that have effective safety management systems. Part of those safety management systems is having much more clarity about accountability, which is lacking across the NHS. I very much hope that, with the changes to ICBs, they really do think about accountability for patient safety.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Q
Dr Benneyworth: No, we do not make recommendations to provider organisations at all. All our recommendations go to national organisations. I completely agree with Dr Dash that there are too many recommendations. In fact, HSSIB raised that concern through our work two years ago and flagged it to Dr Dash. We wrote a report called “Recommendations but no action”. We are very concerned about the plethora of recommendations going to providers, which create a huge amount of noise but, distressingly for the families involved, do not lead to the changes needed.
I completely agree that there are far too many recommendations. I am leading some work to address that—we are setting up a recommendations hub with the Department of Health and Social Care—but we are not that problem. We have made 39 recommendations since investigations launched and HSSIB started three years ago, and they are all to national bodies. We might reduce the burden on national bodies by taking that away, but it will not have any impact on providers.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Dr Benneyworth: Yes, absolutely—we have seen that in so many of our investigations. It can often be exacerbated by different parts of the system working together.
To give you an example, we looked at mental health in-patient settings. There is national guidance that says that people should not use risk assessment tools around self-harm, but when we looked we found that, on the ground, everyone was using these tools. We asked why that was, and we were given two reasons. One was that the IT systems were set up such that you could not move past the front screen without ticking one of the risk assessment boxes, and the other reason was that people were fearful about being in front of a coroner and asked about risk assessment tools, so we took action on both those fronts.
Another thing that we see is about speaking up. There are definite inequalities at play when people are speaking up. We have seen significant racial discrimination. We wrote a report about temporary workers. We find that people working as locums or agency staff often feel a lot less able to speak up if there are patient concerns. If you are black or from other global majority groups, to be able to speak up is even harder. On the back of that, we made a recommendation to the National Guardian’s Office, and it has done a lot of work with temporary workers, looking at how we can improve their ability to speak up. We still have a huge way to go on culture generally, but particularly on discrimination and the inequalities that we see in every one of our investigations.