Health Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party group on patient safety and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place. I very much look forward to working constructively with him during the passage of the Bill.

We all know that our NHS is in desperate need of transformation. Hospitals are in chaos, social care is overloaded and getting a GP appointment is a huge challenge for many. Labour has promised to put patients and communities at the heart of the NHS, but I fear that the Bill does not fulfil that promise. The Government promised to sort out social care, but two years later they are still only part-way through a three-year review. They promised to treat mental health with parity, but although mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden, its share of NHS budgets is falling to just 8.4%. The Government promised to protect women’s health, but the women’s health strategy published this year was significantly weaker than the men’s health strategy, which received 60% more funding for new research. Healthy life expectancy in the UK is stagnating, and adult social care is under ever more pressure, putting immense stress on the budgets of councils and other local authorities.

The reality in rural North Shropshire is that people struggle to get GP appointments, 12-hour waits in A&E have become normal and finding an NHS dentist is becoming impossible. The social care crisis has left Shropshire council’s finances in a dire situation. A real NHS reform Bill would have changes to social care, general practice and prevention at its heart. Instead, this Bill passes responsibilities around Whitehall, centralising more power with the Secretary of State, while chaos reigns following 50% cuts to ICB budgets.

Early in his term, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) promised that another top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do. Yet the abolition of NHS England is exactly that—focusing on reorganisation at the top, while failing to deliver real improvements for patients and staff. It is true that NHS England has allowed Ministers to shirk responsibility and accountability, but its abolition has been poorly planned, leaving both ICBs and specialised commissioning in chaos. Instead of the Government’s advertised aim of creating a more community-based NHS, the Bill centralises power in Whitehall, giving sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to the Secretary of State. Such powers carry a real risk that political considerations could influence what should be operational decisions about how the NHS provides for patients in future. That is particularly concerning in the current febrile political climate, and the Government must ensure that protections are in place for what may happen in the future.

The Government have made 50% cuts to ICBs, but the Bill gives them new legal responsibilities, different structures and centrally directed spending objectives. It is indicative of a lack of planning that could plunge ICBs into chaos. Meanwhile, the removal of the integrated care partnership and the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning. In Shropshire, the council already spends around 80% of its budget on social care provision. That has a monumental impact on all services, as constant savings have to be found. Removing the pooling of the better care fund among local authorities and ICBs will discourage integrated working between these bodies on social care. Given existing complications over the sharing of costs and social care provision, the chaos of that reorganisation may only exacerbate confusion.

It is also astounding that the Bill plans to remove the duty of GP representation on ICBs, along with local authorities and NHS trusts. The replacement of council representation with mayors is extremely problematic for the many areas that do not have a mayor, and it removes the local accountability needed to ensure true community representation. Like so much Labour policy, such changes risk benefiting concentrated urban areas, while letting down rural communities such as those I represent.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of clause 4 on reducing health inequalities, which I welcome. As a rural MP, like me, she will also know that access and outcomes are poorer in our communities. Does she agree that the Government should go further and ensure that the Bill explicitly refers to equality of access and outcomes for rural and coastal communities such as North Norfolk?

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with his point.

ICBs are already overstretched and underfunded. In North Shropshire, both Shawbury medical practice and Prescott surgery in Baschurch are in desperate need of expansion. Community infrastructure levy money is available and land is earmarked for a new site, but progress is being held up by the ICB’s inability to agree notional rent. That situation is replicated across the country, and there is no sign of such problems being solved by the Government’s changes.

The plan to abolish Healthwatch will ultimately strip patients of their voice. There has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system for more than 50 years. More than half of patients who experienced poor care in 2024 did not take any action, with many citing fears that giving negative feedback directly to the NHS might affect their ongoing treatment. That is why it is crucial that we have an independent patient voice, rather than leaving the Department or the ICB to mark its own homework.

We need only look at the devastating consequences of the failings uncovered during the Mid Staffordshire scandal, and the long list of maternity failings since, to see how important it is to have Healthwatch exposing challenges in the health service and listening to patient feedback, and how the CQC can fail in that operation. In Shropshire more than 200 babies are thought to have died due to maternity failures; in the reviews that followed, the one thing that came up time and again was that grieving parents were not listened to.

Patients and their families must have a voice. The new system will give no incentive to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main performance metrics of the NHS. To see the value of Healthwatch, we need only look at the Cabinet Office King’s Speech briefing for the Bill, which refers to a Healthwatch report from May 2025 on missing medical records in order to make the case for the single patient record. I urge the Government to protect both national Healthwatch and local healthwatch organisations, and the independent whistleblowing routes that empower and advocate for patients.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create a single patient record; that part of the Bill could prove to be the most transformational for patient experience and, most importantly, for patient outcomes. People are tired of endless NHS admin and of having to reconfirm their medical histories over and over to different medical professionals. Patient harm has often occurred where clinicians have not had a patient’s full medical history, and different parts of the NHS having access to the same patient information is clearly necessary. However, that must come alongside essential new privacy protections and safeguards for patients, particularly given the understandable concerns surrounding Palantir’s involvement with the federated data platform. We would introduce a health charter to set out guiding principles for data sharing across the NHS, ensuring that patients are in charge of their own data.

The Bill’s references to carers are welcome, as is the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision-making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill goes nowhere near tackling the social care crisis and demonstrates a pitiful lack of ambition on one of the biggest challenges we face. As I mentioned, the chaos caused by the restructuring of ICBs will only worsen the challenges that local authorities face in providing care for an increasingly ageing population. We want to transform the NHS so that patients are empowered to live more healthily, for longer and in dignity. The nation’s health is stagnating, with an ever-widening gap in healthy life expectancy between the country’s most and least deprived areas and growing pressure on adult social care.

Fixing social care is fundamental to our vision for the NHS. It is the key to providing a better quality of life for the frail and vulnerable, freeing up hospitals and building independence for an ageing population. It also empowers our constituents to live as independently as possible in their homes and near to their families and communities. We cannot fix the NHS and move care to the community while ignoring social care—yet the Bill ignores it and, as I have outlined, the changes to ICB commissioning will undermine the structures that are supposed to integrate social care with the NHS.

Liberal Democrat plans will give people control, rooting services in communities, listening to patients and making it much easier to see a GP. We will give patients a right to see a GP within seven days, reverse surgery closures and ensure proper personalised management of chronic conditions and frailty, with guaranteed access to a named GP for those patients. We will also protect the mental health investment standard so that we can rebuild community mental health services—something that this Government have failed to do— empowering individuals with poor mental health by intervening early and allowing them to access care in their community. Our maternity rescue plan will ensure that Britain is the safest country in the world in which to have a baby, offering one-to-one midwifery care and empowering women at this most important moment.

This Health Bill could have been a moment for real change. Liberal Democrats are clear about what real modernisation of the NHS would look like. Our vision for a reformed, community-based NHS is one where proper care and restored investment in public health ultimately cut NHS waste and empower people to live healthier and more independent lives. This Bill focuses on shuffling responsibility around Whitehall and gives the Secretary of State the role of chief micromanager. The Government continue to procrastinate over bringing in real change to fix social care, empower patients and save our NHS. In Committee and on Report, Liberal Democrats will use every lever at our disposal to deliver the transformation the NHS so desperately needs.

Health Bill (Second sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Karin Smyth]

Q Mr Blythe, what does the single patient record mean for you in running a big hospital?

James Blythe: I think the single patient record offers enormous opportunities to improve patient care. We know that we see patients every day whose quality of care and patient experience would be improved through having access to a continuous record that ran through primary and secondary care, mental health care and other services. To my mind, having had experience of working with systems that have introduced to some degree the single record or a single care plan, it will be extremely important that we take the time to train our clinical staff and adapt our operational systems so they use a patient record productively and consistently in the interests of better patient care. If we just put a single patient record into clinical settings without doing anything with the staff or services to make it useful, at best it will be inconsistently used and sometimes it will just be missed altogether. If we are going to invest, which I think is right, in a single patient record, we also have to invest in those systems and human factors around it, and make sure that we train people to use it well.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Q I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety and I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Can I ask about Healthwatch? We heard this morning that ICBs will be taking on a chunk of the current operations of local healthwatches, but that they will not have any additional budget to enable them to do that. In fact, we know that their budgets have been significantly reduced. Could you elaborate on how you think that will work, and will it be as effective as the current system?

Sir Ciarán Devane: The ICBs have a capitation fee of £19.40, which they have to do everything out of. This is an additional duty placed on them. They will have to work out how to do it if there is no extra money coming, but it will be pressured.

I hear the argument that local healthwatches were variable. This function has been slightly outside and independent, playing back into decisions; we have to ensure that the level of independence remains somehow in how this is constructed, but that the variability is not just transferred from local healthwatches to how it is done within or across ICBs. Again, the implementation will need to be done well. That leads into the question about local authorities and the connection with them, making sure the democratic voice is brought in and equally the local voice. The legislation does not stop an ICB doing this well. Therefore, without the legislation, part of what we can be doing collectively is trying to make sure that what was good about healthwatches is preserved and is understood by ICBs. There are only 25 of them, so it should be a manageable task for the rest of us.

The effectiveness comes back to whether you believe this is a good thing. One of the things we have to do is secure that the benefits of having the patient voice in there, along with the clinical voice and the voice of the manager, at the same time, so that it is not a case of saying, “Oh, now we’ll go and consult the patients on the font size of the report,” but is authentic. That puts a lot of work on to the ICBs and on to those of us who believe passionately in engaging with the patient voice, but there is a risk because of that pressure. Done well, it will enable strategic commissioning and ensure the quality remains, but they are starting, if maybe not from scratch, from a new place.

[Helen Morgan]

Q My second question is similar. In reality and in practice, how do you envisage ICBs will be locally accountable once these legislative changes have taken place?

Sir Ciarán Devane: According to the ICBs we are talking to, which is all of them, they are saying that they believe in local authority engagement. We will be saying, “You may not be told you have to, but we would encourage you to do it.” I am sure that should be coming from the Department as well.

The witness to my right is an example of that; we know that when the NHS has really good local connections, you can get things done in the interests of your patients much more easily. The belief is there, but we need to make sure that the legislation is not seen as a signal that this is unimportant. That is a risk. As a representative organisation, we have to say to people, “We hear you saying that you really believe in this. Therefore, you need to demonstrate, not least to the Secretary of State, that you are following it through.”

I have a small additional point about mayors in unitary authorities being able to appoint somebody who is both the chair of the ICB and the local health commissioner. That should help. Those individuals will have to work out how to serve two masters, but that is okay—other people learn how to do that, too.

James Blythe: I would focus on a slightly different part of the Bill in terms of how this needs to work. There are 25 ICBs; that is quite a large footprint. From my experience of delivering meaningful collaboration and joint working between health and local government, I think it tends to happen at a more local level than that. The neighbourhood health plan in the Bill becomes extremely important. As a system, we should be very ambitious for those neighbourhood health plans. They should go a lot further than just describing what should happen in terms of improving health outcomes at a local level.

We should set an aspiration as a system that there should be a responsibility on health bodies and local government bodies to describe how changes will be made. The role of ICBs is to enable groups of providers and other organisations in local areas—most ICBs will have several places—to come together and not just work out what a local population needs, but actually do it. That will mainly be about relationships on the ground between an acute hospital team, a community services team, a mental health team and a social work team.

The role of ICBs is very much to give the contractual tools and mechanisms to local NHS organisations to work effectively with their local authorities so that there are really good neighbourhood health plans. Most importantly, they should not just write them but actually see them through.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

Q Sir Ciarán, the 10-year health plan, which is behind a lot of this, demands that we are really ambitious in involving patients and communities in shaping the services that they need. How can we best support ICBs, local authorities and other organisations to drive that change?

Sir Ciarán Devane: I go back to our having to convince people. Many people are convinced—that is probably the first thing to say. But we have to convince people of the benefit of doing this. Delivering the ambitious neighbourhood health plans that James describes will happen only if everybody is in the room and doing it.

I do not necessarily think that the legislation can mandate that belief or the way to do that. However, it can set an expectation for the ICB that, in developing its plans, it should be able to demonstrate that it has engaged with the local authorities, patient organisations and the public local to it. The legislation can set an expectation that the ICB is using population evidence to make the right commissioning choices and that, if reconfigurations, which may well be locally contentious, are to happen, engagement happens beforehand. As elected Members, the Committee will know that those conversations should start early and that local populations should not just be bounced into something.

It will be incumbent on the new department to set those expectations with the ICBs about the new way of working. That is the only way we are going to create an NHS that will be able to cope with the number of frail, elderly people with multiple morbidities. Those people are a consequence of the success of the NHS over decades. People are living longer with cancer; the prevalence of cancer—the number of people alive with cancer—has doubled in 20 years. But that means that there are four million people who are not necessarily well. The only way to cope with that is to make a significant and radical change to the neighbourhood health plans and bring the public with us. That will happen only with proper patient and public engagement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Yes.

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Fine. The Government’s move to the integrated patient record is absolutely excellent. Most of us have wanted that for a very long time, but we also recognised the IT difficulties in doing it, as well as the question of security. However, as digital has advanced, we have nutcrackers that we did not have before to crack that particular nut. I can but support that move.

From the point of view of the things that really matter, the ability of a person to feel that they can tell their story once—not time and again—comes up all the time in our research. With great respect to everyone here, we are very capable of standing up for ourselves and insisting that we get answers, but the people I deal with and have the privilege of representing are often not in that position at all. They are overwhelmed when they are repeatedly asked the same question, often in a language—medicalese, if you like—that they do not really understand and feel threatened by. The single patient record is going to go a long way towards helping with that situation. It is not the complete answer but at least it does the hygiene part, as opposed to the motivator part, very well.

Sarah Tilsed: It is an excellent initiative—1as the professor said, we have been calling for it for such a long time—but we really need to consider the consent and data elements. A lot of pieces of work that we have done with patients shows that people are happy with their data being shared for these electronic records, as long as they are transparent and patients know what is being done with their data—that is a really important point.

The care.data initiative and general practice data for planning and research—GPDPR—were great, but unfortunately, because they did not have genuine patient involvement right from the beginning, they failed. We need to ensure that the SPR does not fail. In terms of reaching underrepresented or less-heard communities, we need to ensure that we hear from those people straightaway. How do they want this to work? Do they want to know how their data is being used? How can we ensure that people who do not use the NHS app are involved and that their data is being shared? How do we approach people who are understandably very hesitant about digital technology and electronic records?

[Helen Morgan]

Q Sarah, the Patients Association has said that it is concerned about this reorganisation distracting from patient priorities. Could you elaborate on where those concerns come from and what should be done to mitigate that?

Sarah Tilsed: I said a lot about that earlier, in response to a previous question, so I am not sure how much more I have to add. I think my main point is that we must not divert attention away from the urgent priorities that patients are facing at the moment, ensuring there is a truly independent patient voice and trust—there is a lack of trust among patients, as I keep saying. How are we going to ensure that the reporting system is there for this?

Ultimately, patients need reform to lead to better care, not simply to different structures, which I fear is what often happens. Sir Robert Francis said, following the Mid Staffs situation, that patients must come first. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Patients Association question will remain simple, and we will ask it time and again: will these changes actually help patients to receive better care, and how will we know if they do? That is the first principle to come back to. When everything is happening—all this restructure—how are patients going to be affected and involved in it?

[Helen Morgan]

Q My second question is about Healthwatch. The Committee heard this morning about the variability of Healthwatch’s effectiveness at a local level. What could be done to ensure that the best and most effective Healthwatch practice is rolled out across the whole of England?

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Thank you for that question. One of the reasons there is a difference or variation among the 153 is that the amount of funding is very different. Some of them get 10 times the funding of others, which makes a difference to the scope of what they can do. What it does not allow—and I think Healthwatch England has an important contributory role in this—is a change in the quality of the way in which the research is done.

One of the things that I have encouraged very strongly—although it happened before I joined Healthwatch—is the use of qualitative as well as quantitative data. The system is awash with quantitative data, but that does not necessarily cut through to the way that people are, the way they think, the lexicon they use, the concepts they use in communication etc. One of the great strides that Healthwatch England and our 153-member network have made is the intelligent use of qualitative data. That is an art in itself—I would like to think that is a science, but it is certainly an art.

It would be easy to remedy that, in the sense that if the funding were more equitable, some of that variation would disappear, but the variation is not in the quality, the effectiveness of the listening or the ability to look thoroughly at the impact, and it does not affect the fact that the organisations concerned are held responsible for what happens to the recommendations in terms of implementation. That is uniform across the system—it is just the amount of it that will vary naturally, because of the differential funding.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Q To go back to the single patient record, I see huge potential—at least in my constituency, where we have real challenges with GPs and hospitals not talking to each other or sharing information. Nor do trusts and local authorities across Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire share that information. Sarah has touched on this a bit already, but I am interested to hear from our other witnesses on how they think the single patient record would improve patient experience, and on how we would go about building public understanding and trust in a new system.

James Cooper: There are some big opportunities in the single patient record, with the caveats that Sarah mentioned on data governance and consent. For families of children who are seriously ill, it presents huge opportunities, as I said earlier, because of the complexity of their needs. Often, huge amounts of information need to be conveyed to any professional who the children come into contact with, wherever that is across health, education or social care.

Many professionals have a long-standing relationship with such families, whether they are NHS community children’s nurses, consultants with a speciality in the child’s condition or children’s hospice teams, but families often need to access emergency unplanned care, perhaps in the middle of the night or at weekends. In those instances, when they speak to paramedics and emergency doctors, it is imperative that they can convey the information as quickly as possible. In those instances, I can see huge benefits.

With issues such as advanced care planning, to reflect the needs and wishes of those families, in particular as the child is coming towards the end of their life, I think it is critical that the whole range of professionals involved in the care of children has access to that information. I will welcome much more clarity from the Government about when the families will benefit from that particular initiative.

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: May I add a short comment?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Ms Higson, you clearly had an interest in the Minister’s last question. Is there anything you would like to say about that?

Maria Higson: A couple of things. One is that it is not possible to overstate the importance of the partnership working between the NHS and local authorities. If we want neighbourhood health and the shift to prevention more broadly to be successful, working closely with local authorities, including the public health teams—which were not in the question but deserve a mention—is imperative. I am sure we will come to the question about the relationship with the mayoralties. There is something about that geography question. The insight and experience that local authorities bring is really important. That is the one thing that I think ought to be mentioned.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I am a vice-president of the LGA, and I am also on the all-party parliamentary patient safety group, just to declare that interest up front. I will use the example of my own local authority, Shropshire, which is a unitary authority. It is extremely financially challenged and operates with an ICB in a similar situation. The hand-off that Sally described between continuing healthcare and provision of social care is really problematic because neither organisation really wants to pay for the care for the people who need it because they do not have the funds. It is a really tense relationship between the two.

I am really concerned that that will become even more problematic because they cannot work together, given that we are not a combined mayoral authority, that we will not have a mayor sitting on our ICB and that our ICB merged footprint does not fit with our local authority geography. How can the health and wellbeing boards work between the two organisations to deliver good social care?

[The Chair]

Is that directed at any particular witness?

[Helen Morgan]

I am directing it at all three, if that is okay.

[The Chair]

Let us start with our councillor in the middle.

Councillor Wright: It is a challenge. I completely hear that; continuing healthcare is a really difficult one. It is right to say that residents are seen as a financial burden, which should not happen. That is why we need strong health and wellbeing boards. We need strong, honest conversations between local authorities and the NHS for ensuring that good continuity of care.

Obviously, I think the overall aim of the 10-year health plan is to move much more to a model of prevention and treatment in the community, where we hope that we could intervene earlier and set up good standards of care before it gets to a stage where it becomes so adversarial. That is what we are aiming for. We have challenges in our local authority and have had to push back on a few cases where we felt the NHS should be helping those people.

Sally Burlington: The problem is getting bigger over time. We did some joint work last year with the NHS Confederation to look at those difficult issues on the boundaries between health and social care, including continuing healthcare and mental health aftercare. That identified some good models. We see arrangements for joint commissioning of continuing health care, which can work well. We have seen a little bit of withdrawal from that by some ICBs.

Part of the issue has to be that we are seeing a real intention to cut costs, and that leads to lots of reviews taking place that do withdraw continuing healthcare. We have seen that trend while the demographics are pointing to potentially more demand, not less. I do not think there is a substitute for better relationships. The legal framework is pretty clear. A helpful way into the problem would be to find a way to have a set of conversations at a national level about what the right solution for people is—start there and then think about whether the reviews are right in the ways that they are taking place.

Maria Higson: The only thing I would add is that it is tricky when we apply a broadbrush approach of, “Well, it’s going to be about the mayoralty and so on.” In reality, certainly within London, we can describe ourselves as a system of systems. We work with six local authorities across one ICB, now partnering with south-west London as well. It is not as easy as “one approach fits all”. As this Bill goes through implementation, it will be important to be conscious of that to get the best out of those relationships.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Do you think that the health and wellbeing boards, as envisaged by the Bill, will be the right structure to deliver those relationships, and how do you ensure that they have the right skills?

Councillor Wright: I chair a health and wellbeing board, and everyone comes to those; there are really good conversations and really good reviews of what is happening. I think they are in a really good position. What I worry about is how much influence they will have over NHS wider strategy.

I was at a King’s Fund day, and someone said something that I thought was so true: the Health Bill and the NHS 10-year plan is the NHS 10-year plan. The NHS will be judged on how it achieves what it is meant to achieve. Although, as local authorities, we want to help with prevention and those wider determinants of health, ultimately the responsibility sits with the NHS.

It is about trying to work out how we have better conversations with the NHS, to say, “We have done neighbourhood health for years; this is what we do as local authorities. We look at all these things and we use public health and our adult social care system to create healthy environments. We need you to be on board with us.” I therefore think there is something about the power dynamics regarding health and wellbeing boards and how we address them. But overall, I feel that they are the best way of ensuring community health.

The other thing is about geographies. Health and wellbeing boards might not match neighbourhood health geographies, so there are also some challenges in working out how that will work.

[Edward Argar]

Q Having been both a local councillor and a Health Minister, I am very conscious that the real test of any joint working arrangements between different bodies comes when budgets start getting a little tighter. We see that tension growing a little bit with the cuts made to ICBs’ budgets.

I was the Minister who created ICBs, and I sat on that Bill Committee with the current Minister for Secondary Care. I am getting a sense of déjà vu—we are on different sides of the Chamber now, but we sat through the Committee stage of the Health and Care Act 2022 together. I deliberately created ICBs to match the geography of upper-tier authorities because health and social care is essentially one system. If one bit does not work, the other bit does not work.

Since then, we have seen significant mergers and larger areas, further removing them from that direct relationship and read-across. Although the good ones do, I fear that a lot of NHS ICBs do not fully reflect the intention behind their creation, which was to see them as a genuinely collaborative exercise with equal voices in the room.

My question is: if we see ever-larger areas or fragmented areas, whether through neighbourhood health plans or mergers and acquisitions among ICBs, how do we maintain genuine local accountability and the relationships that underpin any structure written in law, on a piece of paper or in guidelines?

Notwithstanding what is being done about the health and wellbeing boards’ increasing involvement, do they actually have the teeth they need? In my experience, however good the collaboration, it is within the ICB boardroom that the decisions are actually made. However well things have been discussed beforehand, the ICBs will make their own decisions based on their own priorities. Does the removal of that voice from the ICB strengthen or weaken the ability to see this as one local system and to deliver a genuinely holistic local solution?

Councillor Wright: It will probably weaken it, unless we are given more say in our local health and wellbeing board. Our Thames Valley ICB has one director of public health. Thames Valley ICB I think has nine local authorities, and one chief executive and one director of public health sit on the board, so already the voice on it is quite small. If we lose that voice, where would we have those conversations? That brings me back to the whole thing about health and wellbeing boards needing to be stronger, definitely.

Sally Burlington: We would agree with that. If you take away the voice that is able to speak on behalf of social care, public health and wider public services, it will be harder and an additional job to bring in that consideration. It will be even harder to expect there to be notional teeth in that relationship, so we have concerns about that.

Maria Higson: It is also worth recognising that the delivery of any strategy or plan will require partnership working with local authorities, so whether or not they are in the room, they will be needed for delivery, and the proof is always in the pudding. For me, the partnership is somewhat non-negotiable in order to achieve delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Helen Morgan]

Q We have talked a lot about the single patient record, but I want to touch on whether the Bill does enough for people who have historically not been listened to, as we have heard has been the case for carers and women who have suffered in the maternity system. Does the Bill deal with the problem of people not being listened to? What opportunities are there to improve the Bill in a way that improves the situation?

Paul Farmer: Listening to patients is an incredibly important part of any health system. It is necessary to make sure that the right mechanisms are in place at both the individual and the systems level. The aspects of the Bill that cover patient experience need careful consideration.

Many people were fans of what Healthwatch delivered, and others were not, but it had a clearly established system and mechanism in place to ensure that patient voices were heard. It is important that clear systems are established to ensure that that patient experience is heard. I have operated around the health system for a number of years, seeing a number of incarnations of patient voice organisations and representation; you really have to think about it from the individual and the whole-system level—from top to bottom.

It is important that the Committee looks at the provisions in the Bill in that context to make sure that where there are good supports, they not only are preserved but can be built on. For example, how do you make sure that patient voice is heard at ICB level, in providers and, in particular, in the new world of neighbourhood health?

Kath Abrahams: Helen, it is a great question. Clearly, the Bill itself, and certainly the single patient record, are never going to replace wonderful, kind and compassionate care where people feel they are listened to. As I have already said, but I will say again, a combination of people not being listened to at all, despite knowing their own health better than anyone else, or having to retell their stories has very challenging consequences. Both leave somebody feeling that nobody really cares or understands them.

I spoke to a supporter of Tommy’s this morning who has had five miscarriages. She was saying it appears to be quite a small thing, but every time she went to see a clinician, they said, “Oh, you’ve had four losses” or “You’ve had three losses.” It was about them not understanding, and her having to correct her records and getting letters through. It is about that sense of not being listened to.

As we develop the Bill, women and birthing people, from a maternity perspective, should have the opportunity to contribute to the way something like the single patient record is shaped. You could have a digitally accurate system that did nothing to reassure women or help them feel looked after or listened to, or you could have a beautiful system where the information was recorded in such a way that it really helped.

Alongside that, clinicians need to continue to receive the right sort of training. They need to have enough time. As Paul said, you need those patient voices involved in overseeing how things are going, and able to contribute and help. The Bill itself, as a mechanism, will not do enough. This is about designing it carefully with patients in mind and, in the case of maternity services, involving women right from the start.

Emily Holzhausen: There are provisions in the Bill that transfer responsibilities from NHS England to the Secretary of State in relation to involving patients, and it is very explicit that this also involves carers. It is very important that explicit Healthwatch duties to involve carers have been transferred into the Bill in relation to integrated care boards. That matters because their portfolio of commissioning different services is increasing, as is that of local authorities.

Those are strategic duties. The reason why that is important, to be very specific about carers, is that they provide £152 billion-worth of care. They outnumber staff three to one. They are experts in care over time and they want to be involved. Of course, what colleagues have said about good practice is critical to look at.

The changes to Healthwatch—others have raised this—do not consider the person’s journey across different services, health and care. There is an independent voice that we do not have, and will not have, in quite the same way. A very small proportion of carers felt that, if they raised a complaint, it would be acted on. That kind of independent voice is actually very important.

As Kath said, those duties are really important, but we need top-to-toe listening to patients. We also need to be explicit about listening to carers, not just on behalf of the patient, but by asking, “What is your experience as a carer of managing this care?” because that is very different. To be honest, I do not think we have the right data flows behind that to collect and understand people’s journeys and improve things. I hope that that is also something that will be looked at.

[The Chair]

I do not think there are any further questions. I am sorry to have kept you waiting so long for what has been a relatively short period of time, but it was important that all Front Benchers, and any other Members who wished to do so, had the opportunity to question you. Thank you all very much for being so patient and for giving us the benefit of your thoughts and wisdom.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Michael Cocker, Dr Towhid Imam and Dr Nicola Byrne gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q Dr Byrne, you talked about the issues around trust, which we absolutely recognise. We hear quite a lot about the work going on to try to get the legislation right technically, but, further to what you have suggested, how would you advise the Government to communicate clearly about the benefits, while understanding people’s concerns about getting a single patient record, should the legislation become law?

Dr Byrne: You have to show that you take the risks and people’s concerns seriously, and give a credible analysis of the risks. The key thing is to engage with the risks meaningfully. You should then think about what safeguards you could put into the Bill and future regulations that would actually be effective and be seen as credible, depending on what risks you are trying to address.

I know it is difficult to get into the detail on the primary legislation at this stage, not least because you are trying to sequence things when we do not yet know what the SPR will be, which I appreciate is a further constraint. I would suggest that you consider putting in the Bill one particular safeguard relating to secondary purposes. People have concerns around two main things: confidentiality and their privacy, and secondary uses—who might access their data in future, and why and for what purpose, other than for their direct care. Focusing on that second factor, there are lots of things that might come up that you could do in regulations, but right now, I would suggest that you could build in the safeguard of an independent oversight mechanism for how decisions are made on who gets to access the data and why. In that, you can involve public and layperson representation to bring in that consideration of the risks that matter to the public, alongside the potential benefits.

That could be helpful for two reasons. First, it would be a safeguard against having any unchecked decision-making power on access, whether now or in future. Secondly, it recognises the reality of human systems and organisations. No one expert or small group of experts, however wise or whatever their integrity, can see the whole picture and have a 360° view of what matters to the public. It would be a meaningful way to give the public agency and representation in that decision making—a meaningful exercise of citizen control, if you like. As humans, we are at our best and our decision making is at its safest and strongest when we get a diversity of perspectives involved—as, indeed, the Committee is doing right now. In this context, that should involve patients and the public.

My second point, which is perhaps germane to your wider discussions around the Bill, is that no one organisation can effectively and consistently scrutinise and challenge itself. That goes for questions around data use and access—and wider, as well—in your considerations.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I think everyone is agreed about the transformative potential of the single patient record, and we have heard various concerns around privacy and the types of use. I am interested in how all these different systems can speak to each other, because, in my experience as an accountant, you can have interoperability, but if the data that you are interoperating with is not consistently curated, you have a problem, because you have something that looks the same for everybody, but that actually means something very different to each person who inputs that data.

Do you have any advice for us on the development of that single patient record and how we make sure that the data is clean and consistent between trusts and different systems, so that the single patient record is actually meaningful? I will ask Dr Cocker first, if he is the technical expert.

Dr Cocker: I would not go that far—my involvement in this whole project is clinical, rather than having any sort of particular technical expertise. I think that is a pertinent issue, however, because, as has been discussed previously, if an error enters the SPR—say, a code is incorrectly followed through into the system—that error can then perpetuate. That is the risk of a single record: a documentation error can ripple out, rather than being contained within the system it originated in.

Does safeguarding that involve putting requirements on the providers of systems to mean that data can be exported in, maybe not a standardised format, but a set of formats that the SPR recognises? It is a technical question that I do not know the answer to, or the possible solutions to, but that would be one of my suggestions. Rather than having hundreds of different systems that all require slightly different solutions in order to be fed into the SPR accurately, there could be some sort of framework setting out requirements on the providers of the software products used by all the different organisations that will feed into the SPR.

Dr Imam: Like Dr Cocker, I am not technical but, from previous pieces of work that I have been involved with, some of it is to do with the data architecture and making sure that you can agree on the fields being used across the various systems. On frailty specifically, we have had the question of, “If we have multiple source systems that have the same field, which one should we be showing within the single patient record?” Our thinking at the moment is that we would show various entries, with who they have been done by and at what time, so that the clinician could decide how to interpret that data.

[Helen Morgan]

Q My other question is about digital exclusion. This is particularly for Dr Imam, because we associate older people with being digitally excluded, although I know it is not exclusively older people who are digitally excluded: how would you envisage the digital record interacting with something more analogue for people who cannot use the NHS app for whatever reason?

Dr Imam: That is a really important question; it is something that needs to be thought about very carefully when it comes to the implementation. From my previous NHS England experience, where we have had digital innovations implemented in the older age group, or among those who are perhaps traditionally digitally excluded, that has included partnerships to enable people to have the option of someone coming around, and there has been a thought process regarding people who perhaps cannot engage with technology as easily. That could involve people from the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector—for example, we had Age UK in the previous panel. There are lots of good examples of that type of work to ensure that people are not disadvantaged.

Dr Byrne: There is an opportunity here in the context of digital exclusion. In a digital-first NHS, it is really helpful to think continually about what the analogue version of the system is in the event of further cyber incidents and outages of the system. We need to continually build and maintain a resilient system for the times when digital-first is not available. It is an important opportunity to do so if we think about that question of exclusion.

[Sojan Joseph]

Q I was listening to Dr Byrne’s concerns about confidentiality and trust. I want to declare that I have worked in the NHS in the mental health sector for many years. I worked in one of the biggest mental health trusts, Kent and Medway mental health NHS trust. We use an electronic patient record called Rio. As Dr Cocker said, before anyone is given access to the record, they have to have training on information governance and data protection, and access is given based on their role. That system creates an audit trail, so patients can request to see how many people have accessed their information in the last month or two—there are facilities on the system to check that. Is staff training and raising awareness among patients important for creating trust and confidentiality?

Dr Byrne: Those things are very important, yes. There are some technical solutions. Again, the SPR is an opportunity to look at that across the system, because systems vary greatly in the sophistication of their audit function, for example. Even when there is an audit function, if someone has legitimate access through their role as a doctor or a nurse, it can be difficult to know whether their access in any particular case is legitimate. These are not common occurrences, but it is extremely distressing for patients if their confidentiality is breached for any reason.

It is not simply a matter of technical controls. We need to look at how we build stronger, more effective deterrents across the system by having effective sanctions when incidents do occur. I am keen to look at that and delighted that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are, I think, very interested in having that conversation with me. At the moment, it certainly seems that there is a variable response across the system to inappropriate access.

Looking ahead to the SPR, we need to look at that make improvements, so that the public can have faith that, given the harm that it can cause them, it will be taken very seriously if anyone does access their records inappropriately. There are technical, cultural and system aspects to think about here. The SPR is definitely an opportunity to do that, and I am very keen to work with other stakeholders on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

Q I will ask about the additional responsibilities that the Bill confers on ICBs. There are additional commissioning responsibilities and an additional requirement to look after what was Healthwatch—the patient voice element. As you have described, you have lost a large number of staff, you have a bigger geographic footprint and you have also lost quite a lot of budget. What do you stop doing, and what is being transferred out to other provider organisations? If the role of such organisations is changing to include some things that the ICB was doing, does that need to be clarified in the legislation?

Jon Restell: It certainly needs to be clarified. Whether it needs to be clarified in legislation, I do not know. Leaving aside the fact it took a very long time to get permission to move forward with their consultations, ICBs were thinking about what they needed to do around May or June last year. They will have made a lot of decisions and a lot of staff will have gone already based on the then understanding of what an ICB was supposed to be doing, based on the ICB blueprint that was published by NHS England, so I think that resource has gone. The people who may be connected with the functions that you are talking to have also gone in many cases. The question for me is: if the ICBs are to get more things to do, what is the implication for their running costs? As you know, they are currently capped at about £19 per head. If they get more functions, will they get more resources to do that? Will there need to be other ways of delivering those functions? I do not think that a lot of them can stop doing statutory functions, but that means all the good stuff that we want to see done in health systems—the innovation and the discretionary stuff, much of which is already on hold—will probably be the stuff that goes while they deliver their statutory obligations.

On the providers side, we need urgent clarity about what is going to go to the providers’ responsibility because they are taking out a lot of costs. I do not think that all, or many, providers know that these plans are afoot for them. That will create quite a shock. Again, they are choosing people to go now based on their current understanding of what is needed.

[Helen Morgan]

Q If I may ask a related question, one element of the Bill is the reorganisation of who sits on the ICB. We have seen the removal of local authority representatives and their replacement by a mayor or his or her appointee. What concern does that cause to your members—or do they think that is the right way to go?

Jon Restell: A lot of the concern is to do with the political make-up of mayoralties in the future and what that might mean; if mayors have an ever-growing responsibility and say in the who, what and where of health services, that is probably different from the more representative, advisory function that they have had. That really needs to be thrashed out: is that the new democratic accountability for health services, or does it remain, as now, with the Secretary of State, accountable to Parliament, making provision for healthcare? It feels a little unclear how much decision-making power those new local government voices will have on ICBs. Have people raised that as a concern? Of course they have; it is uncharted.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. With changes to the better care fund pooling and the link-up with local authorities, are there concerns at ICB level that the partnership with social care will start to become more difficult?

Jon Restell: I cannot comment specifically on the BCF, but a general theme coming out of what our members are telling us in surveys, and in the regular surgeries and meetings that we have with them, is the sense that policy at the moment is trying to get you thinking in terms of your own organisation again, and thinking less about system-wide transformation, innovation or co-ordination. ICBs are getting bigger and providers are getting bigger. It is some of the system stuff, where I think a lot of our members would say the innovation will come in the way different organisations try to solve problems around patients and populations, that they feel is at risk, by the way—not just from the Bill putting things together, but from the stripping out of resource to do anything different.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Restell. Thank you for your patience, thank you for coming and thank you for the evidence you have given. It is greatly appreciated.

Examination of Witness

Sir Andrew Dilnot gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

Q You just used the phrase, “instrumental damage to the NHS”. Can you elaborate a bit on that, and perhaps explain how the NHS might be able to function better if there were a mechanism within the Bill to sort out social care?

Sir Andrew Dilnot: I think there are two main ways. The first, and perhaps the one that has received most attention, is that there are people who have been hospitalised, perhaps following a fall or infection, who have some mobility challenges and need some care, but who cannot leave hospital because a social care package is not available for them in the community. That is extremely damaging for the NHS, because if we have somebody in a bed that they do not need to be in because they have nowhere else to go, not only are we spending money having them there but we are then not able to use the bed for other activities.

If you have somebody with a delayed transfer of care that means they are stuck in hospital, when they do not need to be, for 20 days, which is not uncommon, very large numbers of elective procedures cannot take place because that bed is being used. That is a dead-weight loss from the system.

There is another thing that I think is at least as important, which is that, because of the lack of good social care, we have people falling, injuring themselves and needing to be hospitalised. We have people sustaining more urinary tract infections than they perhaps would if they had good social care. That is adding an additional burden, which the NHS deals with as well as it can, but all of this just seems unnecessary.

Social care appears to be so invisible to us all. It is easy to blame politicians, and of course it is politicians like you who ultimately have to vote for these things, but the electorate—the whole of our society—have to look at ourselves and ask, “Why can’t we make this challenge, which is so significant, better?” Any of you who have experienced it in your own family know how brutal and difficult it can be.

If I can be allowed one more general point, we should reflect that this is the result of the great triumph of the last 150 years. At the beginning of the last century, across the world, average life expectancy at birth was 32, and now it is 73. In this country, average life expectancy at birth in 1900 was 46, and now it is 81. We have added 35 years to the expectation of life from birth, which is an astonishing transformation. Some consequences come with that, one of which is that there is much more social care to be done, but we should be celebrating this, delighting in it and doing it well, instead of hiding it away and ignoring it for so long that it is doing real damage to the NHS, let alone to the lives of people who need social care.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I will put words in your mouth, and you can disagree with me. Do you think the Bill should tackle the point about having a properly funded care service so that the transition from hospital to the community can actually take place? As you have just said, if people are not cared for properly, they end up back in hospital, and everyone here agrees that is what we are trying to avoid.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: Yes, it is very odd. It is worth doing the odd thought experiment: imagine that the bit of healthcare that was underfunded and available only subject to a means test, and not free, was for heart disease. We cannot imagine it. The fact that it is dementia and severe arthritis means we have drawn an arbitrary line, and while that line still exists and there is still inadequate funding, even in a means-tested system, we are hamstringing the NHS. Now, that is not the most important problem, which is that we are failing to give people flourishing lives and allow them to live to the full, but it is now so bad that it is actually making it hard for the NHS to work.

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

Q I think I would agree with you, Minister, that no one thinks that abolishing NHS England is, in itself, a bad idea, given the duplication and cost. People do not think that a single patient record is a bad idea; I think that they assume that it already exists, and it could be transformative. There are therefore some really good points of agreement on the Bill.

It would, however, be helpful to reflect on where there is not agreement: on abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB. You make the very good point that they have not been successful in their current incarnation, but it is important to consider whether that is because they do not have teeth, or because the organisations that they are trying to change are defensive.

We heard earlier about the culture of fear, and I think that we have probably all had people in our surgeries who can describe being frightened to speak up about their own personal care because they feel that they might be victimised for it. I know of clinicians who are frightened to speak up about their own experience in the organisation in which they work, because they feel that they will be punished for it.

In the light of that defensive culture that we know exists in the NHS, and has been highlighted time and again—Mid Staffs; the Shrewsbury and Telford maternity scandal—is the answer not to put the patient voice in the organisations that have a culture problem, but to give those other organisations the teeth they need, or confer a duty on the ICBs or providers to act on recommendations that are given to them, because I think that might be a more helpful way of dealing with this problem?

Karin Smyth: I think that gets to the crux of some of this. We will discuss it a lot in Committee, and I am obviously very open to keep discussing it.

Thank you for your support on the main provisions. I do not take that for granted because, again, they are still controversial. However, as I think I said earlier, you are right, although it is not true everywhere. I am not blaming individuals, because I think that people have been trying to do a difficult job, particularly in getting us through the pandemic and beyond. But they are defensive. That is why Members of Parliament and others do not get responses to their phone calls or their emails. That is a culture that we have to change, and we need to support people to change.

One of the things that we will do is to bring in regulations—that is a manifesto commitment from the Government—but another commitment that we have made outwith the Bill is to develop a leadership college to support in particular clinical and non-clinical managers, who have a very difficult job, in having the right skills for the new world, which patients and the public rightly expect to be more open and more transparent. We have to change this defensive culture.

However, even since Francis, the adding of bodies and the adding of recommendations, and with the bad experience that you have done so much around, something different has to happen. Again, what we heard from Jeremy Hunt was that we needed to put more prescription into the system and yet more requirements to do something without actually making that someone’s central function and job.

Now, it is a source of disagreement. As I have said, I think that there is a philosophical disagreement about the best way forward. It is not an antagonistic disagreement; there are fundamentally different views about what to do. We will continue to have discussions, because I think that ultimately we all want the same thing: a more open, transparent and supportive culture. By the way, nobody wants to work in a defensive culture, so I think people want that outcome.

It is up to us as politicians to support difficult conversations and trade-offs that happen locally. My view has always been that politicians will support difficult conversations and trade-offs—we heard a little bit about reconfigurations earlier—if the system provides good clinical rationale, good data and good evidence, but those bits of it do not always line up.

That is what I would like to get to. I absolutely understand and hear what you say—we will hear more about it and discuss it more, and I have read all the amendments about the best way forward. I think that we all want to get to the same place, but what is the best way to do that, given that we all know that this is really not working and cannot continue?

[Helen Morgan]

Q I have a technical question about foundation trusts. The 10-year plan says that foundation trusts could be given population health responsibility for commissioning and budgets. I do not understand how that fits in with the Bill. Could you clarify whether that is not envisaged for now or if it is lurking somewhere in the Bill that I have not spotted?

Karin Smyth: I will need to come back to you on the detail of that. In much of the Bill, we are trying not to over-prescribe. However, we need to get foundation trust licensing right. There are some things that are needed in the Bill, which is what we have put in as far possible, and some things that are not. Can I come back to you on that specific point if that does not answer your question?

[Helen Morgan]

indicated assent.

[Jo White]

Q You are speaking with tremendous passion and I can tell that you see this as an opportunity to make the NHS function far better. You mentioned at the very beginning that it took eight months to make the announcement that you were going to abolish NHS England. How quickly did you realise that NHS England was malfunctioning, far too bureaucratic and not delivering on the priorities for people in this country?

Karin Smyth: That is a good question. When I was in opposition, I spoke frequently about accountability and democracy, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was trying to highlight—I am sure that we will hear some more quotes. I cannot speak for the former Secretary of State, as he is not here, but it did surprise us going into the financial year when, despite very clear direction and expectation about the financial situation that the Government inherited and what needed to happen, we were still faced with a very large projected deficit. The duplication meant that there were a lot of people in the room and clearly things were being handed off and that was not working. Ultimately, this is a question that always lurked. I know that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston is here, and during the passage of the Bill that became the Health and Care Act 2022, we said to the Department that that might have been the opportunity to act. I think that previous Secretaries of State, as was alluded to earlier, thought that they might do that. Ultimately, the benefits of doing it now outweigh the risks and that is the only way to make the system change. We heard from the King’s Fund about opportunity costs and that the benefits do not outweigh the risks—we do not think that is true.

Health Bill (Third sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

We all know how important our NHS is to the people we represent. I know how frustrated patients and staff have become after years of rising waiting lists, cancelled appointments and growing bureaucracy. Since coming into office, this Labour Government have already started to turn things around by delivering more than 3 million extra appointments ahead of schedule, cutting waiting lists and agreeing a new GP contract that begins the work of restoring the family doctor.

However, the challenge remains enormous. We inherited an NHS facing the worst crisis in its history, and public finances under severe pressure. That means that every pound must work as hard as possible for patients. That is why I welcome the decision to abolish NHS England and bring its functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care. The complex structure created by the 2012 reorganisation has left us with duplication, inefficiency and too many layers of management, separating decision makers from the frontline. Far too many NHS leaders and clinicians tell us that they spend their time filling in reports and navigating bureaucracy, when they should be focused on delivering care. We owe it to taxpayers and patients to change that.

These reforms are not about criticism of the dedicated public servants working in NHS England; they are about creating a simpler, more accountable system that supports staff rather than holding them back. By reducing duplication and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, we can redirect hundreds of millions of pounds to frontline services. That will cut waiting times, improve access to care and give local NHS leaders more freedom to innovate. This is about one simple principle: fewer checkers and more doers; less bureaucracy and more patient care. It will create a stronger NHS that delivers for communities such as Bassetlaw and for people across the country.

The NHS is facing huge challenges. With the right reforms and leadership, we can build an NHS fit for the future and there for every patient when they need it most.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats broadly support the abolition of NHS England. As constituency MPs and users of the NHS, we see a huge amount of duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy as our local health organisations try to navigate the processes of securing capital investment, for example. Reducing duplication between the Department and NHS England is clearly welcome if done well, but we have concerns about the way in which that is being undertaken.

We think that this centralising process, under which the Secretary of State takes on more powers, risks political capture. That may not seem like a huge risk considering who the current Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State are, but given the febrile political atmosphere that we are working in, it seems a poor time to give a Secretary of State sweeping operational powers over the detailed functioning of the NHS, with few checks and balances. I will speak about the most concerning elements and make the argument in greater detail when we debate cause 11.

As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, said that top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do, and yet that is where we find ourselves today. It feels as if the plan has been pulled together very quickly, and that it has been complex to turn into a piece of workable legislation. It has taken a long time even for the Treasury to agree on the funding of the redundancy bill. We have found out that redundancy costs of £800 million will be taken out of the future operating costs of the NHS. I hope that the Minister will describe how that will be delivered to ensure that the costs do not detract from patient care on the frontline.

There is still some uncertainty about the new structures within the DHSC and NHSE reorganisation. We have heard that the previously announced plan for three top-level roles—a permanent secretary, a chief medical officer and an NHS chief executive officer—might be changed, and that there is a proposal to merge the permanent secretary and NHS CEO roles. At this stage, as we start to consider the legislation, it would be helpful to have clarity on who will be in charge of the NHS and how the layers below will be organised. We have also heard that hours of staff time, leadership focus and money have been directed away from frontline services. In the oral evidence session, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund and Jon Restell of the Managers in Partnership union suggested that that has been distracting and that, in any body, a significant reorganisation has an opportunity cost.

In my previous life, I was an accountant at Centrica plc—one of those back-office checkers everybody wants to get rid of, but who turns out to be quite important in providing the information that enables the business to run smoothly. We found reorganisation hugely distracting; it took away from our ability to do our day jobs well. Then, within a couple of years, a lot of the equivalent roles were re-hired and we were back to square one. It is critical that the Government avoid that scenario in this big reorganisation of the NHS. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that it has been well thought through and that we will not find ourselves, two or three years down the line, with similar numbers of people replicating the roles that exist currently, following a huge distraction that resulted in no improvement in patient outcome or experience.

My questions are fairly limited. Does the Minister know, at this point, what the impact the reorganisation has had on the system and how much it has cost in secondary impacts? We have had eight Health Secretaries in the past 10 years. After all that swapping and changing, how can the Minister ensure a degree of continuity when the new Secretary of State takes over? One benefit of quangos is continuity over a long time, divorced from the political turmoil of Westminster. We must be clear about how distractions will be avoided in the new structure.

Finally, we heard in evidence on Tuesday that the new structure feels like a centralisation of power in Whitehall, when what is needed is more power devolved down to local level so that local services can be shaped to reflect the demographics that they serve and to address the important point of health inequality. Will the Minister explain why she is confident that measures to ensure local accountability and local shaping of services will be able to go ahead? Tackling health inequalities is the priority of everybody in this Room, and we need to ensure that we have an efficient structure in place to ensure that it happens.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. One of the most powerful things we can do as Members of this place is bring our constituents’ stories here so that they can form part of our discussions. That is what I will do as we discuss the future of NHS England.

I openly admit that I have never knocked on a door and found that someone’s burning question was about the abolition of NHS England. I have never had that particular discussion, but I do have regular discussions about the NHS. We know how important it is to people. They value the greatest gift that the Labour party has ever given the United Kingdom. As we have those discussions, one thing that comes up time and again is that people will always want more; they will always want better healthcare, and they should be able to expect it.

Across my constituency, the biggest health need is access to primary care. Two towns each make up one third of my constituency, so a third of my constituents live in Burntwood, 4 miles up the road from Lichfield— I believe my constituency is misnamed, but that is a matter for the boundary commissioner, not for me. When I talk to people about healthcare and access to primary care in Burntwood, one thing comes up time and again: the new health centre for Burntwood that was promised but never delivered.

That centre was promised in 2009 when the old one was demolished, but its funding was cut in 2011 following the change of Government, and we are still waiting. A modular building had to be put up in the car park of the leisure centre—“modular building”, by the way, is a grand term for what are portacabins stacked on top of each other. A huge number of people have worked at that site for a long time, delivering the best care they can, but they are being failed by the facilities that they are forced to work in. When I have conversations about primary care with people in Burntwood, they are never unhappy about the care they receive, about their doctors or about others who work in the NHS; they are unhappy about the facility that they are forced to use. I am standing here in 2026 and we still do not even have planning permission for the replacement centre. It has been promised so many times that people are beginning to doubt that it will ever happen. That is so hard to hear.

Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who tabled amendments in this group, some of which have not been spoken to. I will address the central points that Members have rightly highlighted. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Health and Social Care Committee for their report and recommendations for the Bill.

Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will set out what clause 4 does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East highlighted, the wider determinants of health inequalities are important. On the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made about the Labour party, they absolutely run through our DNA. Clause 4 restates and reaffirms our commitment to tackling health inequalities. It reformulates section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006, aligning it with the duty imposed on NHS England by section 13G of that Act. It makes plain the need to achieve greater equality between the benefits that people receive and the provision of health services—for their ability to access those services and for the outcomes achieved. Importantly, “outcomes” includes the safety and effectiveness of health services and the quality of the experience undergone by patients. The clause will ensure that the Secretary of State must have regard to reducing inequalities in respect of all those benefits.

The wording of the revised duty more directly encapsulates the benefits that must be taken into consideration and obtained from the health service to support action that reduces or prevents inequalities. Fundamentally, the clause underpins our commitment to improving the health of the population and tackling the stark inequalities that blight the health of communities up and down the land, which have got worse over the past 14 years. That is central to this Government’s ambition, which is why we highlighted it in the 10-year health plan.

We also recognise that this is not a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care alone, which is why we are already working across Government to address the root causes of health inequalities and the barriers to accessing health and care services. We are ensuring that our action on health is embedded in policies that shape people’s daily lives, from the homes they live in to the air they breathe.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Before the general election, I was the Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson, and one thing that came up regularly was how important housing is, and not just for obvious physical conditions—mouldy houses can cause breathing issues. Temporary accommodation is devastating for the long-term health outcomes of the people who are placed in it. Does the Minister agree that working with MHCLG to improve housing—particularly social housing—is critical to achieving the Government’s objective?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady pre-empts my next comments. I absolutely agree with her, and so do the Government. That is why we are improving living conditions through the new decent homes standards, which set standards across all rented sectors. Awaab’s law requires social landlords to act promptly to fix housing hazards. Since coming into government, we have launched the warm homes plan, the Keep Britain Working review and the homelessness strategy. In April, we published a renewed women’s health strategy, marking a decisive shift to ensure that women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes that they deserve. Last November, we published England’s first ever men’s health strategy, to improve the health and wellbeing of all men and boys. Within the Department, we are reviewing the Carr-Hill formula and the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to ensure the funding matches need.

However, there is much more to do. The Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), will continue to engage with key stakeholders, including representatives of Health Equals. I have a meeting with representatives of that body this week.

I sympathise entirely with the motivation underpinning amendment 13, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and I commend hon. Members for working on this important agenda, but I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. I note that it draws on the duty that was recently placed on combined authorities by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, with a view to creating a similar duty for central Government.

Fortunately, I can reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State already has a duty to secure improvement in the health of people in England, and the power to take such steps to improve public health as they consider appropriate. We would not want to narrow the definition of the existing duty, because health inequalities come from many causes, as has been discussed. As I have said, we are already working across central Government and local government to address those wider inequalities, including in housing and air quality, and by getting more people into work.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that innovation might expand inequalities across our country, but we have seen a shocking expansion in the inequality gap across our country. That is what we are seeking to reverse, as we have made clear in our 10-year health plan, and the Bill will ensure that that happens. That is why we say that we will take the best to the rest; we are not about taking people down.

Finally, I turn to amendment 34 in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester. He has spoken before about his constituents’ experience, and I have spoken with him about the new hospital programme, his constituents’ reliance on transport to access hospital appointments, and the difficulties experienced in more rural areas, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East also mentioned. That is why, in our 10-year health plan, we are very clear about our strong commitment to rural and coastal communities—we are the first Government to do that.

We agree that reducing inequalities in hospital transport is important. The Bill already places a duty on the Secretary of State to

“have regard to the need to…reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services”.

Inequalities in access to transport to receive care fall under the scope of that duty. As such, the amendment is superfluous.

I also offer the reassurance that NHS England has been implementing a range of actions to reduce inequalities in patient transport, including the speeding up of reimbursement for patients eligible for the healthcare travel costs scheme. I also inform the Committee that the cancer plan included a commitment to provide up to £10 million a year to pay for the travel costs for cancer care for children and young people, and their families, as people have long campaigned for.

Some important issues have been raised in this debate, and I am sure that we will return to them. In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket to withdraw the amendment. I commend clause 4 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I have concerns similar to those of the shadow Minister about clause 10. Proposed new section 12E allows Ministers to vary the proportion of activity by provider, and I am interested in the rationale behind that. The powers to retain the provider mix were put in place because of concerns that the NHS would be privatised by the back door, so the requirement to maintain the mix is there for a reason.

As we heard earlier when discussing ophthalmology, there are risks to using private provision for certain NHS activities, as there can be unintended consequences—a bit like the deregulation of buses. In ophthalmology, private providers do thousands of cataract operations very efficiently, but the less exciting and more critical work of preventing people from going blind, which is done in NHS hospitals, is under threat because so many people want to work in easy and profitable areas. I am concerned that that will occur in more areas of the NHS if the Bill allows more privatisation. Although I do not have an ideological problem with the NHS contracting out to private providers—that has worked well to bring down elective waiting lists, for example—the provisions to protect the mix are important.

I am not sure that amendment 53 really moves us forward; it just requires the Secretary of State to consider who benefits from the change in mix.

[Peter Prinsley]

It is true that the situation in ophthalmology is now quite serious, but is the hon. Lady aware of the problems in radiology and pathology? Some hospitals are unable to recruit histopathologists or significant numbers of radiologists, who provide key services, because the personnel necessary to run those services have been attracted into a private system, although they are contracted to the NHS. That jeopardises the ongoing services for urgent and emergency care.

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman outlines an unintended consequence of the NHS contracting out to private providers. There are ways to get the pricing of those services right, but the clause could introduce that unintended consequence.

Why is this proposal included in the Bill, and what does the Minister see it being used for? Is there a risk that a future Government might use it to bring much more privatisation into the NHS? The general public consensus is that that would be a bad thing. What safeguards can she put in place to ensure that does not happen?

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

The gap between what was promised and what is being offered has left the British public wondering: did the Labour Government really believe that power was too concentrated, or that power was concentrated in the wrong hands? I hope the Minister will enlighten us.

[Helen Morgan]

I mentioned in Committee last Thursday that the Liberal Democrats are worried about the risk in the Bill of political capture and the Secretary of State’s ability to meddle in day-to-day operations. As I am sure the Minister is aware, speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo this month, Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive officer of NHS England, warned that the Bill may give Ministers too much control and that there has to be operational freedom; otherwise we will grind to a halt.

I want to probe the process by which we got to this point. Originally, there was discussion about whether the seven NHS regional teams should become independent arm’s length bodies to mitigate such a risk. NHS leaders argued that this would mitigate the risk of direct political control of the service and pointed out that the 10 regional strategic health authorities had played a useful role in running the service efficiently before the creation of NHSE. That proposal was rejected by Ministers, and it is not entirely clear why. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.

It is now being reported that a fresh attempt is being made to argue that regional teams should be hosted by an NHS organisation—probably an ICB—to protect their employment terms and, as staff would remain public rather than civil servants, provide some brake on political control. Can the Minister shed any light on all this? Does she recognise the importance of maintaining operational freedom in NHS decision making?

We have discussed the reality that current Parliaments cannot bind future ones, and I take that point on board. However, current Parliaments do set precedents and establish the legal frameworks within which future Governments initially operate until they change the law. With the potential for more extreme Governments, there is a risk of discrimination and political considerations entering what should be clinical decision making—for example, decisions on whether to place a trust into special measures or what services are offered, such as sexual health, IVF, outreach to migrant communities and so on.

We are concerned not about the current Secretary of State, or indeed the shadow Secretary of State, but about the risk of those sweeping powers being placed in the hands of an extreme Government. If we imagine for a moment that an incoming Government decided that they did not approve of diversity on an NHS board, for example, and replaced an executive with their own candidate, that would be a horrifying situation. I think we would all agree on that. It would be useful to include safeguards now and set a precedent that such action would not be acceptable under this Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that a future Government could come along and change that, they would have to be transparent about their reasons for doing so.

The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, claimed that he was taking powers back into DHSC in order to give them away to the system, but this Bill has a lot on taking those powers and very little on giving them to the system. How can we be sure that that will actually happen on the ground, and that ICBs, hospital trusts and other health trusts will have the opportunity to flex their local muscle and ensure that services are best shaped for the local population? The NHS Alliance has called for an operationally independent regulatory function in DHSC to oversee NHS organisations, or for an independent panel to make appointments. Will the Minister consider such practical changes to ensure that political capture is not an unintended consequence of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

We have a clear political and—as I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said—philosophical division here. This Government believe in democratic accountability, in politics and in good government. I understand that both Opposition parties were architects of the 2012 Act, which created this huge, independent body to run what has become a £200 billion service that clearly has not worked, and that they want to hold on to some of that, despite not opposing the Bill on Second Reading and, actually, not really opposing the abolition of NHS England—I think we will keep returning to that—but we believe that, ultimately, the Secretary of State needs to be accountable for the service, which is not working as the British public deserve or expect.

The hon. Lady asked me to go into good variation and bad variation. Our drive has been to understand the variation. I know from Members of Parliament who have come to me in the past two years, and we understand from looking in detail at the variation across the service, that there is often no rationale for the variation. Local people do not understand why services work better in one part of their county, even, than in another. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon alluded to that when he mentioned some places in his area that are working better than others. That is why—and I personally wanted to drive this very strongly—we are getting more information out, releasing the outcomes framework and releasing information to all Members of Parliament about where and how the current data shows their local systems are performing. That is what local people need, and in my view good local parliamentarians, of whom there are very many, should be able to go back to talk to their local systems and chief executives about why that is—not to berate them, but to understand it. There might be a very good cause for the variation; there might be structural reasons or geographical reasons, and they might be long-standing reasons. That is what we seek to do in order to regain the trust and confidence of the British public, and that is why we are publishing those documents.

I stand by my comments that my approach is more local than centralised. This is about changing the culture, which we seek to do by making that happen more locally. I absolutely get the points about operational freedom and the balance that we will seek when we release the operating model, which is being worked on in the Department, as we bring the new system into being, alongside the Bill.

However, we want to be very clear that when an ICB has failed or is at risk of failure, and that failure is significant, it is right that the Secretary of State has the tools to minimise the impact on patients and the public and to act swiftly to put things right. The public rightly expect that, in such circumstances, Ministers will take the necessary steps to protect patients, taxpayers and the public. In some cases of significant failure, that may include directing an ICB and removing the chief executive.

I am sure that all Members here today will agree that effective performance management of ICBs will continue to be essential once NHS England is abolished, not only to support the provision of a quality service, but to reassure the people served by ICBs that when things go wrong, they will be put right.

[Helen Morgan]

I could not agree more with the Minister that when there is an obvious failure, either in a local system or in a trust, we would hope that the Secretary of State will intervene. She will know from our experience in Shropshire that, when a system is failing or underperforming, that intervention is welcome. But the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to intervene even when things are going well, which is quite an extension of power. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will come on to the power.

As hon. Members are aware, NHS England currently holds similar powers, so it makes sense for these powers to be held by the Secretary of State once NHS England is abolished. I want to be clear—I hope that this will address the hon. Lady’s point—that our intention is to use these significant failure powers rarely and not as a first port of call. It is far better to work closely with ICBs and their leaders to spot issues and work collaboratively to resolve them before they have the opportunity to become significant, but it would be irresponsible not to have the power to intervene as a last resort.

I want to address the other elements of clause 11. The first part of the clause establishes a general power for the Secretary of State to direct integrated care boards about the exercise of their functions. Using that power, the Secretary of State could direct a singular ICB, a group of ICBs or all ICBs, depending on the scope of the direction. This power is a necessary step in restoring democratic control over the NHS. The public rightly expect Ministers to be able to set priorities, drive improvements and set out how they expect the NHS to operate. For example, we expect to use the power to set up and update national commissioning standards.

The power is particularly relevant given the wider commissioning responsibilities ICBs will have in their role as strategic commissioners following the abolition of NHS England. By setting standards for all ICBs, the power will help reduce the unwarranted variation in the way that ICBs discharge their functions. It is also an important tool for enabling Ministers to respond to changing events. The lack of such a power has slowed the ability of NHS England to respond to unforeseen challenges within the health system.

I can also give the Committee an assurance that the clause includes a considered set of limits on the scope of the power. The Secretary of State will not be able to direct ICBs to appoint a particular individual, issue a direction about the services to be provided to an individual, or direct the use of a drug treatment or diagnostic technique where that is inconsistent with NICE guidance or recommendations. Equally, to maintain transparency in the health system, directions made under the general power to direct ICBs as to the exercise of their functions will be required to be made in writing and to be published as soon as reasonably practical. The power will enable the Secretary of State to uphold the standards that patients expect and deserve, while also protecting the principles of fairness and impartiality at the heart of the NHS.

We have already addressed much of the second part of the clause, but I should note that we have purposely placed the powers to intervene in cases of significant failure outside the general power of direction over ICBs. That is because it is important to be clear that those powers are expected to be used only rarely and in situations where an ICB is failing or at risk of failing.

I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham feels able to withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Lewell.

It is right that Ministers are ultimately responsible to the House for the performance of the health service and subjected to the scrutiny of Parliament for its execution, but there is an important distinction between accountability and operational control, which I fear the clause risks eroding in some cases. The national health service has over many years developed a structure that seeks to balance political accountability with operational independence, and that balance exists for a reason. Decisions on what services are commissioned, where they are delivered and how resources are allocated are not purely political judgments; they are complex, technical decisions that ought to be guided—primarily, in my view—by clinical evidence, patient need and professional expertise. Transferring commissioning functions directly to the Secretary of State, as the clause will do, risks drawing those operational decisions more directly into the political sphere, even if that would not happen in every case.

The more that Ministers are involved in determining which services are commissioned nationally and which are not, the greater the risk that over time those decisions will be influenced by short-term considerations and short-term pressures rather than long-term patient outcomes. Even when no such influence is intended, the perception that that could occur will be damaging. As I said in discussions on previous clauses, the NHS depends heavily on public trust, and that trust rests in part on the belief that decisions are being made in the best interests of patients and on the basis of evidence, rather than political expediency. We should therefore be cautious about any measure that threatens to blur that line.

Despite the Minister saying that the stated intent in the Bill is to decrease centralisation, the clause appears to move some parts of the system closer towards centralisation, rather than maintain that balance. I do not believe that the Committee should take that step without careful consideration of the potential consequences.

There is also a practical dimension to this issue. Under the clause, the Secretary of State potentially assumes direct responsibility for any and all decisions currently exercised at arm’s length. That raises legitimate questions about capacity and focus. As I said previously, the health service, as we all know, is vast, complex and complicated, and decisions, especially about specialised commissions, are technical and require detailed expertise and understanding. What is not immediately clear from the clause is that such decisions are best taken by the Secretary of State rather than by bodies with dedicated expertise and a degree of operational independence.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, spoke about highly specialised services, where essentially there is a capacity issue and a need to be able to look at the demand as a whole. They both raised the danger that, if those commissioning decisions are taken at local level, those at that level may not have the expertise, the finances or indeed the capacity to truly understand those highly complex, low volume specific needs.

I have some sympathy for the Minister, because the danger that we have seen in the NHS is that everything becomes more and more specialised and the ICBs push it away. I understand why the Government are proposing some of these changes, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must ensure that services continue to be commissioned by experts at the national level if they need to be; and that if they need to be commissioned by experts at ICB level or even more locally, it is done through the neighbourhood health schemes that the Government are pushing, which I support in principle.

For those reasons, if the Committee is minded to support the shift in responsibility, I suggest that we put in place some robust safeguards to ensure we have transparency, consultation and evidence-based justifications for decisions. Without those safeguards, there is a risk that the centralisation of power on the one hand and the devolution of specialist services on the other will unintentionally make a system that is less transparent and less robust.

That is why I support amendment 57 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The powers in clause 12 need to be bounded by checks and balances, because these are not minor administrative changes, but a significant shift in responsibility. We must ensure that decisions to move service commissioning are made as transparently as possible. In those circumstances, it is entirely right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise those decisions.

The amendment would achieve that. Subsection (4A) would require the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to prepare and publish a commissioning transition plan and to lay that before Parliament. Subsection (4B) would require the plan to set out, in detail, the services being changed and the reasons for the changes. It would also require clarity on which bodies will assume the responsibility and why they are considered capable of doing so. That level of transparency is essential if Parliament is to exercise meaningful oversight. Subsection (4C) would establish a formal consultation requirement, and subsection (4E) would require the Secretary of State to publish a response to that consultation, setting out how concerns have been addressed. That is vital, because there is no point having a consultation if the Government just ignore it. Finally, subsection (4F) would ensure that no regulations can be made until a defined period has elapsed after that response, thereby providing a time for proper parliamentary and public scrutiny.

Those of us who sit on Select Committees, especially the Health and Social Care Committee, often receive responses to our recommendations from the Department that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said in evidence, give the veneer of acceptance, but then no meaningful action is taken. The amendment would allow meaningful scrutiny and ensure that the Government actually respond to that request.

Taken together, the provisions would ensure that decisions are not only made, but made openly, transparently and accountably to those who are elected in this place to represent our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

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

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

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

New clause 2 clearly states that everybody should have a legal right to an appointment with their GP “within seven days”, while the current provision is that patients are entitled to see a GP or other professional within 24 hours or two days for urgent care. Would creating this legal burden on GP practices not reduce their ability to prioritise, meaning that the people who need urgent treatment will be delayed further?

[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]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Morgan]

I am going to make some progress, actually, because I think I am going to be asked the same questions.

[Gregory Stafford]

I wanted to ask a different question, but okay.

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, left off, with new clause 52 on dental provision. I have a lot of sympathy for what she is trying to achieve with the new clause. In my own constituency, as far as I can tell, looking earlier today, not a single dental practice is taking new NHS patients for dentistry, whether that be children or adults, and that is extraordinarily concerning.

Even more concerning—this somewhat relates to the changes that the Government are making in the clause through bringing the commissioning of dental services to ICBs—I have a fully equipped and fully functional dental surgery in Haslemere hospital in my constituency, but it has remained entirely unused for a number of years, because it sits within the hospital, which is run by the Royal Surrey NHS trust, but is commissioned by the ICB. That seems like an utter waste of resources. That is something that could be clarified through new clause 52 and, I hope, through the clauses tabled by the Government.

On new clause 2, about GP practices, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for North Shropshire did not want to take my intervention because she will not be able to answer my questions, unless she intervenes on me now, which I hope she will. Again, I sympathise entirely with what she is trying to achieve. We want to ensure that people have timely access to their GPs. I am sure that, like me, she has constituents who cannot get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. They can wait numerous weeks, upwards of five or six weeks, for something that they should be seen about.

A lot of questions are unanswered by new clause 2, however. I will not repeat the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I have some others. For example, the new clause states that the Government must

“establish a scheme to provide every patient with the right to a GP appointment”.

Although the hon. Lady clarified that that could be a telephone consultation, what is not clear is whether that is an appointment at the named GP practice at which the patient is registered, or is just with any GP, through something such as the NHS 111 service.

[Helen Morgan]

I would like to clarify that point. We envisage that being at the GP with whom the patient is registered. Our broader policy, which is not included in new clause 2, is to have named GPs for people with complex conditions and complex comorbidities. Absolutely, we would envisage that as being a part of the continuity of care, which is so crucial.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is a helpful clarification, but it raises a number of other questions. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that named GPs are most appropriate; all the clinical evidence suggests that even for people with non-complex needs, having a named GP whom they can see regularly improves patient outcomes. I therefore support her on that, but does she believe that we currently have sufficient GPs for that to go ahead? Even the six-month lag in her new clause would not be enough time to recruit thousands more GPs. If she does not believe that there are enough GPs at the moment, when does she envisage that they would be in post? How much would that cost? Where would she get the money to fund those extra GPs? Rather than just expressing what I would call “motherhood and apple pie” statements about things that we all want, we in this House have a duty to be honest with our constituents about how we would achieve them—and, if we have to achieve them within six months, what funding and impetus will have to be put in place.

[Helen Morgan]

Let me clarify. The new clause is about conferring a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that level of care. It would require a significant number of additional GPs, and that would cost a lot of money. The Liberal Democrats’ 2024 manifesto had a fully costed pledge to recruit and retain an additional 8,000 GPs within the course of a Parliament. I think we can all agree that the world has moved on since then, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this week we proposed a significantly closer relationship with the European Union, which would grow our economy, increase our tax base and pay for a number of these things without having to subject people to additional, onerous tax hikes.

[Gregory Stafford]

I think that clarifies that there is no real concrete plan for how to fund this new clause. I do not mean in any way to demean what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, because she is trying to achieve something important, and which we all want, but we have to be honest with our constituents about how we can do that, and some ethereal money to come through some ethereal plan at some point in the future—

[Helen Morgan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Gregory Stafford]

Let me finish this point. I am not in the mind of the current Prime Minister, and I am certainly not in the mind of the potential next Prime Minister, but even if the hon. Lady is right my understanding is that he—either is probably a he—is unlikely to have changed our relationship with Europe within six months.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but there are copious amounts of water—blue is still and silver is fizzy.

Clause 15

Public involvement in commissioning by Secretary of State

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) in the design of service and arrangement for service delivery (co-production).”

The amendment would explicitly require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the co-production of any health service commissioned by the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

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

[Helen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am moving this amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. She designed the amendment to explicitly require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the co-production of any health service commissioned by the Secretary of State.

The Liberal Democrats support clause 15 more broadly, and particularly the plans to involve affected patients, carers and representatives in planning and commissioning arrangements. Carers are a priority for our party, so it is really important to us that they have a meaningful say in the design and delivery of their care. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what that might look like in practice.

The amendment would tighten up the clause to make some of its provisions more explicit, so that we can be confident that anyone involved in an individual’s care has the ability to influence it in an appropriate way.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Regulations about commissioning by integrated care boards

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

“no formal national policy supporting minimum waits”,

local areas may

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

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

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

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

Age UK deemed it a “rationing approach” that is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

We know that in some areas of Scotland and Wales that are near the border with England, the way that health services are planned and commissioned in England can have implications for the people who live in Scotland or Wales. That is why clause 17 inserts new section 14Z45E into the 2006 Act, to place a duty on integrated care boards, when exercising their commissioning functions, to

“have regard to the likely impact of those decisions on the provision of health services”

to persons in Scotland and Wales living near the English border.

I assure the Committee that the clause will operate solely in relation to the exercise of ICB commissioning functions in England. It will neither confer functions on ICBs in relation to the commissioning or provision of services outside England, nor affect the responsibilities of devolved Administrations for the organisation and delivery of health services in Wales and Scotland. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[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.

Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. The mayors are also not all responsible for health and social care—the local authorities are, in most cases. There could therefore be a mayor directing proceedings with the ICB who is a political opponent of those actually democratically elected to look after social care. ICBs are supposed to be apolitical commissioners accountable to the Secretary of State, but now, instead of working with social care directors, they will work with an elected mayor instead.

I can see a positive to that in terms of democratic accountability, but what happens if they all disagree? There is some incoherence about who is in charge. We have the local authority tasked with delivering social care, which may be led by one political party; the mayor directing the ICB, who may be of a different political party; and the Secretary of State who can also direct the ICB, who may again be of a different political persuasion. How does it work if they disagree? Does the mayor actually have authority, given that the Secretary of State can override them anyway? How does the Minister see that working in practice? It feels like some people will be in power without responsibility and others will have responsibility without the power to exercise it.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I will raise some similar concerns about the abolition of integrated care partnerships and integrated care strategies, which clause 23 brings about. Before I do, I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The removal of integrated care partnerships, as well as the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities, raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning, which is very important to the Liberal Democrats, as the Minister knows. We feel that it removes the voice of charities and others in the voluntary sector who are crucial to meeting the range of needs in health and social care.

Throughout the Bill there is a theme of separating social care and the NHS, at a time when greater integration and closer working are clearly needed. We heard Sir Andrew Dilnot say in evidence that we cannot deal with some of the challenges that arise in the NHS—particularly around flow through hospitals and long waits in corridor care in accident and emergency—without improving the discharge of patients into social care. Separating the organisations that deliver those things is clearly problematic. If we think about it, as the shadow Minister just outlined, we have lost the local authority representative on ICBs. The Bill also changes the way the better care fund is administered. With those changes, we are really concerned about the separation of these two responsibilities.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an example in Shropshire. Shropshire council spends almost 80% of its budget on social care. It is an extremely challenged council because of those funding pressures. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB has also been one of the most financially challenged ICBs. That is partly because of its small scale and its merging with Staffordshire—which, for the record, is unlikely to be the combined mayoral authority that Shropshire ends up in, as is my current understanding, although we are a long way off resolving that problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

We cannot see the resources allocated, so we cannot confirm that, but it is clearly a concern. We are not yet discussing the part of the Bill that deals with Healthwatch, so I should keep my powder dry, but we know that local authorities will get some additional funding to deal with their elements of Healthwatch, while ICBs will not. There is a concern that that streamlining is, in fact, slimming down.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to pick up where the shadow Minister left off. Essentially, she said that the cart is being put before the horse in terms of mayoral authorities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East outlined, many areas have no plans for a mayoral authority; our area of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is some way down the track. As I expressed last week in Committee, we have a strange anomaly in the new Surrey and Sussex ICB, because Sussex will get a mayor and Surrey will not, so Sussex residents will have representation on the ICB whereas Surrey residents will not. I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reflect on that strange paradox over the weekend and that she will now be able to answer specifically, as she did not last week, how that lack of representation for Surrey residents will work locally.

The abolition of the integrated care partnerships and their allied strategies continues a theme whereby the Government, under the veneer of slimming down, are actually decoupling—or weakening or whatever terminology Members wish to use—health and social care. For many years, all parties have regarded the bringing together of health and social care as essential, but the Bill not only looks like it is not trying to encourage that bringing together, but in fact is doing the opposite of that—it seems to be looking to pull them apart and decouple them. That is strange, because it does not appear to be the expressed policy of the Government, but it is the only logical explanation for many parts of the Bill, including the abolition in clause 23.

The shadow Minister pointed out that a number of areas will keep the ICPs in some form or other. I ask the Minister, does the Government support that feature? Was it the Government’s intention to remove the statutory footing of the ICPs and strategies in the hope and expectation that they would continue on a non-statutory footing? If so, we come to the paradox: if the Government support local authorities and health services continuing to work together in informal ICPs, why is the Minister trying to get rid of them? If they do not support that, is it now stated Government policy to separate social care and health services?

--- Later in debate ---

a list of four things, which, to be honest, are entirely woolly—things like “opportunities”.

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Member will be aware that the new clause is a probing amendment. It is designed to push the Minister to describe how we will ensure that this range of expertise is taken into account when the plans are put together. We will not press the new clause to a vote, but we want to use it as a discussion point to probe how the range of expertise in the health service will be fully utilised, so that the plans are the best they can be.

[Gregory Stafford]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

I wish to speak to amendment 36 and new clause 59, which are different ways of seeking to do the same thing. They are aimed at ensuring that “civil servants are responsible for the decision making and appointment processes for trust and ICB leaders, rather than Ministers or Special Advisers.”

In earlier sessions, we spoke about the risk of political capture; the amendment and new clause intend to deal with that. The Government’s intention is to give providers more freedom to design services around local needs, but we are worried that giving the Secretary of State the powers to appoint trust chairs and non-executive directors will undermine that local flexibility and agency. It risks creating a bottleneck in the Department for Health and Social Care, leaving foundation trusts waiting for approval to make their arrangements. In theory, the Secretary of State will be responsible for the appointment of 143 foundation trust chairs and roughly 1,000 foundation trust non-executives, who themselves will appoint the executive directors. Clearly, there is the potential for a bottleneck there.

We also think that in the hands of the wrong Secretary of State—I cast no aspersions about the current one—there is potential for mass manipulation of the make-up of future NHS leadership. I think everybody here would agree that NHS leaders should be the best possible people for the job, not those who best fit the political agenda of the Secretary of State of the day. We are worried that future Secretary of States could abuse their power, intervening unnecessarily and for non-clinical reasons in hiring and firing decisions. Their political views could heavily influence the make-up of trust and ICB non-executives across the country—who are themselves responsible for appointing the chief executive— and lead to the firing and hiring of those who suit their personal vision of what a leader should look like.

From speaking to chief executives and other senior NHS leaders, I know that many already feel that chief executives are subject to the political whims of the day and are too easily scapegoated for wider failures. Holding poorly performing leaders to account is extremely important when there are failures, but sometimes those concerns and the blame culture that can exist in those organisations stops capable, impressive NHS leaders from taking the next step up the ladder to becoming a chief executive. We think a safeguard is necessary there.

We recognise that someone has to hold that power and appoint those people now that NHS England has gone. That is why amendment 36 proposes that in order to ensure there is not political capture of those decisions, they are taken by impartial civil servants who are given a set criteria of what a good leader looks like, rather than by Ministers or their special advisers.

As I mentioned, new clause 59 broadly seeks to do the same thing, but uses a different mechanism for getting that into the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Morgan]

I had finished speaking, but I will give way and think of something else to say.

[Dr Johnson]

The civil servants will be under the direction of the Minister, so how does the hon. Lady envisage it working? Presumably, civil servants are there to deliver for their Ministers or Secretary of State? Is she suggesting that makes the decision more impartial? Can she give us some detail on how that will work?

[Helen Morgan]

As I mentioned in my previous remarks, one imagines that a Secretary of State would set out criteria to ensure that the best people for the job are appointed. We are in a situation where a current Parliament cannot bind a future one, but we do need to set a precedent that political capture of these important leadership roles is not an unintentional consequence of this legislation. I accept that it is unintentional; I think the Secretary of State and the Minister have drafted this legislation with the best of intentions, but this is something we should guard against.

[Gregory Stafford]

On clause 29 and the relevant amendments, the membership model and the council of governors were originally introduced to give patients, staff and local communities a formal voice in the governance of NHS organisations. I worry that by removing them the clause concentrates power in the hands of the trust board at a local level and, potentially, the Secretary of State at a national level, while reducing opportunities for local scrutiny and public participation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, there is a real danger that organisations will be independent in name only.

That brings us back to the never-ending tension in the Bill between the centralisation of power in the Secretary of State, through the abolition of NHS England and all the other bodies we have talked about, and the Government’s stated desire to have more accountability for decision making at a local level.

Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

(b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity,

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

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

(e) those considered lacking digital skills.

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

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 49, in clause 47, page 36, line 1, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations may not be laid under this section unless the Secretary of State has published a plan for a public awareness campaign to be conducted before the system established under section 250E(1) is made available to patients (a ‘public awareness plan’).

(4B) The public awareness plan must include—

(a) a description of the information to be communicated to members of the public through the campaign, which must include information about—

(i) what the single patient record is and what patient information it will contain;

(ii) who will be able to access patient information through the system and for what purposes;

(iii) the rights of patients in relation to their patient information, including any right to object to or restrict access;

(iv) how patients will be able to view a record of access to their patient information; and

(v) how patients can raise concerns or make complaints;

(b) the steps to be taken to ensure that the campaign reaches groups who may face barriers to accessing information, including people with disabilities, and people with limited digital access or literacy;

(c) the proposed timetable for the campaign, including the date on which the campaign is to commence and the minimum period during which it will run before the system is made available to patients; and

(d) a description of how the effectiveness of the campaign will be evaluated.

(4C) The minimum period referred to in subsection (4B)(c) must be not less than three months before the date on which the system is first made available to patients under subsection (1)(a).

(4D) The Secretary of State must lay the public awareness plan before both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a public awareness plan has first been published, laid before Parliament, and a minimum three-month public information campaign has been conducted before the system goes live.

[Helen Morgan]

Amendment 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. I declare an interest as the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities.

I hope that we Liberal Democrats have been clear that overall, we are supportive of the single patient record; it is important that every patient can access their own health records. Under the SPR, however there is a risk that people belonging to already vulnerable groups will be digitally excluded from accessing their health information. Research commissioned by Ofcom suggests that 2.8 million people—5% of the UK population—do not have access to the internet at all. Although age is a predictor for a person not having access to the internet at home, especially if they are over 85, more than half of such people are younger than 75.

Amendment 70 would ensure that the Secretary of State assesses the potential for digital exclusion with relevant stakeholders, including patient groups, and that the assessment is laid before Parliament. It would also ensure that the Secretary of State takes into consideration the risk of exclusion for those lacking access to a suitable electronic device or suitable broadband connectivity, including people who have disabilities, who belong to socially excluded groups or who lack digital skills.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 70, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, would require the Secretary of State to publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion in the single patient record. That is important because, as our lives become more electronic and online, there are people who are getting left behind. That could be because they have a disability that prevents or makes it more difficult for them to access online facilities, because they do not have the resources, because they live an area of the country that is less well served by digital or broadband provision, or because they are elderly and have decided that they will not get involved in the digital world.

In fact, according to the Good Things Foundation, 7.9 million people in the UK lack basic digital skills and 1.6 million adults do not have a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Of those with no basic digital skills, 77% are over 65. People need more healthcare as they get older, yet those individuals have fewer digital skills, so this issue needs to be addressed. The NHS Alliance published a report on digital inclusion in March 2026, which found that rural and coastal areas typically have higher levels of digital exclusion than urban areas.

Lincolnshire ICB, which covers the area that I represent, estimates that 21.3% of Lincolnshire’s population live in the most digitally deprived areas. The ICB has a digital inclusion strategy for 2025 to 2028, which includes efforts to try to reduce digital exclusion; I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on how she might expand that sort of initiative across the country.

The Government’s equality impact assessment for the single patient record recognises that digital exclusion is a significant challenge in several groups with particular protected characteristics and other characteristics. I am interested in learning more from the Minister about how she intends to mitigate that challenge. In many ways, digital availability is a good thing, and it makes things much easier for many people—I am not knocking it in any way—but we need to ensure that people do not get left behind.

I understand that NHS England is supporting public libraries to signpost users to the NHS website and help them navigate it. What will happen to that support as NHS England gets abolished? Does the Minister intend the Department of Health and Social Care to provide something similar?

Amendment 49, tabled in my name, is basically about public awareness. Although we get immersed in what we are doing here, the public are not necessarily following every word that is said in Committee or in this House—or even necessarily every word that appears in the press—so when the single patient record is launched, it is important that they are aware of it, and in particular, aware of their rights.

We have talked about whether a person might want to let a carer see the single patient record or whether they might want to let someone see part but not all of the record. If the record goes live before people are aware of their rights and abilities in relation to it, they might find that things are available to people, or can be viewed by people, who they would not have wished to see them, which could lead to a number of problems. The amendment would allow people to be more aware of the single patient record for a period of time before it is brought in to try to make sure that that sort of problem is mitigated, and I am interested to understand the Minister’s view on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

We have not seen a full design of the single patient record yet, but it is difficult to envisage what it would looks like for somebody who does not have access to the internet. It is not just older people; it is obviously a significant problem in deprived areas as well. Can the Minister elaborate on what that might look like for somebody who does not have a device or does not have broadband or mobile access? How will they be able to access their medical record? We might need to understand that before we move forward.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Part the difficulty is that the powers in the Bill that enable the Government to bring forward a single patient record are separate from the secondary routes whereby we describe and work through the detail of regulation. All those considerations have to be very clear. The hon. Lady and I have spoken regularly about the lack of broadband access in her community, which remains a huge problem. All those considerations need to be worked through with the team. They are varied and multiple, and we need to bring parliamentarians and the public with us in doing that, as we bring forward secondary regulations.

NHS England’s digital inclusion framework, as currently, supports the delivery of the 10-year plan by addressing those particular connectivity and skills issues, as well as confidence and accessibility. That work is already partly in train through NHS England. We need to build on that and bring it forward as we come forward with the regulations. I visited the team up in Leeds around some of the digital inclusion they have already been doing from the app. It is very impressive how much they are doing with people to develop the app. I think people would agree that we can take some of that learning forward, because it is about making sure that digital transformation is inclusive and aligned with the ambition in the 10-year plan to personalise care, reduce inequalities and create a health system that works for everyone.

In addition, as set out in the “Managing health services for others” guidance, since February 2026 the NHS has had a process to allow proxy access to the app, which should also support people who, for example, do not have the skills to do it for themselves. Alongside those improvements, it is policy to undertake an inequality and health inequalities assessment prior to hosting anything new on the app. Again, that helps to identify, mitigate and monitor unintended negative impacts on vulnerable and marginalised populations before implementing new policy, services and procedures, as raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. That process should identify and consider the mitigations for the groups identified in the amendment.

I hope that Members can see how seriously the Government have taken the development of digital access so far. We absolutely recognise that we have to get it right to enable this record, which the public and population so desperately want to see. That work has already been undertaken and it will continue. For those reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Helen Morgan]

The importance of the amendment is that it requires this problem to be monitored in an ongoing way. Monitoring something usually makes the situation improve, so I will not withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

On the hon. Lady’s specific question, I agree: the regulations will answer these questions. But I think it is entirely appropriate to have them asked here and to have a statement of the principles, at least, on a number of these things from Ministers, so that within a broad scope we can ensure that the Bill is appropriate. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for example, seek to do so. They were clearly within the scope of the Bill; otherwise, they would not have been accepted.

The next issue is geographical scope, which I do not think anyone has touched on yet. The Bill allows information to be made available to people involved in

“health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands”.

That naturally raises questions about governance across different health systems. How will information be shared between England and the devolved nations? I think my hon. Friend mentioned some of the self-governing territories. I assume that she meant the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and places like that—Crown dependencies. What rules will apply? How will accountability work where different organisations operate under different arrangements? Again, the Bill does not answer those questions.

[Helen Morgan]

The cross-border point is really important. A number of people will come into England from Wales to have their secondary care delivered, because that care is not available in Wales. The single patient record will presumably not be available to the clinicians in the hospitals in England who are dealing with the patients. I wonder whether we should consider how that will work when we get to the regulation stage, because other systems will clearly be needed to deal with the people who are coming from outside England to be treated in English hospitals and other settings.

[Gregory Stafford]

I read the clause differently. I am sure that the Minister can provide an answer, but my reading is that the single patient record could be—but not necessarily that it must be—used in Wales and Scotland as well. I do not know whether it has to be used, but the clause, as I read it, suggests that it would be. If a patient is travelling from Oswestry to somewhere in Shropshire or vice versa—

[Helen Morgan]

Oswestry is in Shropshire.

[Gregory Stafford]

My geography A-level has clearly departed me. If a patient is travelling from somewhere in Wales to Shropshire, the single patient record would be used. That also presents challenges the other way, if Wales and Scotland are using different technological solutions and systems and operating under different legal frameworks. That is especially the case for Scotland: it has quite a different legal system from England and Wales, so there could be issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I have a couple of questions. In lots of ways the provisions derive from clause 1 and the abolition of NHS England. Schedule 7 refers to operating a system in the interests of the health service, which is not the same as operating it in the interests of the patients. Does the Minister have any comments on that? The Nuffield Trust has pointed out that schedule 7 would not pass over to the Secretary of State NHSE’s duty to report to Parliament. Is that because the Minister thinks that duty is duplicated elsewhere and is therefore not necessary?

Under the previous legislation, the Care Quality Commission was slightly stronger and could make a mandatory request that NHS England establish a system, and NHS England had to comply with that unless it related to an existing exception. Now if the CQC makes a request, it goes to the Secretary of State, and whether it is agreed to is then somewhat more optional. Will the Minister say why she needs to change that power?

[Helen Morgan]

I want to speak to amendment 6, which is tabled in my name, and amendment 7, which is consequential upon it. Amendment 6 would ensure that the CQC and NICE can

“continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system”,

as they currently can with NHS England. At the moment, NHS England has a duty to co-operate with the CQC and NICE, and that is often enough for a collaborative approach that allows the CQC to access the data it needs.

But the duty that applies to NHS England is not being passed on to the Department of Health and Social Care. The CQC raised the issue in written evidence to the Committee, saying that the duty

“has been an important mechanism”

that has

“supported receipt of patient safety incident reports…information sharing between regional teams, and the development of central data sharing solutions.”

The CQC went on:

“Without an equivalent duty, we would be reliant on there being sufficient capacity and willingness within DHSC to share information, with no statutory backstop. This could inhibit our ability to receive the information”

needed

“to keep people who use services safe. Challenges in this area are often cultural and rely on the subjective judgment of individual data controllers as to whether particular data sets can be shared, how these should be used and what the timeliness of sharing should be, leading to protracted piecemeal conversations and delays.”

As we have harrowingly heard over the past week, there is often reluctance to share data, particularly when there is a defensive culture in certain NHS institutions. Our amendment seeks to address the gap. I hope that what I have outlined is an oversight from the Government, not a deliberate attempt to reduce transparency or reduce regulator access to key data. The wider changes in schedule 11 will omit section 288 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Government are dropping this key wider duty in a schedule entitled “Minor and consequential amendments”. We do not think it is minor. It holds major implications for patient safety and transparency.

On a wider note, it seems counterintuitive that the CQC, as regulator, does not have easy access to the data collected nationally in the health service.

[Karin Smyth]

Let me respond to the hon. Member for North Shropshire on amendments 6 and 7. As she said, amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 6, so I will take them together.

I think we can all agree that the CQC and NICE should have access to the information they need to undertake their important work. Amendment 6 is not required to ensure that. Clause 50, and the associated changes in schedule 7, maintain the current ability for any person, including NICE and the CQC, to request the establishment and operation of an information system. However, NICE and the CQC will not be able to make the equivalent mandatory request they used to be able to make to NHS England because NHS England is to be abolished.

Amendment 6 seeks to maintain the current position when, in reality, mandatory requests were practically never made under the current arrangements. They were thought necessary when a separate arm’s length body had responsibility for collecting data about healthcare. There is no need for the Secretary of State to be subject to the same mandatory requirement as they are responsible for oversight of the entirety of the NHS and the adult social care system, and for its effective regulation.

Furthermore, the CQC has a statutory power, under section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to require the provision of

“documents, records (including personal and medical records) or other items”

the CQC considers “necessary or expedient” for the purposes of its regulatory functions, from a range of health and social care commissioners and providers.

On amendment 7, the Government agree that a code of practice setting out strict standards for how health and care organisations must handle confidential patient information is an important component of a healthcare system that uses data safely and effectively. That is why clause 50 allows for the insertion of new section 252ZA into the National Health Service Act 2006, to transfer to the Secretary of State the duty to publish a code of practice on confidential patient information. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire not to press amendments 6 and 7 to a vote.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about duplication. I think the answer to her question is yes, but if that is not correct, I will make sure that I respond to her accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7

Health and social care information systems etc

Amendment proposed: 6, in schedule 7, page 96, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—

“For section 255 (power to request NHS England to establish information systems), substitute—

‘255 Powers to request the Secretary of State to establish information systems

(1) Any person (including a devolved authority) may request the Secretary of State to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information of a description specified in the request.

(2) A request may be made under subsection (1) by a person only if the person considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the person to have in relation to the person's exercise of functions, or carrying out of activities, in connection with the provision of health care or adult social care.

(3) The Secretary of State must comply with a mandatory request unless the Secretary of State considers that the request relates to information of a description prescribed in regulations.

(4) For the purposes of this Chapter a request under subsection (1) is a mandatory request if—

(a) it is made by a principal body, and

(b) the body considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the body to have in relation to its discharge of a duty in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.

(5) Subsection (6) applies where the Secretary of State has discretion under this section as to whether to comply with—

(a) a mandatory request, or

(b) any other request under subsection (1).

(6) In deciding whether to comply with the request, the Secretary of State —

(a) must, in particular, consider whether doing so would interfere to an unreasonable extent with the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of its functions, and

(b) may take into account the extent to which the principal body or other person making the request has had regard to—

(i) the code of practice prepared and published by the Secretary of State under section 263, and

(ii) advice or guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 265.

(7) In this section “principal body” means—

(a) the Care Quality Commission,

(b) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and

(c) such other persons as may be prescribed in regulations.

(8) In this Chapter “health care” includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.’”—(Helen Morgan.)

This amendment would enable the Care Quality Commission and NICE to continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system, following the transfer of NHS England’s functions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Electronic devices switched off, please, and no teas or coffee in the Committee Room. Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so and, exceptionally, if any Members wish to remove ties, because of the weather I am prepared to permit that as well.

Clause 58

NICE recommendations: decisions about time for compliance

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 58, page 43, line 40, at end insert—

“1. (8B) Regulations under subsection (8A) must include provision about the period within which NICE guideline NG206 on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) must be complied with.

2. (8D) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206, including the extent to which integrated care boards and relevant NHS bodies have implemented recommendations relating to ME specialist services and severe or very severe ME.”

The amendment would require that a period must be set within which the NICE guideline NG206 on ME must be complied with by ICBs and other health bodies. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206 across the NHS in England.

[The Chair]

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

[Helen Morgan]

The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on behalf of the approximately 1.2 million people in England who live with myalgic encephalomyelitis, because five years after the introduction of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG206, little has changed. Service provision according to NG206 remains patchy and poor, with many patients having traumatic experiences. The amendment would require a period to be set in which integrated care boards and other health bodies must comply with the guideline, and the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NG206 across the NHS in England.

The introduction of the guideline after sustained campaigning represented a major reform after years in which ME was treated as a psychiatric condition and patients were pushed to follow graduated exercise therapy. Often, GET had disastrous consequences, precipitating serious deteriorations that patients never recovered from. Credit is due to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the current Minister for Public Health and Prevention, for her determination when in opposition to bring about the change.

In a written answer published last week, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention confirmed that all ICBs have a statutory obligation to ensure sufficient care provision for their population, but the experience of those with ME is that that obligation is far from being fulfilled. In some ICBs, no services for ME are commissioned; in others, the provider has a history of providing services that reflect not NG206, but the old and condemned approach of GET. Some services are provided out of psychiatry departments, which is a huge red flag for those with ME, and information on the quality of services is patchy. Results from a big survey of more than 5,000 people with ME or long covid in late 2025 painted a bleak picture: more than half said that they had been disbelieved by an NHS healthcare official, one in three had been made to feel that their ME was their own fault, and almost two in five had had an encounter with a clinician that was traumatic or traumatising.

Five years after its introduction, NG206 is far from being complied with, and so members of the ME community—approximately 1.2 million people, as I said—are desperately asking that something be done to address the situation. The amendment represents a route that offers hope for many long-neglected and mistreated people. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about improving the consistency of provision for people with ME.

Moving to the clause generally, we broadly support the intention, but think that more safeguards need to be built into the principle, given the powers that are being handed to the Secretary of State. The clause makes provision for the period for compliance with a NICE recommendation, but gives no detail of how that will work in practice or how often the Secretary of State will change the standard three-month rule that NICE requires. No ceiling is put on the compliance period, no criteria govern when the period may be extended, and there is no duty to consult or set out reasoning.

What will the process be when the Secretary of State intervenes in the period of time for compliance with a NICE recommendation? We thought that there would be some mix of evidence requirements, consultation, statement of reasons, impact assessment and some kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State should at least have to set out their reasoning why the new power has been used. The value of the current requirement is almost entirely due to the compliance period being short and fixed. The three-month rule gives a positive NICE recommendation practical force. A power to lengthen or vary that period without constraint weakens the requirement in substance while leaving it formally intact. The right is not removed but its timing is made discretionary. For a patient awaiting treatment, that does not amount to the same thing.

A variation power is not new. Since the introduction of the budget impact test in 2017, NHS England has been able to apply to NICE to extend the funding period for medicines with a budget impact above a defined threshold, but, importantly, that period is criteria-based, triggered by a defined financial threshold, subject to a defined process and time-limited in effect. We are not overtly opposed to the power in principle, but more safeguards should be built into the criteria for its application. I would be grateful for some guidance from the Minister on that.

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

I have sympathy with the principle behind amendment 58, in the name of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. The hon. Member for North Shropshire is right to say that individuals with ME have not always received the best quality care. In many cases, ME is a debilitating and incredibly frustrating condition, and around 10% to 25% of sufferers have severe ME, meaning that they are housebound or bedbound. We know that some patients are sadly not believed by medical professionals.

In 2021, NICE said that most medical students have little or no training on the condition. The Government have previously committed to increasing the uptake of ME modules among NHS professionals. What progress has been made on that in the last couple of years? The Government also committed in the ME/CFS action plan to develop and run a public awareness initiative, with implementation expected by May this year. Has the Department developed that initiative yet? If not, what is responsible for the delay? It is not marked as complete on the Government website.

The amendment would put guidance for medical professionals into legislation, though, and my concerns about that are twofold. First, it may slow down improvements in the future. If individuals have to legally follow that guidance, how can they innovate and improve treatment without having to come back to Parliament for more primary legislation? That will take time and may mean that people with ME get worse rather than better care in the short term.

The requirement would also limit clinical judgment. A patient may have a particular set of symptoms or conditions or be on a particular set of medications that mean that the doctor or clinician looking after them needs to vary from the guidance. NICE intends the guidance to be just that, guidance, not law, but if guidance becomes law, the doctor or clinician will not be able to vary from it. My concern is that the amendment would be overly restrictive. Although it is well-intentioned, and it is a good idea to ensure that guidance is followed where possible, it would be too rigid. I therefore do not support the amendment, while continuing to support the aim of better treatment.

Clause 58 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by inserting a new section 237(8A), which states:

“Provision made under subsection (8)(b) may include provision about the period within which a recommendation is to be complied with (including provision for the period to be determined by NICE or the Secretary of State).”

At the moment, NICE technology appraisals check the value of a product, whether a drug or a technology, then NICE makes a recommendation. It is then supposed to be the case that within 90 days or three months, ICBs ensure that those technologies are available, but we know that in the real world it can take longer—sometimes 12 to 24 months—for some things to become available. That could be because technology needs to be bought or training needs to take place.

I understand why there could be variation and why the Government may want to consider varying the period, but it is not clear why they need to do so in legislation, because it is possible now to vary the period on an individual basis. For example, the Government imposed a five-year limit rather than a 90-day limit for the introduction of hybrid closed loop systems for diabetes, because that is a technology that requires proper training and they were never going to be rolled out in such a short period. The other product that notably has a longer time is tirzepatide, which is more commonly known as Mounjaro. I suspect that that is down to cost, but I am not certain.

Why do the Government want to change the 90 days? The patient’s right to treatment with a NICE-approved product within 90 days will become a right to getting the product when the Secretary of State says so. That is not really a right at all, because it does not give patients any comfort and may mean that products are received later. The Government have put this power into the Bill, so they clearly intend to use it. Given that they have the power to vary on an individual basis, why do they need the power to vary on a blanket basis? Do they intend to extend the 90-day limit across the board? If so, by how much? There is no ceiling. The Committee received written evidence from Henry Burkitt from Oxygen Strategy, who made the point that there is no ceiling, no maximum time, no duty to consult and no necessity for the Secretary of State or NICE to give reasons why a delay has occurred.

The life sciences industry talks about how it wants products to be rolled out. When it is investing and doing research in this country, it wants to see new products rolled out as quickly as possible once they have been approved, and the clause is a sign that roll-out might be delayed. I understand that the Government might want to be able to vary on certain products, but they already can; why do they want to vary on a more general basis? It is presumably to slow down roll-outs, but by how much?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Clause 58 is about the time period for compliance with NICE recommendations on health and social care provision. As we have heard, it will enable that period to be determined by NICE or the Secretary of State.

NICE’s technology appraisals and highly specialised technology guidance play a vital role in ensuring that patients in England can access treatments that are clinically effective and a good use of NHS resources. When NICE recommends a new treatment, the NHS is usually required to make funding available within three months. That means that patients can consistently benefit from innovative treatment.

That said, there are cases where the three-month timeframe is just not realistic. That might be because of affordability pressures or practical challenges such as a stretched workforce. In those situations, a longer implementation period is needed to ensure that complex new treatments can be introduced in a safe way that does not disrupt services for other patients. For example, the period for NICE’s guidance on the drug Paxlovid for the treatment of covid was extended to 12 months to allow time for the NHS to put the necessary routine testing systems in place and train healthcare professionals.

I do not think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised this issue, but the opposite is sometimes true, and the NHS issues guidance that provides swifter access to medicines and medical treatments. For example, cancer medicines can be funded from the point of a positive draft recommendation. At present, NHS England decides whether a NICE treatment is funded more quickly or in a shorter timeframe, while NICE determines whether the funding period should be extended, typically following a proposal from NHS England. The abolition of NHS England means that those roles and responsibilities will need to be reconsidered. The clause provides flexibility for the final decision on funding timelines to sit with either NICE or the Secretary of State, but it will not mandate which.

To the point raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, the Government intend to set out further details of these arrangements in regulations using the enabling power granted by this Bill. Importantly, the clause will not reduce NICE’s independent role in assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of new treatments, nor will it weaken the NHS’s obligation to provide timely treatment. Instead, it will ensure that decisions on funding timelines remain flexible and sustainable, and that the system is equipped to respond effectively to future pressures.

I will now speak to amendment 78, which was moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I recognise the vital role that NICE guidelines play in improving quality and consistency of care across the NHS. NICE’s guidance is developed by experts on the basis of rigorous assessment of the available evidence and provides an important benchmark for best practice, including for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis. I know that the hon. Member intends to withdraw the amendment, but if she were to press it, the Government would not accept it.

To be clear—again, partly to the point of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—it is a long-standing and deliberate position that NICE guidance is not mandatory, which reflects the role it plays in supporting patient care. Crucially, guidelines do not override the professional judgment of clinicians, and it is essential that clinicians retain the flexibility to determine the most appropriate course of treatment for individual patients based on their specific circumstances. It is also important to recognise that NICE guidelines are often complex frameworks for care that must be adapted to local service configurations and patient need. Requiring full compliance with the NICE guideline would remove the ability of local service providers to ensure that ME services are appropriate to the needs of their local populations.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire made some important points about treatment of ME over the years, and many of us have encountered constituents with similar stories. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for his work supporting constituents with the condition. To be clear, the Department fully recognises the need for more consistent implementation of the NICE guidelines on ME. That is why we are already taking forward practical measures. In particular, the Department and NHS England are developing a service template specification, aligned to NICE’s guidelines, to support commissioners and providers in delivering appropriate services for people with ME. We will continue to work with stakeholders, the industry and the NHS in doing that.

Those steps will help to drive improvement in care without undermining clinical judgment or imposing inflexible statutory requirements. With that, I commend clause 58 to the Committee.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her words, particularly on amendment 78. As I said, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will continue to bear in mind that provision for people with ME is extremely patchy and that a number of our constituents are suffering in the long term. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Transfer of HSSIB’s functions to CQC

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 55, in schedule 8, page 110, line 23, at end insert—

“(10) If the Secretary of State certifies that it is in the interests of national security that the powers conferred by subsection (1)—

(a) should not be exercisable in relation to certain premises in which there is a Crown interest, or

(b) should not be exercisable in relation to certain specified premises for other purposes,

those powers are not exercisable in relation to those specified premises.

(7) In this section, ‘Crown interest’ means—

(a) an interest belonging to a government department or held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department;

(b) an interest belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown;

(c) an interest belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;

(d) an interest belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall.”

This amendment makes provision for the Secretary of State to disapply investigation powers under subsection 51J(1) to the Health and Social Care Act 2008, inserted by Schedule 8 of this Bill.

Amendment 56, in schedule 8, page 116, line 8, leave out subsection (9).

This amendment would allow the Commission to recoup charges in excess of the costs incurred in providing assistance.

Amendment 5, in schedule 8, page 120, line 16, at end insert—

“(2A) After paragraph 6(8) insert—

‘(9) A committee of the Commission is to be appointed in accordance with regulations.

(10) The purpose of the committee is to oversee the health services safety investigation functions formerly conducted by HSSIB, transferred to the Care Quality Commission under the Health Act 2026.

(11) The committee is to be operationally independent from the Care Quality Commission.

(12) The committee is to consist of a chair appointed by the Secretary of State, and not less than six and not more than twelve other members appointed by the chair.

(13) A majority of the members of the committee must not be members of the Care Quality Commission.

(14) So far as is reasonably practicable, the persons appointed to the committee must include persons with knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of functions under this paragraph.’”

This amendment would ensure that oversight of HSSIB’s functions would remain operationally independent of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) following the transfer of its functions to the CQC.

Schedule 8.

Clauses 60 and 61 stand part.

New clause 42—Funding for Care Quality Commission (CQC) investigations—

“The Secretary of State has a duty to make provision for adequate funding and resources for patient safety investigations conducted by the CQC, including some initiated by the CQC themselves.”

--- Later in debate ---

Decluttering a landscape does not make patients any safer. Rolling HSSIB into the CQC does not make anything safer. In fact, one of the fundamental things I do not understand about this is that the Government say, “Don’t worry, it’s okay—we’re basically recreating HSSIB within the CQC,” in which case they have not decluttered the landscape; they have just hidden it and sort of pushed it out of the way within the CQC. They have not removed it. Either they have decluttered the landscape and removed it, or they have not. It does not seem clear which the Government think they have done. I would be grateful if, when the Minister wraps up her comments, she could explain why she thinks this move will improve patient safety for us all across the NHS.

[Helen Morgan]

I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, which is opposed to the changes to HSSIB proposed in the Bill. Over the last couple of weeks, we have been reminded why we need an appropriate safety landscape when things go wrong. We have had the Donna Ockenden review into Nottingham maternity services. We have had Baroness Amos’s national review into the picture following a range of maternity scandals across the country. Yesterday evening, I attended the debate on the regulations to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. Safety is at the top of all our minds at the moment, as it should always be.

Something that has come across very strongly from Members of all parties, on both sides of the House, is that culture is critical to ensuring that those types of issues—the huge scandals—never happen again. Indeed, smaller scandals must never happen again, because people need to be free. Staff in particular need to have the confidence that, if they report concerns about the way they operate, they will be safe to do so without jeopardising the rest of their career, and that those concerns will be acted on and the lessons learned. Everybody here wants to achieve that. I do not think anybody is arguing about the fundamental principle that, when there are concerns, they need to be raised in a safe place and that the lessons from those concerns need to be learned.

That is why I share the lack of understanding of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, about why rolling HSSIB into the CQC will change that culture, because the CQC is a regulatory body and HSSIB is an investigatory one. Their missions are fundamentally different. Putting them together compromises the independent investigation element in a way that is very difficult to overcome. We were told in the evidence to the Bill Committee by HSSIB’s chief executive that it is often told, “We tell you this; we wouldn’t tell a regulatory body.” It is clear that this perception of safety is critical to the way in which people interact with HSSIB.

We also heard in evidence to the Committee that the CQC warned that, as it stands, the Bill could leave it fighting against itself in the High Court. We could get a scenario where the regulatory arm of the CQC sought access to HSSIB’s confidential investigation reports, while HSSIB, the investigative branch, tried to keep them secret to protect its independence. That is not a situation anyone wants to end up in, and I am sure that is not the intention of this clause.

I think the shadow Minister has already made this point, so I will not labour it, but it is also important that the investigatory body must be able to examine the regulatory frameworks, commissioning decisions and oversight arrangements without institutional conflict. When I look back, for example, at the scandal that unfolded at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS Trust over the maternity failings, I see that the CQC had given that trust a good rating during the course of all those terrible things going wrong. The CQC’s process clearly failed in that situation. It is difficult to imagine an arm of the CQC turning around in that scenario and saying that the CQC got its own assessment wrong. If it had tried to do that, it is difficult to imagine how that might have played out and that people might have had confidence in raising that problem.

I am also concerned about this because, as the Minister has alluded to, the CQC has faced significant criticism and publicly admitted that it has failed to carry out its functions to the best of its abilities over recent years. Although I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the transfer would happen only once the CQC was in a better place, the CQC might—again—be part of the problem in some instances, and HSSIB must be able to point to that where appropriate.

Lib Dem amendment 5 attempts to introduce the principle that, if this must happen, there needs to be a firewall in the CQC to keep HSSIB operationally independent. To achieve that, the amendment proposes to insert into the process a committee that is operationally independent of—with a majority of people who are not on—the CQC. Opposition new clause 42 seeks to do the same thing. I would be open to any suggestions that the Minister might make to reassure us that HSSIB will continue to be operationally independent, for all the good reasons that hon. Members have outlined.

[Gregory Stafford]

Before I address the clauses, I say for the record that 21 years ago this morning, 52 people were murdered and 784 injured by Islamist terrorists in London. I pay tribute to all the medical professionals who treated those people in such difficult circumstances.

I will speak to clauses 59 to 63 together because they all concern one of the most significant structural changes proposed in the Bill: the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body as an independent statutory organisation, and the transfer of its functions to the Care Quality Commission. At first glance, that may appear a relatively modest machinery-of-government change. The Minister argues that HSSIB’s functions will continue, its statutory safe-space protections will remain and operational independence will somehow be preserved. However, when one examines the evidence presented to the Committee, and that given to the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify the problem that this merger is intended to solve. Instead, what emerges is a remarkable degree of consensus among those with the greatest expertise in patient safety that this proposal carries significant risks while offering little measurable benefit.

The question before us is therefore not whether HSSIB’s statutory functions can be transferred to another organisation, but whether Parliament should abolish an institution that it deliberately created to be independent. That distinction matters. Across public life, we recognise that effective scrutiny depends on institutional independence. Government expenditure is examined independently by the National Audit Office, citizens complain to independent ombudsmen rather than to the organisations about which they are complaining, air accidents are investigated independently by the Civil Aviation Authority, and rail accidents are investigated independently of the regulator. In each case, Parliament has recognised that organisations charged with investigating failures should not also be responsible for regulating, inspecting or enforcing against those they investigate. Healthcare should be no different.

Indeed, if anything, healthcare should demand an even greater degree of independence. Learning from failure depends on the confidence of patients, clinicians and families that they can speak openly and without fear that the information that they provide will later be used for regulatory or enforcement purposes. That is precisely why HSSIB was created. Its purpose was never to attribute blame but to understand why systems fail, identify the underlying causes of patient harm and ensure that lessons are learned before similar tragedies occur again. That philosophy represented a deliberate shift away from a culture of blame and towards one of learning. It was modelled consciously on the air accidents investigation branch, whose success over many decades has demonstrated that independent, no-blame investigations produce better safety outcomes than investigations driven primarily by enforcement.

It is therefore difficult to understand why the Government now seek to move away from the model that other safety-critical industries continue to regard as fundamental. Clause 59 would abolish that independent body and transfer its functions to the Care Quality Commission. In doing so, it would bring together two organisations with fundamentally different statutory purposes, different powers and, perhaps most importantly, different cultures. HSSIB investigates and the CQC regulates. One exists to ask why the system failed; the other exists to ask whether the organisation complied with required standards—those are not the same questions. Nor do HSSIB and CQC require the same relationship with those from whom evidence is obtained. An investigation depends on trust; a regulator depends on compliance. An investigator encourages candour; a regulator necessarily retains enforcement powers. The different roles are not a weakness of the system; they are precisely why Parliament chose to establish separate organisations.

I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could explain what assessment has been made of the impact on public confidence of the investigator and the regulator becoming part of the same statutory organisation. More specifically, what assessment has been made of the likely effect on clinicians’ willingness to speak openly if the organisation receiving confidential evidence also contains the regulator responsible for inspecting and enforcing standards? That concern has been expressed not only by the Opposition, but repeatedly by independent experts—and indeed, we just heard the hon. Member for Lewisham East asking similar questions.

Even the Care Quality Commission has expressed reservations. Evidence that it submitted to the Health and Social Care Committee earlier this year acknowledged that a lack of clarity remains regarding the respective roles of HSSIB and the CQC. Rather than resolving that uncertainty, the proposed merger risks deepening it. The CQC warned that preserving an effective separation between its investigatory and regulatory functions would be essential if confidence in HSSIB’s safe space were to be maintained, and it recognised the genuine risk of perceived conflicts of interest if those functions become blurred.

I think that should give the Committee pause for thought. When the organisation receiving the additional responsibilities is itself warning about the difficulty of maintaining the boundaries, we should listen very carefully. If the CQC believes that the risks exist before the merger has even taken place, what confidence can Ministers offer that those risks will somehow disappear afterwards? Similarly, the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, of which I am a member, has expressed concern that HSSIB should remain institutionally independent so that its evidence-based recommendations can continue to command confidence across the health system.

Such concerns, as I said, are not confined to Parliament, nor are they confined to one political party. They are shared by patient safety organisations, healthcare professionals and those directly involved in investigating serious incidents. During our oral evidence sessions, I put a straightforward question to Dr Penny Dash. I observed that I could find almost no one apart from her and the Department who believed that moving HSSIB into the CQC was the right course of action. That was not intended as some sort of rhetorical flourish; it reflected the evidence before us. Former Secretaries of State, patient safety experts, independent investigators and numerous professional organisations have all questioned the proposal.

Despite the breadth of concern, the Government have not produced compelling evidence that HSSIB, as presently constituted, is failing. Nor have they demonstrated that the separation between investigation and regulation is itself creating harm. Instead, Ministers have repeatedly assured us that HSSIB’s operational independence will remain, that safe space protections will remain and that independent investigations will remain. If that is indeed the Government’s position, an obvious question follows: if HSSIB will continue to operate independently, if its investigations will continue to be conducted independently and if its statutory protections will remain intact, why is it necessary to abolish the independent organisation at all?

That question goes to the heart of clauses 59 to 63, and throughout the evidence presented to the Committee, I have heard no convincing answer. The Government ask Parliament to believe that everything that makes HSSIB valuable will continue unchanged, but at the same time, they ask Parliament to dismantle the very institutional structure deliberately designed to protect those characteristics. That is not merely an administrative contradiction, but a constitutional one. If institutional independence genuinely matters, it should be preserved. If institutional independence does not matter, Ministers should explain why Parliament was wrong to establish it in the first place.

That question of necessity leads directly to the Government’s principal justifications for clauses 59 to 63, the Dash review. The Government have repeatedly relied on that review as the intellectual basis for abolishing HSSIB as the independent body, yet when one examines the report and the evidence given by its author to this Committee, the case becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.

Without doubt, the review identifies a genuine problem: it concludes that the patient safety landscape has become crowded and in places confusing. Dr Dash told the Committee that she had identified more than 150 organisations operating across the wider patient safety landscape, and that clinicians were spending considerable time responding to different organisations, requesting information, completing forms and participating in overlapping reviews. She said that the system had become “busy and confusing”, and that that was distracting clinicians from improving the quality of care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I do think that the scope of the review, who determined the six organisations and how that was looked at is important, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to clarify that when she makes her concluding remarks. However, there are a couple of other issues that concern me in terms of some of what was in the review, which seems to be the basis on which this is being done. Finding 6 suggests that HSSIB has expanded its

“scope of work beyond the original remit.”

It goes on to say:

“HSSIB was originally established, along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries, to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations.”

I have to say, as the Minister who took the Health and Care Act 2022 through, that is simply not the case. That Act does not limit HSSIB investigations to individual incidents. If I recall correctly, in some of the debates on the HSSIB clauses in the Bill, we alluded as a Committee to the need for it to be able to look beyond individual incidents and try to draw out common themes. What has been said simply does not accord with my recollection of the purposes of the legislation.

Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon highlighted this. Recommendation 3 states:

“Most investigations into safety incidents should continue to be managed within provider organisations”.

That is the real challenge here. HSSIB’s independence is what allows it to range across the piece—to have issues raised with it and look at individual organisations. The challenge so often is that the provider organisations are marking their own homework and are simply not getting to the truth, or being as candid with those who have made the complaint as they have a right to expect.

[Helen Morgan]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has had the experience that I have had as a constituency MP of very senior clinicians who work in the NHS attending my surgery and explaining that if they have raised concerns within their organisation, they have been encouraged either to leave or to retire. They feel frightened to raise concerns about safety that they have experienced in carrying out their duties, so it is really important that this safe space exists. Does he agree with that?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady makes her point extremely clearly, and I do agree with exactly the point she makes, because in any organisation it is a big step for an individual employed by or working in the organisation to make a complaint about their organisation or to whistleblow on something that has gone on or that they feel has not been got right. Key to getting people to do that is that they feel safe and empowered to do it in the public interest, and that is exactly what is at the heart of the air accidents investigation branch and the rail accident investigation branch model, so that the information is brought forward and learnings can be driven by it to improve safety for everyone. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, that safety is patient safety and that has to remain the golden thread that runs through everything we are debating. Whatever difference of perspective we have on this set of clauses, that must remain at the heart of what we are looking for.

Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting, but there is loads of water—silver is fizzy, blue is flat. I am happy to give a blanket permission for people to take off their jackets. Officially, you are meant to ask me individually, but given the heatwave, take them off if you like.

New Clause 6

Health Data Charter

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish an independent body (to be known as the "Sovereign Health Data Trust”) for the purpose of creating a Health Data Charter.

(2) The membership of the Trust should include—

(a) people with a diverse range of backgrounds; and

(b) health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.

(3) The Charter must—

(a) set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS;

(b) include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data;

(c) ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs;

(d) provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment;

(e) set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS;

(f) be designed in such a way as to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space in technical terms, including through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles within the NHS.

(4) The Sovereign Health Data Trust will—

(a) hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment;

(b) have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit;

(c) ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available;

(d) publish detailed minutes of all meetings discussing potential uses of health data; and

(e) ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.”—(Helen Morgan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The new clause would require the creation of a health data charter, and includes measures to protect data so as to ensure privacy and reasonable usage.

Patients should be in control of their data. As we have discussed in previous sittings, we do not think that the Bill goes far enough to provide reassurances in that regard. Everyone agrees with the need for the single patient record, but there is genuine risk—one that I do not think anyone in this room wants—that it could be derailed over very understandable and reasonable data privacy concerns. Sufficient guardrails and transparency are key, especially for secondary uses of health data. As we have discussed on many occasions, trust is essential for the system to succeed.

That is why we have tabled this new clause on a health data charter that would set out guiding principles for data sharing across the national health service, including for the single patient record. It would be led by data experts, as well as, importantly, clinicians and patient representatives. Ensuring that the voices of doctors and patients are heard is central to building trust and the widespread use of any data-sharing systems or technologies.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq.

New clause 6 raises an important question on how we govern health data, which one of the greatest assets of the NHS. The development of the single patient record platform and database, and the wider use of the linked NHS data, present enormous opportunities.

When used responsibly, healthcare data can support much more personalised care, improve NHS planning, accelerate medical research, enable earlier diagnoses and help develop new medicines and treatments. It can also improve efficiency and strengthen the evidence base for healthcare decisions. However, those benefits can be realised only if the public have the confidence that their data will be used safely, ethically and transparently. Public trust must be the foundation of any successful health data policy.

NHS health data is currently overseen by NHS England, following the merger of NHS Digital into that organisation. With the Government proceeding with the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions elsewhere, it is right that we consider future governance arrangements. In principle, I agree that an independent body may be needed to ensure and maintain the security, integrity and responsible stewardship of NHS data. There is definitely scope for an independent body to oversee the management and regulation of the public’s health data. That proposal places patient privacy at its heart, and would strengthen safeguards against misuse, give patients greater control over how their information is used, and provide meaningful mechanisms to opt out of certain forms of data sharing. It also promotes the use of anonymisation and trusted research environments, allowing valuable research to take place while reducing the risk of inappropriate disclosure. We have discussed inappropriate disclosure by a malign actor, or even inadvertent disclosure, during debate on other clauses.

The Liberal Democrat new clause also seeks to address a concern that has attracted significant public attention: where commercial organisations derive substantial value from NHS data, the NHS itself should share in that benefit. Although we did not support a number of Liberal Democrat proposals because of the inadvertent implications of their drafting, I still have sympathy with the overall thrust of what they were trying to achieve. There is a strong argument that the value generated from the data contributed by NHS patients should help to support future patient care and research.

Transparency is another important feature. Publishing data-sharing agreements, increasing openness around decision making and consulting the public on significant new data initiatives would help to strengthen public confidence. The proposed trust would bring those principles together by overseeing data use, monitoring compliance with governance standards, ensuring transparency and, where necessary, suspending access for organisations that misuse their data.

Of course, any new governance framework must avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or delaying important research. To reassure the Committee that the framework would not create a block or dampener, or insert inertia into the system, will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell us what evidence she found when drafting the new clause? If we are going to do something like this, the oversight should be proportionate, and it should complement, rather than duplicate or frustrate, any existing regulatory responsibilities.

Ultimately, the new clause has potential benefits. It would establish a clear social contract for NHS health data, which would hopefully protect privacy, support research and innovation, maintain public trust and ensure that patients and the NHS share in the benefits arising from the responsible use of a very valuable national asset. In terms of what it could be used for, that data is probably second to none in the world, but I am concerned about adding extra bureaucracy and inertia to the system, when we want a vibrant life-sciences industry that is able to use the data for the benefit of British citizens and patients. What does the hon. Member for North Shropshire think would happen in that case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

Hon. and right hon. Members on the Committee will understand that we are talking about a single patient record that we do not understand much about yet, because most of the detail will come later. This new clause is attempting to establish what guardrails we would like to see for the protection of patient data when the single patient record is brought into existence

There are very genuine concerns about people’s health conditions becoming individually identifiable. If there is an individual in a single postcode with a rare condition, anonymising the data can essentially never happen. That is a genuine concern that people have. I hope that, when we get to Report stage, the Government will be able to give us a little more detail on what safeguards they intend to put in place over the use of that data. To that end, I do not intend to press this new clause to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take into account the concerns we have expressed about building trust and protecting data privacy, and will give us further reassurance at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Directors of public health

“After section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—

‘7BA Directors of public health

Each integrated care board must, for the purposes of exercising any public health functions directed by the Secretary of State, appoint a lead director of public health.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Corridor Care Accountability

“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the prevalence of corridor care in NHS hospitals.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an analysis of data on the number of corridor incidents at the national, integrated care board, trust, and hospital level,

(b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken that year to reduce the number of corridor care incidents,

(c) the Secretary of State’s plans to reduce the number of corridor care incidents in the coming year, and

(d) information regarding the amount of funding directed toward reducing the number of corridor care incidents that year and funding allocated for such efforts in the future.

(3) Following the publication of a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must give evidence in front of a panel (to be called the “Corridor Care Tribunal”) including—

(a) patients,

(b) bereaved or affected families, and

(c) frontline NHS staff who have been impacted by corridor care.

(4) Panel members for a Corridor Care Tribunal under subsection (3) shall be identified by local Healthwatch organisations and NHS Royal Colleges.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.—(Helen Morgan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 56—Accident and Emergency: waiting times—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision relating to Accident and Emergency Department admission.

(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include the requirement for every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.

(3) The Secretary of State must establish and implement an Accident and Emergency Scheme (“the Scheme”) to support NHS hospital trusts to achieve the requirement set out in subsection (2).

(4) The Scheme must consider—

(a) creating safety-net social care beds,

(b) increasing step-down care,

(c) publishing a dedicated accident and emergency care workforce plan, and

(d) mandating a qualified clinician is present in every Accident and Emergency waiting room.

(5) The Secretary of State must have due regard to the final report of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in establishing the scheme.”

This new clause gives patients a legal right to be admitted into A&E within 12 hours from decision to admit and requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to achieve this.

New clause 84—Publication of data on avoidable deaths—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish every quarter the number of avoidable deaths where waits of more than 12 hours in accident and emergency departments was a contributory factor.

(2) The Secretary of State must make the data under subsection (1) available by integrated care board area.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish data on avoidable deaths caused by waits over 12 hours in A&E departments.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and to give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.

In the main Chamber yesterday, we had a Backbench Business debate on corridor care, introduced by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). There was a great deal of consensus across the House about the harm that corridor care causes to both patients and staff, and the requirement for urgency in dealing with that issue.

I am not going to remake the same speech that I made yesterday on corridor care for the Minister’s benefit, because she heard it yesterday and there is little value in repeating it. What I will say is that it is important that there is an understanding at a ministerial level of the personal impact that corridor care has on patients and their families.

That is the purpose of this new clause: to ensure that the Secretary of State is taking the concerns of patients and staff very seriously, hearing them at first hand and then reporting back progress to the House on dealing with the issue. At the moment, it feels as if every year we acknowledge the problem in the House, every winter there are statements on winter crisis and corridor care, and we never really seem to take any steps forward. The new clause aims to ensure that is no longer the case.

New clause 56 is intended to give patients a right to be admitted to accident and emergency

“within 12 hours from decision to admit”,

and would require the Secretary of State

“to introduce a scheme to achieve this.”

We have discussed the legal right to admit and the legal right of patients on a number of occasions. I just want to clarify our intention, because it always raises some questions. The NHS constitution enshrines legal rights for certain things: for example, the two-week wait for a cancer referral to a specialist and the right to receive elective care within, I think, 18 weeks, if so referred. The other targets in the NHS are pledges; there is an aspiration for the Secretary of State to meet them, but it is not a right of the patient that the Secretary of State meets them. We think that 12-hour waits on corridors in hospitals merit the same urgency as cancer referrals, because they lead to awful outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I suspect that he has seen this issue in his professional career. Often, when a death occurs in a clinical setting, multiple factors are contributory. I think that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham framed this as she has, as “a contributory factor”—not the sole factor or the individual most significant factor, but that it could reasonably be deemed by a clinician or by those collecting the data that the long wait contributed to the death, because had that patient been seen, for example, in two hours rather than 12 hours, better clinical outcomes might have been achievable.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however, that with many of these things—both clinicians and coroners grapple with this—it is often complex to determine the actual most significant contributory factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham may correct me, but I think that is why she framed new clause 84 as she did, to allow for that degree of a lack of total certainty in such contexts. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.

I can see what the hon. Member for North Shropshire is seeking to do in new clauses 12 and 56: not unreasonably, she seeks to cast light on the impact of corridor care on patients, families and those caring for people. My only challenge would be—I will enlarge on this in a little more detail—that a narrow focus on corridor care, while understandable, slightly loses the bigger picture. Corridor care is, for want of a better way of putting it, a subset, a consequence, of a much broader systemic challenge.

The Minister will probably know this as well; when I was first appointed to her job, one of the first conversations I had in the context of secondary care was about the importance of flow through our acute hospital systems, from a patient either presenting at A&E or arriving by blue light at A&E, to being treated, and the ability of A&E to function through those patients being seen, treated, and discharged or put into a hospital bed to become an in-patient. The ability to achieve the latter is dependent on the ability to discharge.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 56 speaks about the importance of creating capacity across the system, including social care, and about having regard to the outcome of Baroness Casey’s commission on social care to deal with the issue of capacity and flow through the hospital. We have discussed at length in Committee other amendments that would deal with the front door, in terms of GP access and trying to ensure that people are treated at first in the community, rather than ending up in A&E as a last resort. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would just acknowledge those points.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady pre-empts me— I am afraid I have rather a few more remarks to come to. I planned to through the subsections and paragraphs of her new clauses to acknowledge exactly that. For example, in proposed new clause 56(4), she highlights capacity, and in proposed new subsection (5) she mentions Baroness Casey’s independent commission and the need to pay heed to it. All that is important, but my slight fear relates to the drafting. While the new clauses note such factors, they do not necessarily reflect the overall interdependency of all parts of the system. I believe that what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve is perfectly reasonable, but I am not convinced by how the new clauses are drafted.

The hon. Lady was right to highlight in her remarks the importance of timely discharge from hospital as a key element of whether we can achieve that flow into hospital beds and have hospital bed capacity to allow an A&E department or emergency department to function. I looked at this issue four years ago, so the situation may well be very different today, but post the pandemic I inherited about 13,000 acute beds across the system occupied by patients who were medically fit for discharge, but whose discharge had been delayed due to a variety of factors. Some were because hospital pharmacies were not open through the night to provide the drugs when patients were signed off to go home; some were because of the unavailability of patient transport; some were because all the necessary clinicians were not present to sign in the appropriate order.

The single biggest factor, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire has alluded to, was the availability of step-down or social care provision, so that patients could safely go home or to another NHS or care facility and be looked after. We managed to get the delayed discharge total down from 13,000 at a given time to about 10,000—possibly just a bit under. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the current total is for beds occupied by those medically fit for discharge at a given time.

I see where the hon. Member for North Shropshire is coming from with her suggestion of a tribunal comprised of a mixture of people to interrogate the figures and interrogate the Secretary of State. I can see that she is seeking to make the experiences of those undergoing corridor care and their families real to Ministers, who will be accountable. I gently say that I suspect that the Minister and her boss, the Secretary of State, are only too aware of the consequences of corridor care. Such patient experiences very much weigh on them as Ministers, as they did on me and others, day in, day out. We were always very cognisant of them.

I can see the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s intention with new clause 12(4), where she suggests that Healthwatch should be involved in helping put such a tribunal together. I fear that the Government’s direction of travel may have rendered subsection (4) redundant, but I do not disagree with the intention, because I think she and I both share a view on the importance of healthwatch groups and the value that they bring locally to our healthcare system.

While I can see the point about waiting 12 hours from arriving at the hospital to being taken into A&E, but the new clause does not reflect how the system might seek to manage that. It does not explicitly reference ambulance handover times and waiting times. A challenge we have seen in the past is that, in a desire to avoid hospital corridor care, some trusts have not admitted patients from ambulances until they feel that they could manage them in the hospital.

Arguably, that is less safe than corridor care, for two reasons: first, because the ambulance is not able to offload and be available in the community again and, secondly, because although corridor care has negative consequences, none the less in a hospital corridor there is a consultant or clinician very nearby, should a medical crisis occur. That is better than someone being in an ambulance in the car park—or waiting at home, having called an ambulance that is not coming, and not having their condition assessed because the ambulance is still holding a patient that a trust does not want to admit, in order to avoid congestion and corridor care.

I worry that, although the new clause has the best of intentions, the way the system might react and the impact on ambulance handovers and the ability of ambulances to pick up patients might have been overlooked. That is not a reason not to try to solve the problem of corridor care, but we must acknowledge the ambulance part of the challenge in A&E and emergency care, and encourage and incentivise the system to work as a whole to solve the problem, rather than focusing purely on the ED. In saying that, I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has referenced social care, step-down beds and community care, which are all hugely important, and I listened to her speech with interest, as I always do her contributions.

I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on the latest daily figure for how many patients who are medically fit for discharge are still in an acute hospital bed. Perhaps, when the hon. Member for North Shropshire winds up on this group, she might be able to address the ambulance point—she addressed the social care point, but I would be grateful for her thoughts on ambulances.

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner. His health community has a lot of problems, as he well knows, but he is always there first, challenging me about the challenges in his healthcare system. He ensures that the people of Ashford are duly represented. He is absolutely right that what will make a difference to patients is improvement on the ground. I do not minimise how far there is to go, but I think patients are already starting to feel that improvement.

In the debate last night, we heard about some great work that is happening. We heard from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford; from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), who talked about the challenged system and the challenged hospital in Blackburn, and the real improvements there; from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine); and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who talked about progress in West Suffolk. That is really encouraging to see.

Earlier in the debate, statistics in the public domain were raised by, I think, the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others on deaths due to long waits and so on. That is a completely unacceptable situation, but I want to put it on the record that those statistics are not Government statistics. We had a bit of a debate about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket highlighted how one can attribute cause of death to certain provisions. It is a really important measure. We do not want anyone waiting, full stop, but the statistics are not verified as Government statistics. I want to be clear about that.

On new clause 84, I assure the Committee that trusts are already held to account on the number of patients waiting 12 hours from arrival in A&E to admission, discharge or transfer. The medium-term planning framework published in October 2025 sets out the expectation that trusts will reduce the percentage of patients waiting 12 hours or more, year on year until 2028-29, as part of our overall ambitions to return to meeting the NHS constitutional standards.

The Government already produce comprehensive data on urgent emergency care performance, including on waiting times and on 12-hour waits. Those data provide transparency, support the oversight of the NHS’s performance and enable independent analysis of patient outcomes. We have been very keen to ensure that those statistics are published.

Another issue raised this morning was bed numbers. We had a bit of a historical throwback to the 1990s; I will not detain the Committee further by doing that again. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about changes in clinical practice, mental health beds and so on. I could talk for many hours about that. As a junior manager coming into the health services, one of my first tasks was to define what a bed is. That is not an easy thing to do. Most people think they know what a bed is but, as we discussed earlier, a trolley without wheels could be a bed. Counting beds and defining what they are and what they are used for is a complicated business in the health service. I know you will tell me not to deviate from the new clause, Ms Lewell, but this is important. Practice changes, and it is important that we make the most effective and efficient use of NHS resources. That means making changes to bed numbers, where they are and how we count them.

In June 2026, an average of 13,618 adult patients in acute hospitals per day were waiting for delayed discharge. We have improved data collection, so we have a better sense of the scale of the problem and, crucially, where it is; it is different in different places. We are seeking to improve that data. I gently remind the Committee that the NHS England website produces an awful lot of really good data so that Members of Parliament and our constituents are able to keep track. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made clear, we need to keep up with best clinical practice, as well as the best use of resources. We are very happy to share that information and keep it transparent.

New clauses 12 and 56 were tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who is right to raise the unacceptable waits for care that some patients experience in A&E after the decision has been made to admit them. That includes patients being treated and cared for in corridors at times because of hospitals’ lack of capacity to admit them. As we discussed last night, the Government are clear that corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care and must not be normalised. We inherited an NHS under severe pressure with long waits and increasing numbers of patients receiving care in non-designated clinical areas. It is unacceptable, but I am afraid it was allowed to happen under the Conservatives. We are committed to eradicating corridor care, and we have a plan to do so.

To improve transparency, we have already established a clear national definition of corridor care. Again, the Conservatives could have done so in the past 14 years but chose not to. We have introduced daily reporting arrangements and strengthened the data quality processes. We are working hand in hand with stakeholders, including the royal college. In addition, we have published national guidance to support safe care where such situations cannot be avoided.

We are working hard to tackle the causes of corridor care; we are not just reporting on the consequences. That is why we want to improve patient flow. We have had good discussions about patient flow, both pre-admission and post-discharge, involving social care and primary and community care to support people who need care homes. We do not want people—particularly frail, elderly people—turning up at hospitals if it is better for them clinically to be treated where they are. We are improving patient flow, strengthening the discharge arrangement and investing £215.5 million in new and expanded urgent care services across England. We are also providing targeted support to the trusts facing the greatest challenges in relation to corridor care so that improvements can be delivered where they are needed most.

I gently remind the hon. Member for North Shropshire—and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, as a clinician, will be clear on this information about admissions—that when a patient presents at A&E, a clinician decides whether to admit them to the hospital, provide treatment, transfer their care to another location or discharge them. Under the current reporting rules, the clock starts running on a patient’s arrival in A&E and stops when one of those actions is taken. As a result, no decision is made to admit to A&E itself. Instead, if someone requires admission, it should be to somewhere elsewhere in the hospital.

Although I fully recognise the concerns that underpin these new clauses, I do not believe that further statutory requirements are the right approach. In the debate last night, we outlined in full the Government’s absolute commitment to addressing the issues and improving the situation for all our constituents. I hope that I have suitably reassured hon. Members that these new clauses are not required, and that they will not press them.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I will speak briefly to new clauses 12 and 56, about which we had quite a long debate this morning. Let me respond to a couple of questions. The shadow Minister asked about the role of Healthwatch in selecting the panel that would interrogate the Secretary of State, as we envisage in new clause 12, given that Healthwatch will be abolished by the Bill. She also asked about new clause 56, which would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to Baroness Casey’s final report. The shadow Minister said that those things are essentially inconsistent, but, considered as a suite of amendments, the provisions we have tabled are consistent. We oppose the abolition of Healthwatch; had that been successful, Healthwatch would still be there. We have also tabled new clause 60, which we will get to later and which would require Baroness Casey’s commission to report much more quickly. That is why that apparent inconsistency exists; I hope I have sorted that out for the shadow Minister.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, a former Minister, talked about capacity in the system as a whole and its impact on corridor care. His concern was that if we focus on corridor care, we will end up with more people being treated in ambulances, have longer ambulance handover times and very long ambulance wait times. He will know, having been the responding Minister to my first Adjournment debate, that ambulance wait times have been a significant problem where I live. I am pleased to say that they are becoming less of a problem, because the new management of the hospital have focused relentlessly on the A&E department and on ensuring that ambulance patients can be taken into it very quickly, or certainly much more quickly than they used to be. I recognise his concern, but I think it is a manageable one.

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

Although it is true that hospital management could concentrate on dealing with the waits in A&E, surely it needs to concentrate on the flow through the entire hospital. Every department and everybody involved in the hospital has to be thinking all the time about the flow through the entire hospital. That involves having a pharmacy that is open at night and ensuring that social workers are there when they need to be—it involves all manner of things. Simply concentrating on a particular statistic in an A&E department will not actually deal with the problem.

[Helen Morgan]

I think our new clause addresses that point. As I mentioned, my own hospital trust, Shrewsbury and Telford, has improved ambulance wait times simply by improving the flow through the hospital and addressing some of the issues. I recognise that our new clause does not deal with pharmacy availability at weekends and overnight, which I know is a critical issue in many hospitals; on Report, we will certainly tidy it up to ensure that it does, but I take the hon. Member’s point.

My new clause would address the system-wide capacity issue that the hon. Member highlighted so carefully, both in last night’s debate and here today. We need more capacity across the whole system. Otherwise, we are just trying to push a lump in the carpet to a different place, but there will always be a lump somewhere. The new clause seeks to provide 6,000 more beds across the whole system, to allow flow through the system and to ensure that waits do not back up in the ambulance service, on corridors in A&E or outside wards, as they do currently.

Critically, we should address the point about NHS pledges and rights. The constitution is broadly agnostic about the time people wait on corridors, but is not agnostic about the time it will take for them to get cancer treatment. That is an inconsistency and we should sort it out, because I think our constituents consider the two things equally important.

I take the Minister’s point about new clause 12. I will not push it to a vote, but although trusts are held to account on their A&E performance, the missing piece is that the Secretary of State is not. That is what new clause 12 seeks to address, and I hope that the Minister will consider that on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Healthy life expectancy target

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make regulations to set a statutory target for improving overall healthy life expectancy for the population of Great Britain, and

(b) publish a cross-governmental strategy, renewed every 24 months, to set out how the target set by regulations under subsection (1)(a) will be achieved.

(2) The strategy under subsection (1)(b) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) Upon publication of a strategy under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must make a statement before the House of Commons regarding progress made towards the target set by subsection (1)(a).”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years setting out how this target will be achieved.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to talk about the impact of trade arrangements on NHS spending and how arrangements are scrutinised by Parliament. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for the new clauses.

Our relationship with industry, life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, is crucial not only to our patients and constituents, but to growth in our country. Many hon. Members will have companies large and small in their constituencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has Lynam Pharma in hers. Important local companies are doing great work, innovating and bringing great people together to work on behalf of the life sciences sector and our country. They make us proud to be a leading country in this area, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for his leadership to put this country back in its rightful place on the international stage, addressing yet another part of our international reputation that was trashed by the Conservative party. [Interruption.] You started it.

On new clause 15, parliamentary scrutiny is crucial to ensure that trade deals negotiated by this Government are in the best interests of the UK. That is why the Government are committed to transparency and to enabling effective scrutiny of our trade agenda. Nowhere is scrutiny more important than in considering the potential impact of trade agreements on public services such as the NHS. The Government have a clear framework in place for scrutiny of the trade agreements that we have negotiated. This process strikes the right balance between ensuring that appropriate parliamentary accountability can take place and preserving our ability to negotiate agreements effectively. That is important to ensure that the UK can negotiate credibly with its partners and secure in trade deals positive outcomes for the public and British businesses, while upholding and protecting the role of Parliament.

[Helen Morgan]

The disquiet about the deal comes from the fact that the sums involved are huge—possibly £9 billion a year, or even more towards the back of the 10-year period—according to big companies in the sector. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry was not involved in the negotiation of the deal; it was negotiated with the US. We fully support of the life sciences sector in this country, and there is a complex debate to be had about access to novel medicines for people with unusual and rare diseases, and about balancing that with everybody else’s access to volume services on the frontline, but that important discussion should be had by Parliament and the British people, not between a trade negotiator and Donald Trump’s White House. That is where our disquiet comes from, and it is why we tabled these new clauses.

Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care.

(2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a ‘duty to whistleblow’) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting.

(3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing—

(a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area,

(b) the Care Quality Commission,

(c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and

(d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) the information to be included in a referral,

(b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and

(c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed.

(5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection for whistleblowing).

(6) The duties imposed by this section are in addition to, and do not affect, a senior coroner’s duty to make a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (reports on action to prevent other deaths).”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for them to formally refer suspected health system failings (including systemic issues) directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It provides legal protection for those making such referrals.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 36 would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS trust and NHS foundation trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It would also impose a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns about malpractice.

New clause 37 would require the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to formally refer suspected health system failings, including systemic issues, directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care and HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It would provide legal protection for those making such referrals.

The new clauses were tabled in the light of the Ockenden review into failings at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust, which came out a couple of weeks ago, and other reviews, including the review of Mid Staffordshire some time ago, which showed that hospital management failed to spot, and more importantly deal with, systemic issues. Staff were dismissed, failures were hidden from regulators, and patients and their families were not listened to. In the case of Nottingham, the board commissioned a number of independent reports into maternity services, and when it did not see an answer it liked, it just commissioned another one. We feel strongly that those issues should have been referred onwards as soon as they were known about. The new clauses would introduce a mandatory duty and create a standardised framework within which such concerns could be raised.

Coroners and medical examiners often spot trends or worrying failures in care that they think might hint at something systemic, but their main power is a regulation 28 order. When an order goes back to the hospital board, it investigates and reports back: “Everything is fine. We’ve dealt with the problem. There’s nothing to see here.” Coroners are often overworked and trying to get through huge court backlogs, so they do not have sufficient capacity to push back, even when they question the diligence of the internal review. We want to give them more powers and standardised routes to escalate concerns to the police, the CHC, the DHSC or the HSSIB , where they see fit. We need as many eyes on this as possible, because we have seen a defensive cover-up culture too many times.

We tabled similar amendments to the Hillsborough Bill to achieve the same outcome. We all know that the NHS is under strain and overworked, but trust management need to be more transparent, open and receptive to staff concerns. Although I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote, I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to ensure that concerns are acted on more quickly.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who raises issues of patient safety diligently on behalf of her constituents and the wider system. I will take the time to answer some of the points about where the Government are. Obviously, we support prioritising patient safety, which along with service quality and experience is of the utmost importance.

On new clause 36, trusts are already subject to regulatory and contractual requirements to report medical malpractice, which is why we do not think the new clause is necessary. For example, CQC regulations on safe care and treatment and on good governance are central to trust accountability for systemic malpractice. They require trusts to have effective systems to identify patterns of harm, manage risks and deliver system-wide improvements.

Trusts are required to identify and report incidents leading to significant harm through the Learn from Patient Safety Events service, ensuring that the CQC is informed and enabling NHS England to identify trends and support learning and improvement. This information can be shared with and accessed by HSSIB and could in the future be shared with and accessed by the investigations arm of the CQC.

The CQC regulation on duty of candour reinforces transparency through truthful accounts of what has happened when something goes wrong, including where harm reflects systemic issues. Under the patient safety incident response framework, trusts must undertake patient safety learning investigations into certain incidents to support learning and improvement.

In parallel, the NHS provider licence requires NHS trust boards to maintain clear accountability for quality of care and reporting of safety information through effective governance systems. Where failures of governance occur, NHS England has the powers to intervene. Those powers will transfer to the Secretary of State as part of the Bill.

The new clause would clearly duplicate current processes. Together, the existing mechanisms already help trusts to identify and address systemic issues locally, while enabling national aggregation to support system-wide learning.

New clause 37 seeks to require the creation of a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to report health system failings. I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that regulations already require medical examiners to report serious concerns identified in respect of clinical governance, patient safety or public health surveillance, in accordance with local reporting arrangements. Existing regulations also require coroners, in the context of an investigation, to issue a report to a person, organisation, local authority, or Government Department or agency where the coroner believes they may have power to take relevant action to prevent future deaths.

In September 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care introduced death certification reforms, putting in place regulations to provide greater safeguards for the public by ensuring independent scrutiny by medical examiners of all deaths not investigated by a coroner. These reforms, as set out in the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death Regulations 2024, which require an independent review to be carried out for all deaths in England, introduce a system whereby all deaths are subject to either a medical examiner’s independent scrutiny or a coroner’s investigation.

Should the medical examiner detect concerns about care, they will refer such cases to established clinical governance review processes and bodies and notify the coroner or, if necessary, the police. The Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 require all doctors, including medical examiners, to refer a death to a coroner if they believe that deficiency of care while undergoing treatment contributed to the death, making the death unnatural. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner has a statutory duty to report issues to the appropriate bodies where they believe that action can be taken to mitigate or prevent the risk of future deaths, and both the report and responses to it are published by the chief coroner.

When incidents and errors occur resulting in death or serious injury, it is important that we learn any lessons. The Government are committed to ensuring that the prevention of future deaths reports are taken seriously and lead to meaningful action. The Department is working across Government and with the chief coroner to identify ways to strengthen oversight and ensure that the right organisations are consistently notified of concerns, respond to them in a timely manner and drive appropriate action.

Under the Medical Act 1983, the General Medical Council ensures that all doctors, including medical examiners, report suspected health system failings by speaking up. That is a mandatory professional obligation linked to a doctor’s licence to practise, embedding this whistleblowing requirement into the GMC’s core regulatory and fitness to practise frameworks. The GMC also enforces a professional duty of candour requiring all doctors to be open and honest with patients and official bodies when things go wrong and actively report adverse incidents so that systematic lessons can be learned.

In summary, both new clauses duplicate requirements that already exist. Regulations, systems and processes are already in place to report suspected health system failings to the appropriate bodies. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire to withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for outlining the existing statutory framework. I agree that it ought to be sufficient, but there are high-profile instances where it has not been, so I look forward to hearing more from her on Report about how the cultural change will be implemented so that further legislation is not necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Single sex facilities

“The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex—

(a) changing rooms for NHS staff

(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff

(c) wards for NHS patients

(d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a very straightforward new clause. The Secretary of State would be required to ensure that there are single-sex changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff and single-sex wards, toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.

The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex in 2025, and the Minister herself said:

“We are completely committed to single-sex spaces.”

However, it appears that the Minister for Women and Equalities did not get that memo. Despite having apparently been sat on her desk since September, the new draft code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission was not laid before Parliament until 21 May. One week before that guidance was published, a female NHS England employee in Leeds won her claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment over a policy allowing transgender colleagues to use toilets and changing rooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. On 28 June, after the draft code was laid, it was reported that West London NHS trust had told patients that they could use single-sex facilities based on gender identity.

It has taken the current Health Secretary some time, but I understand that he has changed his mind on the issue and come to the same conclusion as others: that a woman is, in fact, a woman and that toilets and changing facilities must be protected. Will the Minister follow his lead and protect single-sex spaces in NHS trusts? The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by her biological sex. My party knows that. The Minister claims her party knows that too. It is time for her to show it by pulling the levers that only she can to ensure that patients and staff are protected right across our health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 48 would require the Secretary of State to

“publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.”

One in four people can expect to need radiotherapy in their lives. That is a lot of people who will need consultation, assessment, pre-treatment planning and treatment delivery. Data published a few years ago showed that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more linear accelerator machines per million people than in England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? Last year, Radiotherapy UK had research indicating that more than 60,000 cancer patients are not getting the radiotherapy they need and I know particular areas of the country are struggling. Can the Minister provide an update on the roll-out of the new LINAC machines at 28 hospitals, which she spoke about in May 2025?

We were also told that by March 2027, up to 27,500 additional treatments will be delivered. Can the Minister share some information on how that will be achieved? The Labour Government have now been in power for two years. They have raised taxes by more than £60 billion and they do not have much to show for it. They have not produced a workforce plan. They have said that one will be imminent; can the Minister confirm whether it will be published today before we break for the recess? Is the intention to publish it during the recess or will we have to wait until the autumn?

There is a 31% shortfall in clinical radiologists. New clause 48 essentially requires the publication and maintenance of

“a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services”.

This Government have essentially shown that if a requirement is not in legislation, plans just get delayed, diminished and disowned, but patients cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Helen Morgan]

I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and new clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

New clause 53 would give patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver that. It would also require the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the Government to co-ordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.

Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 58—Inquiry into women’s health outcomes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent inquiry into women’s health provision and outcomes in England.

(2) Any inquiry established under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the causes of—

(i) poorer health outcomes, and

(ii) disparities in patient safety

for women,

(b) the effectiveness of existing commissioning arrangements in meeting the needs of women, and

(c) recommendations to assist the Secretary of State in discharging the duty to reduce inequalities in health outcomes under section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the inquiry before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes faced by women.

New clause 104—Implementation of the Women’s Health Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, publish a women's health implementation plan (the ‘implementation plan’) setting out how the commitments in the document entitled ‘The Renewed Women's Health Strategy for England’ published on 15 April 2026 (or any successor document) will be delivered.

(2) The implementation plan must include, in particular—

(a) a timetable for delivering simpler access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC);

(b) a trajectory for reducing the gynaecology waiting list and for reducing average diagnosis times for endometriosis;

(c) a plan for establishing the regional specialist centres for group-based women's health pathways, including contraception, heavy periods, uro-gynaecology and menopause; and

(d) measurable targets and milestones for each commitment in the strategy, including a baseline and timetable for delivery.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay the implementation plan before Parliament on the day it is published.

(4) In preparing the implementation plan, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,

(b) the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, and

(c) patient organisations representing women affected by the conditions addressed by the strategy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a women's health implementation plan setting out how the commitments in the document entitled “The Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England” will be delivered.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. New clause 58 would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes that women face.

In communities up and down the country, we have seen the devastating toll taken by the various and sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women’s health. Vital services remain understaffed and underfunded, while women and girls are going without the care they need. In 2022, we welcomed the first women’s health strategy, which promised to

“listen more carefully to women, close gaps in care, improve research and tackle inequalities.”

Those were all vital goals, but three years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place: long waits for gynaecology treatment, patchy access to services, women reporting that they are not listened to, pain not taken seriously and conditions diagnosed too late.

Medical misogyny is a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health sector. Women are not offered pain relief when they need it. The side effects of treatment and drugs on women in particular are far too often overlooked and under-researched. More research is needed to improve medical and reproductive products for women. In addition, about half a million women are waiting for gynaecology treatment across the country.

We just cannot keep failing women in this way. The current average wait for a diagnosis of endometriosis is nine years and four months. Tackling NHS waiting times, including for gynaecological services, must be a top priority for the Government. More needs to be done to tackle the backlogs. Waits for health conditions specific to women should not be so much longer than those for general health conditions.

The former Secretary of State recognised that the NHS

“has a problem with basic, everyday sexism and an appalling culture of medical misogyny.”

We welcome that acknowledgment, but we believe that the Department of Health and Social Care should ask the same questions of itself.

As I say, new clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. It would be a meaningful step towards parity and equality. As we know, in the NHS what gets measured gets done.

The Government’s new women’s health strategy is welcome—it has more urgency and has the laudable goals of tackling medical misogyny, of faster diagnosis of conditions such as endometriosis, and of better pain management—but in comparison with the men’s health strategy that was released last year, it lacks teeth. Its goals are laudable, but it lacks a named academic network, a formal National Institute for Health and Care Research-aligned research mandate, a committed stakeholder governance group, a named condition-specific research investment at a comparable scale to that in the men’s health strategy and a formal accountability architecture with named organisations, governance structures and public reporting obligations.

This time, we need to back the strategy with real investment in the services that impact women, which have been stretched to breaking point. New clause 58 would introduce an inquiry into the poor health outcomes faced by women. We hope that such an inquiry would achieve the same goal and shed a light on women’s health issues, which seem to get so little focus at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

I am suddenly cast back to 31 years ago, when I was choosing my subjects for the final year of my history degree. One of the early modern history papers was provocatively entitled “Women and other deviants”. It was called that to draw attention to the fact that, despite making up 50% of the population, women are often treated as a minority group. I sincerely hope that we are not still in that situation, but women’s issues clearly still need addressing. I will take the Minister at her word, but I will keep pressing her on this issue as we go through the course of this Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 66

Puberty blockers

‘(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom.

(2) These regulations must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means—

(a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (‘GnRH’) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and

(b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.’—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 66 relates to the prescription of puberty blocker drugs, also known as GnRH agonists. A first rule of medicine is “Primum non nocere”—first do no harm. That is what this clause seeks: to make sure that harm does not come unnecessarily to children. It is required because the Government are sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children on puberty-blocking drugs. That is being done despite the fact that the Health Secretary claims he feels “uncomfortable and uneasy” at the prospect.

There are lots of questions that need to be answered. The minimum age for this trial is 11 years old for girls and 12 years old for boys, despite the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency having recommended a much older group. When my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) asked why in a written question, the Minister gave a holding answer. Is that because the Government do not know or because they do not want to say?

I am not convinced that the trial will produce the answers the Government want. Apparently, they are asking the question of whether puberty blockers benefit children who have questions over their gender and who will later go on to have a trans identity in adulthood. The challenge is that we do not know which of the children who have challenges with their gender during puberty will go on to have such an identity in adulthood, so we are essentially doing a trial on a large number of children to see whether puberty blockers are beneficial for a small group, or, as it was described by the Secretary of State,

“a very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]

The Government have data that they could use in a data linkage study to try to narrow that field down, but for some reason they are choosing to do this trial before that. I do not understand why; perhaps the Minister can explain.

I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this issue—I could talk for some time—because we have had Opposition day debates in the House on it, but we have seen unease from both sides of the House. The Minister will be aware that there was a vote on the trial at the end of the recent Opposition day debate, and there were a large number of abstentions, as well as three votes against, from her party, as well as many votes against from ours. Puberty blockers carry risks that may or may not be reversible: there are concerns about bone density, cognitive damage and fertility loss, all for children who should be enjoying their childhood.

The new clause would prevent a trial from taking place without votes in the Houses of Parliament. I appreciate that we would not normally seek to have votes in the Houses of Parliament on a clinical trial, because it would slow clinical trials down, but I think this topic in particular has unfortunately become so polarised that it is very difficult to see how it can be processed properly.

Ultimately, the Government have responsibility for what goes on in this country. If the Government want to pay for the trial, then it is the Government’s trial, and the Government should bring it before the House for us to decide as parliamentarians whether it is the right thing to do. I think it is absolutely not. I think we are putting children at risk of permanent harm. We do not know that these children are going to benefit. We do not even know if they are in the pool of children who would, in the long term, have a trans identity, and the Government are not even waiting to see whether they can find out using the data linkage study. It is wrong, and we need to do what we can to try to prevent it.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for tabling the new clause. She has asked me to speak about dental deserts in Surrey and East Hampshire, the area that she lives in and represents. The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision of NHS dental appointments in Surrey and East Hampshire, and allows us to raise once again the shocking state of dentistry in this country.

As we have discussed on many occasions, more than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025—that is a stark reminder of what we mean when we talk about dental deserts. We have heard that DIY dentistry has become normalised, which is pretty horrifying. People are using pliers to extract teeth and superglue to reattach crowns, or attempting to fill cavities with household adhesives. Beyond those obviously shocking Victorian scenes, DIY dentistry is very risky and has, tragically, led to deaths from sepsis. That is all because people cannot get an NHS dental appointment and cannot afford a private one.

The last Conservative Government pushed dentistry to the brink, and children and parents in particular are paying the price of that neglect. That is a national shame—one that we must fix. As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to highlight the issues in her part of the country. Surrey and East Hampshire is not the worst place in the country for access to NHS dentistry, but it does face serious issues. Some pockets of the population have been left unable to get an NHS dental appointment.

The action taken so far by the Labour Government has not been good enough, but the fault for this dire situation lies solely at the door of the Conservatives. Their years of neglect have left our dentistry in a shocking condition. Healthwatch—once again showing why it is so important—has classified large parts of Hampshire as dental deserts. Equally, a Healthwatch report into dentistry in Surrey told us of ever-so-familiar themes: people cannot find a dentist accepting NHS patients, information about dentists accepting NHS patients is not up to date, and there are financial barriers to receiving dental care. Clearly, much more needs to be done for the people of Surrey and East Hampshire. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Welcome to another rerun of the 2010s —happier times for the Opposition. Sometimes they do not remember what happened, and I have to remind them—and every now and then, they remind us. This is a really important issue, not only for the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled new clause 72, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who moved it, but for all our constituencies. It has been a huge priority for this Government.

The Secretary of State will continue to have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. In addition, clause 4 provides for an amended duty for the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities in access to services across England. However, we also recognise that practical action is needed to secure access to urgent and routine NHS dentistry care. As the Committee has discussed, that is why the Government have prioritised a number of improvements over the past two years.

Last year, ICBs commissioned additional urgent dental care appointments, and there is now an urgent care safety net across the country. In April 2026, we introduced a requirement for NHS dental practices across England to deliver a set proportion of their contract as urgent care. Supported by increased payments for dentists delivering that care, that made it easier for patients to get prompt support through the NHS. We are committed to reforming the NHS dental contract by the end of this Parliament—something that could have been done at any point in the past 14 years. As a first step, the package of reforms we introduced earlier this year will address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will help to prioritise those with the greatest need, supporting a shift away from clinically unnecessary check-ups.

The Government are already making progress on improving access to NHS dentistry across England, including in Surrey and East Hampshire. I hope that hon. Members can see how legislating for one area in particular conflicts with the Secretary of State’s duties to promote a comprehensive health service for England as a whole, and risks creating health inequalities in other regions. For that reason, I ask that the hon. Member for North Shropshire withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has specifically requested that I press the new clause to a vote because she feels so strongly about the issues in her area.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State

“to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation”.

We increasingly see the impact of anti-vax and medical disinformation. Lower vaccination rates have been recognised as a growing threat to public health this year, and in February the NHS launched a new vaccination campaign following concerns about the declining uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations.

Disinformation, including anti-vax conspiracy theories, is dangerous and leads to increased levels of preventable illness. The leader of Reform UK has platformed prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories at his conferences, and Reform UK needs to be held accountable for its role in this. It is amplifying and importing the conspiracy theories and outright dangerous views of the US President and Robert F. Kennedy. The leader of Reform UK has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s medical conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about autism and paracetamol. Those views have had a very real effect in the US, undermining and hollowing out important scientific and medical institutions to the detriment of the nation’s health.

[Dr Prinsley]

Does the hon. Member agree that the invention of vaccination by Jenner centuries ago is the single most important medical invention we have had in this country?

[Helen Morgan]

I absolutely agree. My mother and grandmother both had polio, which nobody would expect to experience in this day and age. That same grandmother’s sister died of diphtheria, and her father had smallpox. That was all just over 100 years ago, so it was not too long ago that people were experiencing what we now consider to be antiquated and unthinkable diseases.

The vaccination programmes that have been brought in over the past century have undoubtedly been game-changing for public health, not least for people growing up with working-class backgrounds, as my family would have been. That is why it is so important to deal with the disinformation that allows unscientific and dangerous anti-vax views to be communicated convincingly to the wider community.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Member that people with power, especially those with political platforms, have used it to spread misinformation about vaccination. Some medical professionals working in our hospitals and the NHS—doctors and nurses—are also against vaccines. Can the hon. Member explain how we can tackle that issue?

[Helen Morgan]

It is really important not to blame people who have seen convincing information online or have been given convincing information by people who ought to know better—including at political party conferences. We need to battle the source of that information and ensure that accurate, factual information is available and communicated to everyone in an accessible way by people they trust. That is key to all this. As I have said before, ostracising or ridiculing people who have been given information in a very convincing way is not the way to resolve this problem. We need to tackle it in an understanding way by communicating the facts sympathetically and accessibly.

It is important to note that concerns about vaccinations are not exclusive to a single group of voters. There is significant vaccine hesitancy across some ethnic minority communities and in hard-to-reach places across the country. We must do more to support doctors, nurses and the NHS to fight fiction with facts, or the long-term health of the country will suffer. That is what new clause 77 seeks to do. There is some great local work being done, but there needs to be a joined-up strategy to combat all aspects of disinformation, because a nice social media video telling people to get their jab will not beat it.

Now that Reform UK has a greater presence in our local government, NHS leaders will have to handle more and more difficult conversations with anti-vax and conspiracy theorist councillors, and they deserve support to engage with those people effectively and constructively. The proposed strategy would provide just that. It would have to consider

“support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine…investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers…outreach campaigns focused on communities that are sceptical about vaccinations…introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation, and…a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.”

We must do more systematically to protect the NHS and our nation’s health from the growing threats of medical misinformation. We urge the Government to give this issue the focus it needs, and we hope that they consider this new clause one way to do that.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Member has brought up an important topic. The Government absolutely recognise that inaccurate information can undermine confidence in vaccines, which are so important. We are already taking a multi-pronged approach to addressing that through national communications, support for healthcare professionals and the ongoing monitoring of emerging narratives.

The evidence is clear that, although it is a risk, misinformation is not a primary cause for people not to take up the offer of vaccinations. Rather, practical barriers such as access to services, socioeconomic factors and levels of awareness play a more significant role. We are already acting to reduce those barriers, with targeted action to improve access, strengthen communications and support frontline staff. A new statutory strategy focused solely on disinformation would risk narrowing our approach when a broader, evidence-led response is required.

For those reasons, we do not consider the new clause to be the right approach. I recognise much of what the hon. Member says about access to information, but we want to maintain a wider approach. On that basis, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her response. I think it is important that we keep an eye on the power of medical misinformation or disinformation, and expand that consideration to things such as therapy chatbots. It is not just an online problem, but an AI problem—it is not just malign influences that cause the problem. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 81

Minimum service levels

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for minimum levels of service by categories of NHS workforce staff, including all Agenda for Change staff but not doctors.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) When minimum service levels are in operation under this section, the NHS must set minimum standards of acceptable service to be provided by the NHS during periods of strike action, including mitigating any effect on appointments, medical procedures, acute services, midwifery, surgical procedures, and any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(6) With one year beginning on the day on which regulations are made under subsection (1), and within each period of a year thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on compliance with minimum service levels, including reasons for any failure by operators to secure the required thresholds, and actions the NHS is taking to improve performance to meet the minimum service levels.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which create minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 109—Hospices revenue funding—

“The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.”

This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis.

[Helen Morgan]

New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), will place a duty on ICBs to collect and publish data on the number of patients who died while waiting for end-of-life care. This is a fairly self-explanatory new clause, so I will keep my remarks brief.

We know anecdotally that palliative care provision is very patchy across the country and can be something of a postcode lottery, and that many people who die in hospital would have preferred to die at home with the support of hospice outreach services or in a hospice itself. The new clause would ensure that we understand how many of those people there are and where they are located, so that we can consider whether hospice provision is appropriately provided in the right places.

I hope the Minister will consider the importance of the new clause, which would allow us to have a much more comprehensive palliative care service across the country.

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 109, tabled in my name, is very simple, requiring hospice funding to be provided in three-year blocks. Hospices are struggling under the weight of the national insurance rise in the Government’s first Budget, so they would benefit greatly from having a bit more certainty over how much their funding will be from year to year. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause.

[Karin Smyth]

This is a really important subject, as everyone approaching the end of their life deserves dignified, compassionate and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. Hospices provide extraordinary care, and hon. Members are right to highlight the issues the sector faces. That is why the Government are committed to developing a modern service framework for palliative care and end-of-life care. The final framework will be published in the autumn.

New clause 108 would require integrated care boards to collect and report data on people who died while waiting for end-of-life care. It would also require the Department of Health and Social Care to publish that information nationally. New clause 109 would impose a single statutory three-year funding period on hospice funding. Both new clauses are likely to be answered by work already under way or included in the modern service framework.

On funding, we recognise that the sector faces a serious challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee found in March that integrated care board funding ranges from 0% to 80% of an individual hospice’s income, and that commissioning relies on grants and block contracts. There are also wider funding issues, such as the reliance on historic grants.

The Government are acting on those issues, and we have provided around £80 million over three years for children and young people’s hospices, or at least £26 million a year to 2028-29, adjusted for inflation. We have also provided a separate £125 million capital boost for both adult and children and young people’s hospices. That is the largest investment in hospices for a generation.

The MSF will support commissioning away from grants and block contracts to sustainable contracts based on integrated assessment of population need. It will consider contracting arrangements more widely, including a move away from short-term grant funding as part of the more comprehensive reform that the sector agrees it needs.

We are also strengthening data and evidence. We commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s policy research unit to build the evidence base on palliative and end-of-life care, including on inequalities in access and the identification of need.

We also expect the MSF to give us better insight into the performance of the system. Its metrics and accountability framework are being co-developed with people with lived experience and partner organisations from across the sector. It will measure identification, access, quality, outcomes and inequalities.

In the context of that ongoing work, the new clauses are not necessary. The MSF will give the House and the public a far more comprehensive picture of access to care than a single count could. It will also do so as part of improving the entire patient journey for people who need palliative and end-of-life care. Because this is a non-statutory approach, there will be more flexibility to adapt and change over time, rather than the system being required to follow requirements set out in primary legislation. I hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance they need not to press their new clauses to a vote.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

We now come to new clause 109 tabled in the name of Dr Caroline Johnson. I call Dr Johnson to move the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

On new clause 110, the Government are proud of the courage and dedication of our armed forces. We must all play our part in upholding the armed forces covenant, including for our armed forces veterans. The original covenant was under a Labour Government; I was proud, as part of my commissioning duties in Bristol, to work with the Royal British Legion to implement that more than a decade ago, and the work continues. I am therefore sympathetic to the intention to promote the health and wellbeing of our armed forces veterans, but I can assure hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary.

The Government’s vision for veterans is clearly set out in the veterans strategy, which recognises veterans as one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Furthermore, the existing armed forces covenant duty already places a legal obligation on integrated care boards to give due regard to the unique obligations and sacrifices of the armed forces when carrying out their statutory duties.

[Helen Morgan]

In terms of ICBs and their responsibilities to veterans, there are specialist veterans’ services around the country. One exists in my constituency, at the orthopaedic hospital in Gobowen, which has an excellent veterans’ centre. Yet the commissioning and payment for those services between ICBs is complex, messy and unnecessarily difficult. Would the Minister consider using the measures at her disposal to ensure that those things can happen more smoothly in the future?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for referencing that service in her constituency. I am not aware of the complications in the funding, but I will commit to getting back to her to understand that better, and I will see what the responses are from the commissioning function—I suspect it is a specialised one that falls between many different people. I am sure it has a long history, but I am afraid I am not directly aware of it, but I commit to getting a satisfactory response to her.

The covenant duty is underpinned by two core principles: first, that disadvantages arising from membership of the armed forces community should, where possible, be removed; and secondly, that special provision may be appropriate for those who have given the most, such as the injured and bereaved. Beyond that, ICBs have a range of inequalities-related duties relevant to the circumstances of veterans. They include a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between persons in accessing health services and in outcomes achieved from those services; a duty to have regard to the wider effect of decisions, including inequalities relating to health and wellbeing and to the benefits obtained from the provision of health services; and the public sector equality duty, with which all public sector bodies must comply.

Therefore, there is already a range of legal duties on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of veterans as part of the community the ICB serves. It is precisely because those duties already apply that we do not consider it necessary to replicate them in relation to neighbourhood health plans.

On new clause 112, a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty would be wholly unnecessary. Legislation already requires the Secretary of State to lay a covenant annual report before Parliament each year covering the effects of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces on service people in the fields of healthcare, education, housing and the operation of inquests. Under that legislation, the Ministry of Defence must obtain the views of relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, when preparing the report. Any annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty produced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would cover precisely the same subject matter and would be a duplication of information already publicly available.

New clause 111 relates to providing service personnel with their medical records within one month of discharge. The Government agree entirely that it is important that a patient and their care providers have access to their medical records. Primary healthcare for serving members of the armed forces is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and is provided by the Defence Medical Command. As a result, such care would be outside the scope of the amendment. There are established processes to allow for the safe transfer of relevant medical information to the service leaver and their new GP when that person leaves the armed forces. Service personnel receive a medical care summary, and are advised to register with an NHS GP and share the summary with their new GP.

Existing data protection legislation also allows an individual to request their full record on discharge. We recognise that, in some instances, the process does not work as well as we would like, which is why the Defence Medical Command is already working towards greater interoperability with NHS systems and the electronic transfer of medical records from Defence Medical Command to NHS GPs.

As hon. Members know, the single patient record will, wherever possible, draw on and connect relevant information in source records, such as GP IT systems and hospital electronic patient records, and allow the patient to see their record in the NHS app. That innovation further renders the measure unnecessary. For those reasons, and because the objectives are already being delivered through existing duties and ongoing reforms, I ask that the new clause is not pressed to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to make consequential provision

[Helen Morgan]

I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 68, page 47, line 27, leave out from “to” to the end of line 28 and insert “the affirmative procedure”.

This amendment ensures that all secondary legislation as a result of this bill is subject to the affirmative procedure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 68 to 72 stand part.

[Helen Morgan]

Amendment 77 is a probing amendment in the light of our previous discussions in Committee about the extensive powers that the Bill transfers to the Secretary of State. It would make all secondary legislation under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns that we have raised during these proceedings about the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking on board.

[Gregory Stafford]

I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesperson say that she will not press the amendment, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for it if she did so. This important amendment sums up a number of our concerns about the Bill, and the commencement amendments to follow are also appropriate.

As the hon. Member will not press her amendment, however, I will not speak for long, save to say that I have enjoyed the past few weeks on this Committee. I hope that the Minister is still in place when we return in September. If she is not, I wish her very well and thank her for all her hard work, not just in this Committee, but in her role over the past two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments. As the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, recognised, I have been on the other side when considering a previous Bill. Opposition is hard work—the process is quite hard work on this side—and I commend Opposition Members for conducting that important scrutiny. I thank Members for their contributions and I think the Bill is stronger for those efforts.

[Helen Morgan]

May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments and thanks to everybody who has been involved in working on the Bill? I have also enjoyed my time on the Committee, despite the heat. I hope that the Minister remains in place when we come back on Report, because she is a hard-working and thoughtful Minister and it is a pleasure to stand opposite her in the House in my place as my party’s spokesman.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Extent

Amendment made: 80, in clause 70, page 48, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) Section (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”.—(Karin Smyth.)

This is consequential on NC92.

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Commencement

Amendments made: 81, in clause 71, page 48, line 25, leave out “Section 63” and insert “The following”.

This paves the way for Amendment 82.

Amendment 82, in clause 71, page 48, line 26, at end insert “—

(a) section 63 (Care Quality Commission: time limit for bringing proceedings);

(b) sections (Regulations: reference to agreements and standards), (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements), (Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations), (Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure), (Medical devices: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations).”.—(Karin Smyth.)

This provides for the new clauses listed to come into force 2 months after royal assent.

Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.

(3B) The conditions are that—

(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document"); and

(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the “workforce transition plan”).

(3C) The operating model document must include—

(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;

(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;

(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and

(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.

(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—

(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;

(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and

(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.

(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.

(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.

Question put, That the amendment be made.