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 (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.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

May I start by acknowledging the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), Donna Ockenden and the Secretary of State for the statement and for their hard work? I thank the Secretary of State for the actions that he has proposed so far, which I think are the first tangible actions we have heard in this place. I must also acknowledge the incredible courage and resilience of the Nottingham families who have been instrumental in bringing about this review. No one can imagine the pain that they have gone through.

I am distressed and angry to be stood here once again speaking about babies who should not have lost their lives, mothers who should not have lost their lives and trauma that families should not have experienced. Review after review has led to 748 recommendations since 2015, but birth injury and mortality rates have continued to rise. These reviews all reveal similar issues: unsafe staffing levels, lessons not learned, issues not escalated, insufficient training, and women’s concerns ignored.

Four years ago, after the Shrewsbury review, we found that over 200 babies had died unnecessarily in Shropshire, yet things have got worse. Donna Ockenden’s Nottingham report reveals new and extremely distressing revelations about serious failures to protect the dignity of the deceased in after-death care, something that must be addressed through proper regulation.

Liberal Democrats have put forward a maternity rescue package that would guarantee one-to-one midwifery care and introduce a national maternity commissioner to oversee vital improvements. It would be nonsensical for the Government not to take a strategy forward. Will the Secretary of State pledge to implement every single one of the Nottingham report’s essential actions, and to work with us to deliver the essential investment we need to make Britain a safe place to have a baby, and end this shocking cycle of failure? Anger is not enough. Mothers, doctors and midwives are sick of seeing review after review and being met with stasis, with the same failures repeated over and over again. This must be the moment we say, “Enough.”

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words. When she spoke about ending this cycle, she sums up a feeling that I think many of us have: the cycle of inquiries and investigations revealing what has been happening in maternity services and leading to recommendations, which are accepted, but then things do not change enough, and action is not taken to address all the issues raised. That is the cycle we need to break. The national taskforce, which is established and which I chair, will take all the recommendations from Donna Ockenden’s report, as well as those from Baroness Amos’s national review, which will be published shortly, as well as some of the other hundreds of recommendations that the hon. Lady mentioned, and ensure that it produces a comprehensive action plan by the end of the year. The challenge for us is not simply to accept recommendations, but to produce and deliver that action plan.

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 (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.

Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats have long highlighted the need for better access to specialist healthcare for children and young people struggling with gender identity. The closure of the Tavistock clinic and its inadequate rating by the Care Quality Commission demonstrated that urgent change was needed. Young people struggling with gender identity face serious challenges. They have been badly let down for years by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. On top of that, they have to contend with a toxic public debate, which comes at a huge cost to their wellbeing at a particularly vulnerable stage in their life. The average three-year wait for a young person to see a specialist can be extremely harmful at such a vulnerable age.

We agree that treatment should first be based on talking therapies, so that patients are given the space and support that they need, but it is crucial that young people can start those therapies as a matter of urgency, not after years of delay. Decisions about these young patients’ futures should be made in an informed way, with expert clinicians and based on the best possible evidence, which the NHS must build up safely and effectively. We support prioritising clinical evidence, so that patients’ interests are put at the heart of decision making in all areas of healthcare. Guidance and decisions around puberty blockers must be led by experts and clinical evidence, and not influenced by ideological opinion. That is why we supported the decision of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to pause the Pathways clinical trial while concerns raised by the MHRA were thoroughly addressed. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the MHRA has confirmed that the concerns that led to the withdrawal of the trial have been substantially addressed, and how many children are expected to take part in the trial now that its parameters have been altered?

[James Murray]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady agrees with the Government that we should base our decisions about whether and how to provide support for children, particularly in the case of the treatment that is at the centre of this clinical trial, on clinical evidence and the expert advice of clinicians. There can be no one in this field more widely respected than Dr Hilary Cass, whose recommendations form the basis of the decision that we have taken as a Government.

The hon. Lady asked about the work of the MHRA since early this year to strengthen the safeguards for young people involved in the trial. As I said earlier, I welcome the changes that it has brought forward to strengthen the criteria, which will lead to greater monitoring and clinical reassessment, and to setting objective criteria for withdrawing children and young people from the trial entirely. The MHRA has been engaged in a scientific dialogue with the trial sponsors, and it was the outcome of that process that led the MHRA, as an independent body, to publish the updated protocol towards the end of last week. Now that that is in place, we have greater reassurance about the safeguards.

The trial is expected to involve around 226 children and young people over five and a half years, with each participant potentially being offered puberty blockers for up to 24 months. As I said, a decision to withdraw is triggered by the participant meeting set objective criteria related to the risk of harm.

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 (First sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I used to work in a mental health trust for many years, and I am still its employee—I am on an extended career break from the trust.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I am a member of the Managers in Partnership trade union, which is giving evidence this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q As you outlined in your review, there are 150 organisations in this area. How do you see the new patient experience directorate in the Department working to give confidence in this area and to try to make sense of some of that and improve it?

Dr Dash: One of the things that I observed when I was doing the review, and that I have observed even more so now that I am in post, is that we do not have effective mechanisms of really learning from patients and patient experience. If I compare how the NHS works with how other large organisations in our country work, we are not systematically collecting patient information, we are not looking at that in detail, we are not segmenting it into different groups of people, and we are not systematically bringing it into board meetings, which is where it should be in order to drive improvement. We are hoping, or expecting, that the new director of patient experience will take a real leadership role in this and will improve the way in which the centre works but, more importantly, will be working with organisations right across the NHS to build those skills and capabilities, and to put patient experience feedback and improvement in patient experience right at the centre of every discussion on improvement.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Good morning, Dr Dash. Since hearing the evidence that was given to the Health and Social Care Committee, have you reflected on the concerns that the driver of confidence in HSSIB is its operational independence? What concerns do you have that it will lose that perception of independence and its safe space approach to learning when something goes wrong?

Dr Dash: The CQC is an independent regulatory body as well. The hope and expectation is that we have a high-calibre, independent regulatory body that is the prime regulatory body for looking at how well health and care services are delivered and, as well as observing how well they are currently performing, is able to carry out specific, focused investigations when it spots systematic problems across the healthcare system, or indeed when particular problems are identified.

In terms of safe space, clearly, confidentiality is important. Confidentiality is important right across the board; staff need to feel able to report within NHS organisations and to the CQC where they have concerns. I have to say that I was concerned in that Health Committee session to hear an example given by Jeremy Hunt, who said that if a midwife is concerned about quality of care in their maternity unit, they need to be able to go somewhere and report that, and to know that HSSIB would not tell anyone else about it. I looked at Duncan, our chief nursing officer, who was there with me, and we were shocked to hear that. How can that possibly be right? We need to have a mechanism whereby if there are concerns about quality of care, they are properly investigated, and mechanisms to deal with those problems and improve services. Yes, we need confidentiality, but I was not convinced by what I heard then—that we needed a completely separate organisation that was duplicating the work of others.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I should have declared that I am a member of the patient safety APPG. Let me turn to similar concerns about Healthwatch and its independence. If it is absorbed within ICBs locally or within the Department of Health at a national level, do you have concerns that those organisations will essentially be marking their own homework rather than listening to impartially collected evidence about patient experience?

Dr Dash: I will talk first about providers and then about the commissioners, the payers, the ICBs. We absolutely should expect all providers—GP practices, community trusts, hospital trusts—to see patient experience as a crucial part of their role and not to outsource it to someone else; it has to be a crucial part of what they do. They need to get way better at collecting patient experience, they need to understand it from different groups, wards and medical teams, and they need to be playing that back. Ideally, that should be part of everyone’s appraisals: “Here’s the sort of feedback that we’ve had. Here’s what we’ve heard. Here’s how we’re acting on that.” We need to put that in the places where healthcare is delivered, and that is in those provider organisations.

The ICBs have a different role, which is to commission healthcare services in order to improve health and ensure high-quality care, and it is their responsibility to speak to communities. They all have considerable teams of people who are doing that—speaking to different members of society and conducting usually frequent events to get input and hear what people are looking for from their health and care services. When they are looking to design particular services, whether mental health services or children’s services, they go much deeper into that and speak to specific groups, often involving the providers as well.

Those mechanisms are already embedded within ICBs, but we need to continue to ensure that they do those as well as they can. When I was speaking to people, I found some fantastic examples of different healthwatch organisations across the country, but that is not at all consistent and they are often too far removed from what is actually happening in terms of day-to-day services to have a significant impact on improving patient experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q Finally from me, you highlighted your 15 years in the patient voice landscape. We could discuss at length whether you think that is going well and whether the situation that we inherited was a good one. What needs to happen to give patients confidence that the new system will be better?

Jacob Lant: There are three things there. First, we need transparency about what is being heard by the system. Wherever we put patient voice functions, it is really important that what they hear from communities is clear and made available publicly, in terms of themes and demographics, so that we understand who is being heard and who is not. That is really important for the transparency of what is being heard and how it is being interpreted by the system. What has it understood from the feedback it has received, and does that resonate with what people are actually trying to say?

The second thing is accountability. Can people see those voices leading to change—not just commitments to change, but following through? It is about evaluating where policy changes implemented as a result of patient feedback have improved patient experience, and drawing that golden thread through for people so they can understand how their feedback is making a difference. That is missing from the system at the moment.

The last point is around equity. My big concern is that we might design a system that hears from more people, but whether it hears from the right people and there is equity of voice is a real concern. The resourcing and support need to be put in, particularly at a local level, so that they can engage communities who are marginalised and make sure we are hearing from the people who are basically getting the worst experiences and outcomes at the moment.

If we can deliver on those three things—transparency, accountability and equity—we can build a system that is more effective than what we have at the moment. Personally, I think Healthwatch has done a fantastic job with the resources it has had available. It works out that less than 0.01% of the health and care spend is on Healthwatch, and that generates about 1.4 million interactions every year, either by gathering people’s experiences or by supporting them to navigate the health and care system. That is a really good return on investment, and it will be hard to find something more efficient. The challenge is in the system being more culturally open to listening and changing as a result of what people say, regardless of the way the evidence comes through.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Good morning. Sarah, the Bill transfers a lot of NHSE’s powers to the Secretary of State. Do you have any concerns about the additional powers conferred upon the Secretary of State? Does that go too far?

Sarah Woolnough: There are probably two concerns in a couple of different areas: appointments and the power of direction, which is very broad. We think it would be helpful to probe the detail and understand the intention a little more to see whether the legislation could do with amendment.

There is more general point. If the narrative is that this is a straight transfer, of course, you cannot legislate for culture and how those powers will be used. Our concern is that, while the narrative is about a straight transfer, empowering local systems and earned autonomy, the legislation pulls a lot of power back to the Secretary of State, and you cannot legislate for how a future Secretary of State may enact those powers.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Jacob, how prepared are ICBs and local authorities to take on the healthwatch functions? Is there a concern that splitting the local healthwatch function will lead to a lack of joined-up focus on health and on the social care element that resides with local authorities?

Jacob Lant: I will pick up the second part of the question first. The majority of the worst experiences of care—the worst incidents, where people feel most lost—tend to be in the gaps between services. Hospital discharge is a really good example of where the transfer between the NHS and social care services does not always work in the best interests of patients. That sort of insight will be lost entirely under the current structure, unless we build in a requirement for ICBs and local authorities to share the intelligence that they are hearing and to work collaboratively to understand patient and care user experience. That then raises the question, “Why are we splitting them?” If they have to work closely together to comment on the worst experiences of care, I do not understand the rationale for splitting them.

In terms of preparedness, I said earlier that ICBs will not have any additional resource for doing this. They have their own engagement teams at the moment, but even those that have been doing this very well have been leaning on their healthwatch for many years to help them engage with seldom-heard communities and build additional capacity. I worry about the capacity of ICBs to deliver once that is cut, particularly given the headcount and budget reductions in ICBs generally.

Local authorities are probably more experienced in doing direct community engagement and more confident about their ability to pick up the responsibilities. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will continue to commission some sort of external support to help them do this, but their budgets will be restricted. They will get only half the money for healthwatch, so that will be a concern.

[Peter Prinsley]

Q I am an ENT surgeon. Why has there been no effective single patient record in the past? If there were such a thing, who would you give ownership of the data to?

Sarah Woolnough: We have had developments over many years in the direction of a single patient record. We have shared care records; we have attempts in different parts of the country to move in that direction. On the one hand, we have been held back by legitimate concerns about trust, privacy and the right safeguards, but some practical barriers have also held us back. For example—and this is really important to make the single patient record a success—what does it take to ensure that we achieve interoperability, that the data is cleansed and that penalties are followed through if providers are not sharing data? We need to back up any legislative and policy intent with the resource and measures needed to make it happen. That is perhaps a bit of the history of why it has not happened. Sorry, what was the second part of your question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q Dr Dickson, can you describe how you think the single patient record could be transformative for patient care, given where we are?

Dr Dickson: Part of it has been touched on by the previous panel, regarding patient experience. Patients come in, they give the same story again and again to different healthcare professionals in different settings, and that frustrates them. Patients are human. I forget what I did last week; patients forget what they did last week, let alone what they did 10 or 20 years ago, although that is still relevant, increasingly. If you go on holiday to Whitby, fall over and break something, have tests done and come back to your house in central London, you cannot see information about that; you cannot share that information.

The opportunity to see everything on a patient across primary care, secondary care and social care is a huge benefit to them in terms of their view of seamless care, but also in terms of safety. I have a chronic health condition; part of my care is delivered by general practice and part by a hospital. At the start of the pandemic I was exceptionally clinically vulnerable; it took the NHS six weeks to tell me that. That is not safe.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Can I also ask about the single patient record? We have heard concern from GPs about their role in being the data controller and what that might mean when data is shared beyond their initial remit. What do you think is most desirable: for the GP to remain the data controller, or for that role to sit elsewhere?

Dr Dickson: I am not a general practitioner. The key thing for data control and data sharing is the trust that patients have in us to share and to hold their data in a way that is beneficial for them as individuals, and potentially sometimes beneficial for the population, but not to share it for what you might call retail use.

One issue with data control is that most general practices are small businesses with a small number of staff working flat out. That legal obligation of a data controller looms large for them, whereas it does not loom as large for large NHS organisations—although, technically, the impact is as hard. I do not mind who controls the data; what we need to do is to find a way to enable that data to be shared safely and with a belief that it is done for patient benefit. I do not think it matters whether GPs maintain data control, with something else happening to support them, or whether it is taken away from them; it is about how we enable that to happen. But I do think that general practice struggles more with resilience.

Kay Keane: I think that is true, in that we are generalists, not experts in a lot of areas. Certainly, we can be very good data controllers of our own data—the stuff that we produce, and that we write and code about our patients. We have to code things to be able to respond to our contract, so we have to be good at that. Things fall down when information comes from other providers, which we have no control of. That would be an area of real concern—that such information would be part of our property and our jurisdiction.

I guess it is about the detail of how that record will be structured. If it is a brand-new thing and we all feed into it, that is very different from all the data coming to the current healthcare record that we hold. I think the detail is not there yet to enable us to describe who should be the data controller, but certainly I do not think that any practice manager would want to control data generated by someone other than themselves.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Do you think anything else should be on the face of the Bill to give us clarity so that that GP concern is mitigated?

Kay Keane: The patients need to understand exactly who has access to that record and exactly who is feeding into it. There is a huge amount of trust between a patient and a GP, and a patient and a healthcare professional in a general practice, and we do not want that trust to be diminished so that the patient stops telling us the things that are worrying them—the whole story. We want them to continue their trust, but if they think that information is spreading further and further across the system, we might lose some of it.

[Sojan Joseph]

Q I want to touch on the single patient record. I declare that I used to work in mental health services. In my experience, mental health patients often navigate between A&E, GPs and mental health services during weekends. Often the clinicians do not know what medication they are on, or what kind of contact patients had on the Friday or Saturday. Also, during the discharge process, getting medication from the GP can be delayed until the discharge notification gets to the GP. Yes, there are concerns about who will own this data, but do you not think that the single patient record will bring a huge benefit for patient safety and continuity of care?

Kay Keane: In the example you gave, the hospital should be giving seven days-worth of medication to the patient. That is clearly its responsibility. Within those seven days, the GP practice should get a discharge letter that says what has happened; if appropriate, we then take over the prescribing.

If the information comes and is good quality—if the data is good and timely—the things you mentioned do not happen; they happen when neither of those things are the case. In my experience, information that comes out of A&E is often difficult to understand. A&E might make a diagnosis that it works with, but by the time that gets to the ward it can be different, so the A&E information we act on could be very different from what the patient is discharged with. Timely and good-quality information is therefore really important, and that GP record then becomes the centre of the patient’s care.

Dr Dickson: You are talking about transfer of care between services and about a weekend being an important flashpoint, but I think that that transfer of care does not happen appropriately even during the week. It is getting better, with electronic systems, but it is still not necessarily working for the full benefit of patients, especially if they access multiple services. The value of the single patient record is to make that safe, but the question is, will it do that? Can it do that? Is it safe to do that? Will the patient’s data be protected? That is what we are we are worried about. I think that is what patients worry about. They perceive that we do that already, and when they come up against the healthcare service, they realise that it does not happen; they do not realise that it is not a personal thing to them, but a systemic problem. It is about getting patients to understand the systemic nature of the lack of data sharing at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q Those things obviously are manageable in another system, but people need that safe space to come forward. You rightly outlined reality and perception, and perception is often important for confidence.

You talked about the culture of fear, which I think we have recognised over time. We are all constituency MPs, so we recognise that. Can you say something about the opportunities for learning that could arise from working with the CQC, which is in that regulatory space?

Dr Benneyworth: We already work very closely with the CQC. In fact, we meet with them on a very regular basis. They share their learning and concerns with us already. Some of our investigations have come from the learning that they have seen on inspection, so we have a very good relationship with the CQC.

There are significant opportunities for the whole patient safety landscape. We are a tiny part of the patient safety landscape. We need to all work much more collaboratively right across the regulatory space—ourselves, the investigatory bodies and the wider system. The National Quality Board will have a significant role to play in that to share learning and identify key patient safety risks. That is already happening in our work with the CQC. This legislation will not significantly change that.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I re-declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. We have heard this morning about a tension between needing to be able to report when something has gone wrong that HSSIB has become aware of to ensure that it is dealt with—the example given by Dr Dash earlier was a maternity failing—and the importance of a safe space, so that people can report to HSSIB when something has gone wrong and then HSSIB can make the appropriate recommendations to change the problem within the system that has led to that issue. Can you talk a bit more about that tension? What is the best way to manage that?

Dr Benneyworth: First, we do not replace local investigations. If something goes wrong, the local teams are very much responsible for investigating their work. Dr Dash talked about the new processes around PSIRF and the new investigation processes, which we fully support. In fact, our education team have had 40,000 people enrolled over the last three years, free of charge in the NHS, to support them in developing those investigation skills, really supporting that excellence in local investigation. We have a long way to go there, because they are variable in quality.

We do not replace that immediate, “There has been an incident and it needs investigation.” We know that, quite often, the things that need to change are not sitting within one provider. We know that the same things are happening in Cornwall and Cumbria and everywhere in between, and that they often need national solutions to change.

As a recent example, we published a report a few weeks ago looking at the care of people in mental health crisis in emergency departments. That showed that the legislation around the care of mental health patients is not supporting people in emergency departments to look after these people properly. That is not something that can be changed by a regulator. The CQC going to look at that emergency department will not impact that. It is not something that the individual provider can change, but we can make national recommendations about it to change the national system to enable people on the ground working in health and care to do their job properly. We can make sure that the systems and processes really consider how things work, and really change them so that providers and systems locally can do their job.

[Helen Morgan]

Q What could be changed in this legislation to ensure that HSSIB can retain trust and independence from the regulatory body?

Dr Benneyworth: There needs to be much more clarity about governance and how that will work in the legislation to protect independence. There are potential compromises that could happen, such as a Healthwatch-style model that has its own independent leadership within the CQC, its own governance arrangements and, importantly, its own identity. That would enable it to keep its independence, while being part of a larger organisation. In the legislation, it is vital that there is a legal duty for the CQC to protect safe space.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Q I feel that my question may have just been answered, but you may wish to add something, Dr Benneyworth. Will patient safety accountability be improved when a patient’s care spans different organisations within an ICB?

Dr Benneyworth: One of the things that we see regularly in our investigations is that people fall down the gaps between organisations. We have the ability to look right across the system and understand a person’s journey. As a recent example, we looked at medication errors on discharge from hospital. There are a lot of medication errors, and we looked at the process of how information was being shared and what was happening. Those are the type of things where we see a lot of concerns about patient safety. There needs to be much more clarity about accountability for patient safety.

No one is accountable for the discharge of a patient. There is not one person—no single individual—who is accountable when someone is discharged from hospital to social care. You go through multiple layers of accountability. We are keen to learn from other industries that have effective safety management systems. Part of those safety management systems is having much more clarity about accountability, which is lacking across the NHS. I very much hope that, with the changes to ICBs, they really do think about accountability for patient safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q To move on to the transfer of NHS England’s functions, in your time in office NHS England was a new independent body. What are your reflections on how we can use the transfer of those NHS England functions back into democratic oversight to improve impacts on patients, particularly patient safety?

Sir Jeremy Hunt: I set up NHS England, following the Lansley reforms, and it may surprise you that I have not opposed the Government’s decision to abolish it, for this reason. When it was set up, it did have a very valuable function, which is that it depoliticised a lot of very contentious issues. Typically, those were things such as the closure or downgrading of an A&E that was clinically advised as important, but very difficult politically, or, for example, which drugs are made available through the NHS and which are not. I felt that putting those decisions at arm’s length from Ministers was helpful. However, I think it became too big.

My real problem is that I think the NHS has become the world’s largest health bureaucracy, in which it is very hard to get anything done because 1.5 million people are accountable to one person. The way the DHSC does this, as you know just as well as me, is through the ruthless imposition of targets, so every hospital has 18 monthly operational targets. That makes it very difficult to have any kind of local innovation or local autonomy, because everyone is performance-managed with incredible strictness—their whole career depends on it—by these targets. I felt NHS England was beginning to embody that targets system, so when the former Heath Secretary said he was planning to scrap it, I said, “That’s absolutely fine, as long as this is a decentralising move, and you don’t simply transfer that ruthless central control from NHS England to DHSC.” I have to say I am concerned that that is, in fact, happening—or that we are just getting all those targets recreated by DHSC, rather than NHS England, as I think former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has also gone on record as saying.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, and one of the things we have heard is that the idea behind HSSIB and the air accidents investigation branch is, in the long run, to reduce the need for public inquiries to save money. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Sir Jeremy Hunt: Ideally, when something goes wrong, what you want is for there to be an investigation and for lessons to be learned, so that grieving families can say, “Well, at least we are confident that this wouldn’t happen again.” What happens in the health world is that families still think the only way they can get real change is through a public inquiry, so there is endless demand for more inquiries, rather than for things to actually change. If HSSIB was allowed to flourish, and there was confidence that its recommendations really would be acted on quickly, I think that would reduce the demand for public inquiries. They are very expensive, and the fact that they often take five, six or even seven years also means that there is enormous delay before anything changes.

[Helen Morgan]

Q As a former Secretary of State for Health, what are your reflections on the abolition of Healthwatch and the absorption of its functions into the Department of Health, ICBs and local authorities?

Sir Jeremy Hunt: It is not dissimilar to my earlier reflections. It is really important that patients have a voice, but it is even more important that their voice is heard not just through a bureaucratic process that listens to them, and gives them a sense of being listened to, but then nothing happens. The problem with the Healthwatch structure we have is that it is very good at the listening bit, but I do not think people have confidence that things actually change.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Q It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Sir Jeremy, I want to turn to NHS England’s accountability, or lack thereof. I know you made the point that you did not want clinically advised decisions to be overly politicised, but I had the reverse in my constituency when a decision was made after the lease on a doctors’ surgery ran out. It could not be extended because of some rule in NHS England, but due to that lack of accountability, there was nothing that we could do. The surgery closed, and one in six of its patients was just redistributed to another surgery, so that accountability clearly failed in that space.

If you are concerned that accountability ends up too close to the Department, where else should it land? I am quite comfortable with a Minister being accountable for that decision, because they are accountable to MPs, who are ultimately accountable to the people that it affects. Can you pare back your answer a little bit and talk about where that accountability should lie, and how we can ensure that it works?

Sir Jeremy Hunt: That is a story I think every single Member of Parliament could repeat, and it is a fundamental flaw in the system. Do you not think it is completely ridiculous that you have to go to the Health Secretary, who is responsible for a budget of £160 billion—the largest healthcare system in the world—to sort out something like a GP surgery lease in your constituency? That is a perfect example of a problem that we should be able to sort out locally, and that is why I think the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), recognised an appalling culture of medical misogyny and basic, everyday sexism within the NHS. As such, it was extremely disappointing to see that the new women’s health strategy was inferior to the men’s health strategy. The men’s health strategy received 60% more funding for new initiatives and has a named academic network, a formal research mandate aligned with the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and a commitment to publish a one-year accountability report with named, responsible organisations and formal timeframes for every action. It also commits specific funding to trials and pathfinders. As it stands, the women’s health strategy has none of those things. It contains no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, nor does the NHS 10-year plan include endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Can the Secretary of State explain why?

[James Murray]

The renewed women’s health strategy was a really important achievement under the previous Secretary of State, which updated the approach of this Government and reflected the differences in healthcare that women too often receive. If I might offer a personal reflection, since I have become Secretary of State, one issue that many women have raised with me is that they do not feel the health service adequately listens to them, takes their pain seriously, or gives them the right pathways to get the treatment they need. That must change, and this Government will change it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

A damning report by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has estimated that more than 15,800 deaths were associated with long waits in emergency departments in 2025—I think we all agree that figure is an outrage—but the Government still have not published reliable data on long waits and corridor care despite promising to do so by the end of May. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government are trying to hide? Will they adopt Liberal Democrat calls to end corridor care within a year by freeing up beds throughout hospitals and in social care to end the blight of excess deaths in overcrowded accident and emergency departments?

[James Murray]

Let me be clear that corridor care is unacceptable and undignified and we are committed to eradicating it. We have begun by getting specialist teams to go into the worst offending trusts to ensure that we are getting rid of corridor care in those places. The NHS now has a national definition of corridor care for the first time ever. We will publish data on that shortly, because the first step in getting a grip of the problem is to be open and transparent about its scale.