Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 General Committees

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to explain why we may well need this SI, but I have some questions. I will not go through the benefits of these changes, but there are some risks, which are a concern for Opposition Members. We will not divide the Committee, but we would be grateful for some comments on those and on how we have got to where we are.

We know that we need to hold NHS bodies and private providers to the same standards on information. We also know that we can capture patient data more consistently across the NHS and private providers, which will greatly improve our understanding of patients’ experiences and the services they use. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the last Government recognised that and put in place the Health and Care Act 2022 to allow information standards to be applied to private providers in health and adult social care that are registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The last Government gathered views on proposals for how procedures should be changed, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on how that process has impacted on this SI and how it links to these procedures. Secondly, as I noted, the regulations relate to information standards applied to private providers registered with the CQC. As we know, the CQC has had some issues with its performance, so what is the Government’s assessment of its capacity to deal with compliance with these regulations?

That leads us into the question of the impending abolition of NHS England. The statutory instrument, and indeed the Health and Care Act, talk about NHS England. How will the legislation we are creating be impacted, given that it looks towards NHS England?

Turning to specific examples of information standards, one important example is accessible and transparent information under the accessible information standard. That was raised by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which told me before this Committee that making standards such as the AIS mandatory could have a powerful impact on the RNID. Will the Minister take that back to her Department and look at how long it will take to enact these standards, given that the Act was in 2022?

On the AIS, there is also a concern that, as the explanatory memorandum seems to suggest, we would put in place only a forward-thinking approach, rather than a backwards application. There is therefore a question whether things such as the AIS would need to be revised to make them mandatory, which could further delay the accessibility we are looking for.

That leads us on to interoperability, which is a Union question. Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the explanatory memorandum say that the extent of the regulations will be England and Wales and that the impacts will be felt in England alone. We have people on the border with the likes of Scotland and Wales, so what conversations is the Minister having with her counterparts in those jurisdictions to make sure that data is shared? At the end of the day, people have accidents in different places and seek health in different jurisdictions, and that will have a massive impact.

Finally, there is a question—which often comes up when we discuss NHS data—about what the wider impact looks like when it comes to trade deals and negotiations. That may be beyond the scope of this debate, and I do not expect the Minister to speak on behalf of her Trade colleagues, but it does raise the question of why this measure is being brought in specifically now? Is it just a timing issue, or is there a wider game afoot, in the sense that this issue would be part of, for example, a US trade deal or a closer alliance with the EU? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on whether such discussions have taken place within the relevant Department.

I am grateful to all the civil servants and to everyone assembled here for taking part in the debate.

[Karin Smyth]

First, I thank the shadow spokesperson for the Conservative party’s support in bringing forward the regulations. As he rightly said, some of this work continues work done under the last Government and results, as I said in my introductory remarks, from the 2022 Act.

As I also said, standardisation has not been taken up across the system in the way that we would like, and this instrument provides a framework everybody can lean into. To go to the hon. Gentleman’s last question first, that reflects our need to make sure that, for the benefit of patients, clinical safety, patient support and efficiencies in the system, we have a framework that everyone works to and brings their standards into—I will not veer into something more technical that is beyond my ken, on the detail of computer systems. We wanted to make sure that we had that framework in place, and we were keen to bring it forward in an SI that is transparent for the House, so that we can all understand how this proposal is part of the wider Government mission.

As I said, this proposal started off under the last Government, and it has been brought forward now. There was an engagement exercise with stakeholders, and the response was published in November. We therefore need to issue the regulations now, particularly in advance of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. So that is the timing issue. I cannot comment further on trade deals, but that is why we are doing this: to make the system in England work better for all our patients.

To the hon. Gentleman’s point about cross-border issues, I am an MP in Bristol, and I understand those issues. We are looking at our responsibilities for England. We are keen to work with the devolved Administrations on all healthcare and cross-border issues. The Department will continue to talk to them, and I hope they are willing to continue to work with us. If there is anything further to add, I will make sure that it is communicated to the hon. Gentleman.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the CQC, he will be aware that the organisation has undergone a number of difficult issues in the recent past. We have had new leadership in place since before Christmas, and it is keen to provide support on wider issues. Safety, in particular, is in its remit, and the hon. Gentleman, as a practising clinician, will be acutely aware of the need for different systems to be able to talk to each other to highlight issues of safety and so on. We will absolutely ensure that the CQC is working as part of this wider system.

Colleagues and staff at NHS England obviously have concerns about changes, but the need to have data that works across the whole system—that has that interoperability at its core—is a priority for everybody working in it. That is clearly part of what the NHS needs to do, and although some people may move, that is absolutely a priority for the NHS moving forward.

To the hon. Gentleman’s point about the RNID, I had not heard that. Clearly, accessibility for all is important. I am happy to make sure that we get back to him and the RNID on that issue.

[Dr Evans]

If it would be of use, I am happy to give the Minister the letter the RNID provided to me before this meeting, to give her the context. I believe that the RNID would also be happy to give briefings, if that would help.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and I am sure that officials have talked with the RNID. It is absolutely right that he brings that issue to my attention, and I will make sure we get a reply back to him and the RNID on the detail and on the time it will take to enact these standards. I visited the NHS England team up in Leeds, where we spoke about providing wider access—for example, by using the app—and about working with groups such as the RNID to make sure that what we produce is accessible for disabled people. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I will make sure that we get back to him on it.

With that, I will make sure that we check the record, and if there is anything else, we will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Otherwise, I would be grateful if the Committee could support the SI.

Question put and agreed to.