Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We resume line-by-line consideration of the Health Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Proceedings must, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion by 5 pm. Once again, I am happy to give a blanket dispensation for the removal of jackets.

New Clause 31

ECG screenings

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

Twelve young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. One of those was Clarissa Nicholls, who died just before her 21st birthday, while on a year abroad in France. Her mother and friends have campaigned tirelessly not only to provide electrocardiograms to young people, but to raise awareness about early detection of heart conditions. Finding a heart condition does not mean that exercise must stop or that life goes on hold; it just means that appropriate alterations can be made to keep a person safe, active and healthy.

Such a scheme has been rolled out in Italy and has been hugely successful. The new clause would push the Government to look seriously at having ECGs for young people as an early identifier for potentially fatal conditions, so that we do not lose up to 12 young people a week due just to a lack of testing.

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

I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The hon. Member for Winchester raises an important point. Cardiac issues are serious, and people too often lose their lives as a result of unidentified cardiac conditions. As we know, ECGs are used significantly across the whole of healthcare, from accident and emergency to new community diagnostic centres and beyond. They are important for investigating palpitations or unexpected syncope and for evaluating pacemaker function, and are an extremely useful diagnostic tool. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket suggested, there is no clear evidence that non-symptomatic population screening using standard ECGs would yield any useful health data or improve population outcomes.

Clearly, the loss of life—particularly a young life, as in the case of the constituent the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, although we have all seen or, sadly, experienced such cases—is an awful tragedy for those concerned, but we need to rely on evidence. The UK National Screening Committee, which is an independent scientific advisory body, advises all four nations and is considering the issue. The committee launched a three-month public consultation on 8 June to look at the evidence on screening for sudden cardiac death. Its draft recommendation is against screening, because ECGs, as well as other tests, are an unreliable tool for identifying significant cardiac issues in asymptomatic individuals. ECGs are useful tools in the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, and the UK National Screening Committee is in the process of reviewing ECG use for asymptomatic individuals. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Review on deaths related to antimicrobial resistant infection

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the number of yearly deaths in the UK which are related to antimicrobial resistant infection.”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the number of yearly deaths in the UK which are related to antimicrobial resistant infection.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Chambers]

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

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the yearly number of deaths in the UK related to antimicrobial-resistant infections. I declare an interest as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on antimicrobial resistance. AMR is a major threat to public health globally and domestically, and it is already contributing to an estimated 35,200 deaths every year in the UK.

AMR is a bit like a silent pandemic. It gets little media attention, but given the prediction that 39 million people worldwide will have died of AMR by 2040, it will eventually be pushed right up the political agenda. This is not simply a matter of people dying from infections that could not be treated; nearly all the advances in modern medicine over the last 50, 60 or 70 years would be null and void. It would be too risky for someone to have something like a hip replacement, because of the risk of getting an infection that could kill them; they would be better off living with a painful arthritic hip than taking the risk of dying from sepsis. It is the same with things like heart disease, while giving birth will once again become one of the most dangerous things a woman can do if we lose the impact and effectiveness of antibiotics.

The Government invested more than £560 million in AMR programmes between 2020 and 2024, so it is reasonable that Parliament should receive an annual assessment of AMR-related deaths to ensure that that significant public investment is delivering results, represents value for money and is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. We cannot effectively tackle what we do not measure, and an annual review of deaths linked to AMR would provide a clear, consistent picture of the scale of the problem and enable Parliament and the public to track whether policies are working.

Better data leads to better targeted interventions. We know that rapid diagnostic tests and different types of decontamination will be hugely important in tackling AMR, along with potential future technologies such as phage technology. Surveillance has already identified significant variations by age, deprivation and geography. Understanding where deaths are occurring, and in who, would help direct resources to the communities and services that are most affected.

AMR threatens the effectiveness of modern medicine, including surgery, cancer treatment and routine healthcare. An annual review of AMR-related deaths would ensure that this growing public health threat receives the attention and urgency it deserves. The reason I am determined to push it up the agenda is that the national cancer plan does not specifically mention AMR or infection, but it is the second biggest cause of death in cancer patients. At the moment, it is not pushed up the political agenda enough.

[Karin Smyth]

I commend the hon. Member for outlining this important issue before the Committee and for his work on the APPG.

AMR is recognised as a chronic risk in the Government’s national risk register. In 2022, it was estimated that 7,500 deaths per year can be directly attributed to AMR in the UK, with a further 35,000 deaths per year associated with AMR. It is a significant and growing issue that the Government take very seriously—I want to assure the hon. Member and the Committee of that. Through the delivery of the 2024 to 2029 UK AMR national action plan, the Government are already taking comprehensive action to tackle this threat and ultimately reduce the burden it places on individuals, families and the healthcare system. That is where that work is located.

I am not convinced that a review of the number of deaths at this point, while important, would add significantly to our understanding of the impact and burden of AMR or to the action being taken to address it, which we do take seriously. The Government will continue to work with APPGs and with information around this issue through the action plan. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I thank the Minister for her comments. We understand that the Government take this matter very seriously, but we are working on estimated numbers of deaths for something that will eventually be killing more people than covid. We really need some tangible figures, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

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

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 79—Public Health Committee—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Public Health Committee within six months of the passage of this Act to ensure a cross-governmental focus and consideration of the promotion of public health in government policy and address national health inequalities.

(2) The Public Health Committee under subsection (1) must—

(a) include at least one minister from each government Department in its membership,

(b) include all cabinet ministers in its membership,

(c) be chaired by the Prime Minister, and

(d) meet once in each annual quarter.

(3) Under subsection 2(b), cabinet members must attend at least three quarters of the Public Health Committee's meetings each year.

(4) Each government Department must publish an annual report on their department's consideration of public health in its policy and the extent of joint policy formulation with other government Departments.

(5) The Secretary of State must establish a Health Creation Unit to support the Public Health Committee.

(6) The Health Creation Unit must submit an annual report on its activities, decision-making and cross-government progress to the Liaison Committee.”

This new clause would establish a Public Health Committee and Health Creation Unit to promote public health and cross-government policy making.

New clause 80—Duty to promote public health—

“All Ministers of the Crown have a duty to consider health outcomes and the promotion and protection of public health when exercising their duties.”

This new clause will place a duty on all ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties.

[Dr Chambers]

New clause 14 is about healthy life expectancy. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years, setting out how the target would be achieved. New clause 79 would establish a public health committee and health creation unit to promote public health and cross-Government policymaking. New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. All three new clauses are closely related.

Over the last 100 years, life expectancy in the UK has been increasing for a variety of reasons, including vaccination, improved hygiene and medical advances, but worryingly, between 2022 and 2024, it decreased by 1.8 years for men and 2.5 years for women. That is the first time it has decreased in a while. There is an 11.1-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies, which is partly due to demographics and different socioeconomic situations. Socioeconomic disparity is causing a very significant difference in life expectancy.

We need wider whole-of-Government working to address the root cause of and contributing factors to ill health. DHSC, the NHS and social care deal with too much in silos, which is a problem across the whole of Government. There is too much siloed working. All Departments should be working with at least one eye on the health of the nation. That is what our new clauses seek to foster. A healthy life expectancy target would provide the basic metric for that aspiration, forcing wider thinking on prevention and ill health, rather than on waiting lists and hospital performance, as important as they are.

New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. That should aim to focus the minds of non-DHSC Government Departments that have a central role to play in the promotion of good health and longevity, whether that be housing standards or environmental regulations. We included health protection—areas such as clean water, for instance—as well as health promotion, which includes areas such as active travel.

New clause 79 would create a public health committee and a health creation unit to support its work, especially between Departments. This is an idea originally introduced under the coalition Government, designed to tackle obesity, alcohol abuse and other public health problems. Although we recognise that it was not perfect, given the Tories’ lack of engagement and spotty attendance, the desire to foster cross-Government thinking was definitely right.

[Dr Prinsley]

Would the hon. Member comment on what I consider to be almost the most successful and important Bill that our new Government have passed, on the effective abolition of cigarette smoking? As time goes by, that will save more lives than anything else we could possibly think of. I recognise that it was the initiative of the previous Government, but the fact that the new Government have managed to get it over the line is a massive achievement. That is very much underappreciated and certainly not spoken about anything like enough. We will never do anything as important as the abolition of cigarette smoking.

[Dr Chambers]

Yes, I sat on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for six weeks, going through the legislation line by line. One of the most interesting things about that Bill is not only that it will improve public health and life expectancy, but that it is probably one of the single most impactful pieces of legislation in terms of improving inequality and especially socioeconomic health outcomes. So many of the disparities in life expectancy between wealthy people and those living in relative poverty are due to levels of smoking—it is not just smoking, but that is a significant factor. It is good of the hon. Gentleman to highlight that.

During the coalition, the Tories recognised that the approach I described would send a powerful message that public health is the responsibility of all Government Departments. When it was scrapped, the then shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), said that we could tackle Britain’s looming obesity crisis only if all Government Departments pulled together. We completely agree with that statement.

New clause 79 tries to address some of the issues that occurred back then, including by placing requirements on ministerial attendance and giving the Liaison Committee oversight to drive accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that greater cross-Government working is needed. What are the Department’s plans to support that? If we want to tackle the various public health crises facing our country, we cannot do so without proper cross-Government working.

In my professional life, I was made an honorary lecturer at Bristol University veterinary school in the area of One Health, recognising that animal health, human health and environmental health are completely interlinked. It is difficult to improve one without looking at the factors that improve the others, and we need that kind of approach throughout all Government Departments.

[Sojan Joseph]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I strongly believe that public health is very important to our health system because it focuses on prevention, so that people do not end up in A&E or in hospital beds. Unfortunately, over the last 10 or 15 years we have seen the opposite. If we are serious about improving the nation’s health, prevention must sit at the heart of every decision we make.

Public health professionals bring a vital perspective—one that looks beyond treating illness to understanding and tackling its root causes. They consider the wider determinants of health, from housing and education to inequality and the environment, and they help us design services that keep people well, rather than responding only when they become unwell. We need to identify our priorities, ensure resources are allocated appropriately and develop a long-term strategy.

New clause 79 proposes to create a new committee. As somebody who worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that there is no shortage of committees, senior leaders, management or meetings in our healthcare system. In fact, there are too many. What is missing are people to work on the frontline; that is what we saw over the 14 years under the Conservatives—and the Lib Dems were part of that.

One reason why I became active in politics was that I saw the frontline struggling. I worked as a nurse on the frontline in mental health services, and what we saw was money being diverted to create more senior leadership, more groups, more meetings and more management, while we were missing the people who actually did the work on the frontline. The new clause asks us to create a new committee, but we have enough committees and managers. In fact, through the Bill, we are trying to modernise the system by getting rid of some of those managers—that is the most important thing I can identify in the Bill. However, lots of the new clauses I have seen today and in the last Committee sitting have proposed creating more committees and directors. We are missing a point here. The Committee has an opportunity to reform our health system. If Members speak to a nurse or doctor who works in a hospital in our system, they will say, “We need more nurses, healthcare assistants and doctors, not more managers or directors.”

Not only in this new clause, but in many of the new clauses we are talking about, we need to think about embedding the public health voice within integrated care boards. Stronger integrated care boards will enable us to act early, reduce health inequalities and deliver care closer to home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess—that is always a pleasure.

To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.

[Dr Chambers]

I pay tribute to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. It does good work in trying to eradicate rabies in countries with street dogs, as part of hearts-and-minds engagement. We can work public health into pretty much any Department.

[Dave Robertson]

I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.

[Dr Chambers]

Just to blow my own trumpet, my greatest academic achievement was getting correspondence published in Nature on the impact of conflict on antimicrobial resistance. It might interest Members to know that, in Ukraine, 80% of wounds have novel bacteria that are displaying multi-drug resistance, which has become a limiting factor in getting soldiers back on to the frontline. We are trying to reframe issues such as antimicrobial resistance as national security and defence issues, rather than purely public health issues.

[Dave Robertson]

I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard—[Interruption.] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter.

There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role.

New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

The shadow Minister is tempting me to divert away from addressing the main point, but I will take her point on board. I am glad that the Conservatives do not oppose the principle of advice and guidance, because evidence suggests that it is a good route to patients having care closer to home and getting faster treatment. She knows this because it has been clarified, but if there is any doubt: there is no compulsion on GPs to do that.

The hon. Member for Winchester talked about his expertise and blowing his own trumpet with regard to antimicrobial resistance. He jests slightly about that expertise, but he raises a really important point about AMR that I am sure we will talk about more when we discuss new clause 32. He is absolutely right that it is an important public health issue that crosses many divides, and I look forward to discussing that later.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion. The hon. Member for Lichfield made the good point that a committee of 70 people may not be that efficient. He should come to the Lib Dem parliamentary party meetings, which are incredibly efficient. We have incredibly insightful discussions, which is what makes us such an effective force, so I would not knock a committee of 70 people.

I appreciate the Minister’s acknowledgment of the important of cross-party work for public health. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Impact of trade deals on the NHS

“(1) Any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

(2) Before laying regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment about how the trade negotiation will affect NHS frontline services and patients.”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Chambers]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 76—Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing—

“(1) The Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing may be ratified only if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before the House of Commons a copy of the Arrangement, and

(b) the Arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) Before tabling a motion under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects on the health service of implementation of the Arrangement.”

This new clause would require the Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be brought before the House for a vote.

[Dr Chambers]

New clause 15 would require that the Secretary of State lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require that the arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing be laid before the House to be voted on.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that, by 2036, the UK-US pharmaceuticals deal will have cost as much as £9 billion. That money could be transformative for the NHS. It could be put towards ending corridor care, as the Committee discussed earlier, or towards hiring thousands of ward staff, buying countless radiotherapy machines and starting to deliver high-quality care and help at home for the elderly and disabled.

To make matters worse, Trump’s ambassador hauled in the head of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—the expert independent body that considers value for money in the NHS—to rebuke him over his opposition to the deal. It is utterly outrageous that a British public servant has been dressed down by a foreign regime for putting the interests of British patients and the British taxpayer first. It is crazy that billions of pounds of NHS funding is being spent to placate Trump, at the expense of the patient wellbeing. We want to support the British life sciences sector. That should be a domestic matter for the UK Government to address holistically, through negotiations with the sector; it should not be dictated from Washington.

Hiking payments for medicine is the wrong approach for patients who badly need investment in frontline staff, hospitals and equipment. The lack of transparency over the full cost has already created great uncertainty in the sector, and it is astonishing that such a major decision will be made without the say of the British people via a vote in Parliament. The Government refused even to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal, which has raised suspicion and caused some to think that something is being hidden. Through the people who elected us, this House—not the White House—decides on matters of national importance. The Liberal Democrats have tabled these new clauses to allow the House to have a proper vote on the deal.

[Dr Johnson]

I will be relatively brief. New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require the arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be laid before the House to be voted on.

A key concern is costing. There have been various estimates of the additional cost of medicines. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said that he would not change or cut the NHS budget to pay for that increased cost. Will the Minister tell us the estimated extra cost of medicines, and where that money will come from, if not from the DHSC budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Again, this is an area of work that my hon. Friend has led on for many years, as I have seen, often when many others have not been around to support it. With so many organisations and charities lobbying on behalf of so many people who are desperate for rare diseases in particular to be highlighted—those diseases that affect a small number of people, many of them children—that work is crucial. Her work in leading in this place is exemplary. That is exactly where we aim to get by working with our partners in difficult circumstances. Trade deals and negotiations are necessarily difficult—otherwise, they would be easy—but the hard work yields results for people. As I have said, this Government have taken an outward approach to working with our partners and with industry.

We have already taken steps towards achieving our commitments, most notably increasing the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. The Government previously updated Parliament in two ministerial statements, and of course MPs quite rightly have the option to continue to table parliamentary questions. Officials should be able to produce confidential advice for Ministers, to inform trade or other negotiations, and we must maintain that confidentiality in this case, as the impact assessment contains commercially sensitive assumptions. It is scenario-based and remains linked to live policy development. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is good to hear cross-party recognition of how important the life sciences sector is in the UK, to universities and businesses as knowledge transfer partnerships. This is a huge opportunity not only to improve the health of the nation and the treatments available, but to boost the economy.

We will withdraw new clause 15, but I thought the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke extremely well about his concerns relating to the trade deal.

[Joe Robertson]

I think that the hon. Member has spoken very well, too, and I am grateful to him for airing this important subject through his new clause.

[Dr Chambers]

I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.

[Dr Johnson]

This Government came to power saying that they would be more transparent, but they have not been. It took us months to get numbers out of the Government about the Chagos Islands deal.

[Dr Chambers]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that intervention.

Unless something changes significantly by the time we get to vote on new clause 76, which I understand will not be today, we will press it to a vote for transparency’s sake, but we will withdraw new clause 15. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers

“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—

‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers

(1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers within its area.

(2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to—

(a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by carers,

(b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health,

(c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and

(d) the need to ensure carers are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support.

(3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area—

(a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes,

(b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and

(c) provide carers with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing.

(4) In preparing a Joint Forward Plan, an integrated care board must include—

(a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of carers within its area,

(b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for carers, and

(c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by carers.

(5) In this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Chambers]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 17—Duty to identify and record unpaid carers—

“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—

‘Duty to identify and record unpaid carers

(1) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to identify persons within its area who are unpaid carers.

(2) An integrated care board must make arrangements to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area—

(a) maintain appropriate systems for recording whether a person is an unpaid carer,

(b) use consistent coding standards for the recording of unpaid carers in health records,

(c) review and update records relating to unpaid carers at appropriate intervals, and

(d) ensure that the identification and recording of unpaid carers forms part of—

(i) primary care registration processes,

(ii) hospital discharge procedures,

(iii) care planning processes, and

(iv) other relevant patient contact pathways.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”

This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to identify and record unpaid carers when they come into contact with NHS services.

New clause 18—National Respite Care Scheme—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme.

(2) The scheme under subsection (1) must make provision for—

(a) a local authority carrying out a carer’s assessment under section 10 of the Care Act 2014 to be required to consider whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring responsibilities.

(b) unpaid carers to receive support to take breaks from their caring responsibilities to—

(i) maintain their physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing,

(ii) participate in work, education, training or recreation, and

(iii) participate in family and community life.

(c) a carer to receive appropriate support if a local authority carrying out an assessment under subsection (2)(a) determines that a carer is unable to take sufficient breaks from caring.

(3) Under subsection (2), “support” may include—

(a) replacement care for the cared-for person;

(b) respite services;

(c) any other steps a local authority considers appropriate as support.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient support to local authorities to ensure the scheme under subsection (1) is delivered in every local authority.

(5) For the purposes of this section “unpaid carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a National Respite Care Scheme.

New clause 89—Duty of health bodies to provide information and advice to carers—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make provision for an information and support service for unpaid carers.

(2) The service under subsection (1) must include—

(a) provision for an unpaid carer to access information regarding recommended care and treatment needs for the person for whom they are caring,

(b) information about services, support and assistance available from the National Health Service to assist unpaid carers in their caring role,

(c) information about the availability of support for unpaid carers provided by local authorities,

(d) information about support available to promote and maintain the health, wellbeing and resilience of unpaid carers,

(e) information about arrangements for obtaining advice, training, advocacy or peer support relevant to unpaid carers’ caring role, and

(f) any other provisions which the Secretary of State considers appropriate for supporting unpaid carers in relation to their delivery of care.

(3) In exercising the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must prioritise proactive identification of unpaid carers and ensuring that information and advice is accessible, proportionate and appropriate to the needs of unpaid carers.

(4) In exercising the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to an unpaid carer’s willingness and ability to provide care.

(5) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that unpaid carers are made aware of the information and advice available under this section.

(6) For the purposes of this section, ‘unpaid carer’ has the meaning given to ‘carer’ in section 10 of the Care Act 2014.”

This new clause would create a duty for the Secretary of State to provide certain information and advice to unpaid carers.

[Dr Chambers]

I will speak to new clauses 16, 17 and 18 together. They relate to the duty on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Certainly, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, and having been a carer myself—like many people in this room—I have a particular interest in the mental health of carers. Sometimes we forget that, as well as the patient, the carer also needs a huge amount of support, as what they do can be very draining.

Unpaid carers are essential to the sustainability of the NHS and social care system, but carers consistently experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes than non-carers, and frequently struggle to access support for their own health needs. There are approximately 4.7 million unpaid carers in England. They provide support valued at an estimated £152 billion annually—equivalent to the annual NHS budget.

Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The GP patient survey 2025 showed that 72% of carers report a long-term condition or disability compared with 61% of non-carers. The Office for National Statistics reports that one in four adults providing unpaid care described being in “not good health”, compared with one in five adults who are not providing unpaid care. The probability of reporting being in “not good health” was higher for people providing more hours of unpaid care. Some 49% of unpaid carers reported at least one adverse health effect from providing that care. Low mental wellbeing was more common among unpaid carers, at about 20%, than among those not providing unpaid care, at 15%.

An academic study analysing GP patient survey data found that, for those caring for more than 50 hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to losing 18 days of full health every year. A study has also found that carers cancel medical treatments and appointments because nobody is available to step into their caring role, and that, because of their caring responsibilities, carers cannot find appointments at times when they can attend.

A more targeted approach to support unpaid carers could help to prevent the onset of deteriorating carer health and wellbeing as a result of their caring roles. Although ICBs have broad duties relating to population health and inequalities, there is currently no explicit statutory duty requiring ICBs to improve the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers specifically.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend. I heard audible voices of approval for that point. I think that when any of us know or encounter children, whether it be in our own circle or when we visit schools in our constituency, we are very much struck by those who are at school and are themselves caring. I think most schools do a tremendous job where they recognise that. Often children, like adults, do not want to inform their school or local people that that is what they are doing—they are very proud—and perhaps the person they are caring for does not know how to do that. I have certainly seen in my constituency schools starting to recognise and support the needs of those children, in a way that is dignified and respecting of privacy.

I did allude to some of the work that we are doing across Government, including with the Department for Education, to recognise, and to find ways to support, those young people, many of whom want to support their loved ones. I think we have all seen great ways to support them. When we are addressing young children in classrooms, I am always conscious of the need to think about the circumstances in which we are talking to them. There are a lot of teenage carers as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is absolutely right to highlight that.

More broadly, apart from data sharing and addressing barriers, the My Carer section of the NHS app will allow people to securely prove that they are providing care. That will streamline the care responsibilities of carers significantly—again, that can be done without having to confront the situation in public, if that is what people want—while giving them a means to seek advice or reassurance directly from a range of professionals when they need it.

I am also not convinced that the challenge of providing effective support would be solved by an additional legal duty. The existing legal framework already requires the system to support carers, including through the provision of information and advice. As the Committee has discussed, practical steps are what is needed. Progress is being made locally through issuing practical toolkits to help hospitals implement their legal duties under the Health and Care Act 2022. This year, the Government will also commission the better care fund support programme, led by the Local Government Association, to work with the NHS and social care partners to strengthen their approach to involving unpaid carers in discharge planning.

New clause 18 would establish a national respite care scheme. The Government do not feel that that is necessary, as the legal framework already provides rights for carers to access support, including respite services. Under the Care Act 2014, where a carer appears to have support needs, whether those are current or in the future, local authorities are required to carry out a carer’s assessment. Where carers have eligible needs, local authorities have duties and powers to meet them. That establishes a framework where needs assessments and subsequent care planning focuses on the individual and their circumstances, rather than prescribing a particular service or solution. In other words, respite care is already one of the many forms of care and support that might be offered as part of the process, where it is appropriate to meet the needs of the individual carer.

Funding and mechanisms are in place to enable local areas to deliver support for carers. Under the better care fund framework, there is £9 billion for integrated care boards and local authorities to make joint plans and to pool budgets to deliver better, joined-up care. In developing their better care fund plans, ICBs and local authorities should consider how pooled funding can help the NHS and local authorities to meet duties on unpaid carers, including around short breaks and respite services.

The Government are also making available more than £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, to support the sector to make improvements. Local areas will determine how best to use the money to support carers, depending on local need and with reference to their statutory responsibilities.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw new clause 16, and hon. Members not to press new clauses 17, 18 and 89 to a vote.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank Committee members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke particularly well and emotively—I know that he worked for Dementia UK before entering Parliament. My mother was a carer for my father, who had dementia, and my sister and I gave her respite care, although probably not enough of it. I know that many Committee members will have been in a similar situation, as it is a common disease, and it is becoming increasingly common. I also thank the Minister for her comments and reassurance.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a point about children being carers. I sat on the Mental Health Bill Committee last year, and to give an example of how impactful such Committees can be, it is now a requirement, as a result of the Committee’s consideration, to identify whether mental health patients have children who are carers. That was not the case before, and we appreciated the Government engaging with us on that issue. It is often teenagers who care for adults with severe mental health issues, but they were not even identified before, so they could not be given the support they required. That has changed now, and it is fantastic to see that, through Committee scrutiny, we can make a tangible difference to people’s lives.

I will not press new clauses 16 and 17 to votes, but the Liberal Democrats do think that it would be sensible and impactful to establish a national respite care scheme, so I will press new clause 18 to a Division. On new clause 16, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18

National Respite Care Scheme

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme.

(2) The scheme under subsection (1) must make provision for—

(a) a local authority carrying out a carer’s assessment under section 10 of the Care Act 2014 to be required to consider whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring responsibilities.

(b) unpaid carers to receive support to take breaks from their caring responsibilities to—

(i) maintain their physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing,

(ii) participate in work, education, training or recreation, and

(iii) participate in family and community life.

(c) a carer to receive appropriate support if a local authority carrying out an assessment under subsection (2)(a) determines that a carer is unable to take sufficient breaks from caring.

(3) Under subsection (2), ‘support’ may include—

(a) replacement care for the cared-for person;

(b) respite services;

(c) any other steps a local authority considers appropriate as support.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient support to local authorities to ensure the scheme under subsection (1) is delivered in every local authority.

(5) For the purposes of this section ‘unpaid carer’ has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a National Respite Care Scheme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Appeals against health and social care provision in EHC plans

“(1) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1530) are amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) After regulation 42, insert—

‘42A Other matters relating to EHC plans against which appeals may be brought

(1) In addition to the matters set out in section 51(2) of the Act, a child’s parent or a young person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the matters set out in paragraph (2), subject to section 55 of the Act (mediation).

The matters are—

(a) a decision of a local authority, following an EHC needs assessment, that it is not necessary for health care provision or social care provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan;

(b) where an EHC plan is maintained for the child or young person—

(i) the child’s or young person’s health care or social care needs as specified in the plan;

(ii) the health care provision or social care provision specified in the plan.’

(3) In regulation 43 (appeals), after paragraph (2) insert—

‘(3) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c);

(b) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d).

(4) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) the health care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) are amended;

(b) the social care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) are amended;

(c) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) where those needs have not been specified in the plan; and

(d) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) where those needs have not been specified in the plan.

(5) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g);

(b) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h).

(6) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—

(a) the health care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) is amended;

(b) the social care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) is amended;

(c) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan; and

(d) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan.

(7) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of health care needs or health care provision, it must send a copy of the order to the responsible commissioning body.

(8) When sending a copy of an order, the First-tier Tribunal may also send a copy of the decision which disposes of any appeal brought under section 51(1) of the Act or under regulation 42A to the responsible commissioning body.

(9) The responsible commissioning body must respond within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order to—

(a) the child's parent or the young person, and

(b) the local authority that maintains the EHC plan.

(10) The time limit specified in paragraph (9) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply for the responsible commissioning body's response.

(11) A response under paragraph (9) must—

(a) be in writing,

(b) state what steps, if any, the responsible commissioning body has decided to take following its consideration of the order, and

(c) give reasons for any decision not to follow the order, or any part of it.

(12) The local authority must send a copy of the response received from the responsible commissioning body under paragraph (9)(b) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date it was received.

(13) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of social care needs or social care provision, the local authority must issue the amended EHC plan to the child's parent or the young person within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order.

(14) The time limit specified in paragraph (13) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply.

(15) The local authority must send a copy of the amended EHC plan under paragraph (13) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date on which this is issued to the child's parent or the young person.’

(4) The Special Educational Needs and Disability (First-tier Tribunal Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1306) are revoked.

(5) In consequence of the revocation made by subsection (3), the following 15 provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 are also revoked—

(a) regulation 10(3)(e);

(b) regulation 14(2)(e);

(c) regulation 201(11)(e);

(d) regulation 21(10)(e);

(e) regulation 22(5)(e);

(f) regulation 25(2)(e); and

(g) regulation 31(3)(e).”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause extends the powers of the First-tier Tribunal so that when it is determining an appeal it may order that Education, Health and Care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on these matters.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Chambers]

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

New clause 28, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, extends the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when it determines an appeal, it may order that education, health and care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters.

I am sure all Members are probably in a similar situation in that EHCPs, in their various forms, are one of the main reasons we get contacted by constituents; they certainly fill up my inbox. Following the Education Committee’s report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”, which identified significant gaps in accountability and engagement from the DHSC and health services in the special educational needs and disabilities—or SEND—system, the Health and Social Care Committee held a one-off evidence session to build on those findings, looking at the delivery of the health aspects of EHCPs.

The Health and Social Care Committee followed up a recommendation that the Education Committee had made that the powers of the SEND tribunal service should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. SEND tribunals are independent national tribunals that decide appeals against local authority decisions about the special educational needs of children and young people, including decisions made about an EHCP. Currently, they can make binding recommendations in relation to education provision, but not in relation to health and social care needs.

The Education Committee argued:

“This would ensure that when a failure to deliver a health provision specified in an EHC plan occurs, health bodies are legally obligated to take corrective action.”

When the Health and Social Care Committee raised that with witnesses in its evidence session, several were supportive of placing this duty in legislation, although they noted that it would require other reforms to workforce and commissioning arrangements to be successful. New clause 28 would provide a level playing field between education bodies and ICBs, so that ICBs are also under a legal obligation to comply with recommendations from SEND tribunals.

[Dr Johnson]

I should say that I am a member of the Education Committee. As the hon. Member for Winchester says, new clause 28 would extend the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when determining an appeal, it may order that EHCPs must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters.

It is clearly important that children with special educational needs get the support they need. We are all very aware, from our inboxes, that that does not always happen. I do not know whether putting this into legislation would make it happen, or whether it would need much more work than one clause, but clearly it is a very important aim and I support the principle of it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how she thinks this could work in practice and whether it is legislation or a more widespread plan that is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for going to hear directly from her constituents. She is right: that message is fairly consistent. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and I played a pivotal role in bringing our ICB and local authorities together as local Members of Parliament. That was a result of our experience with parents and constituents. Members of Parliament from across the House—this is not a party political point—can bring parents together to highlight this issue and use parliamentary power to bring together organisations that sometimes do not listen or know the best way to communicate. Our role in that has been pivotal. The Secretary of State for Education has taken that learning forward across the country.

That is why we are taking the steps to deliver the programme. ICBs have been asked to work with local authorities to develop local SEND reform plans. Those plans will lay the foundation for long-term reform, enabling ongoing monitoring of progress, and draw on knowledge, skills and lived experience held locally. That builds on work that is under way to improve accountability and set expectations of joint working, which is what parents and families expected to happen, but was not happening. Each ICB is expected to have an executive lead on SEND. The NHS medium-term planning framework for the next three years made it clear that ICBs and providers must meet their statutory duties and support delivery of the reforms.

Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission will continue to check how local services, including health, work together for children and young people and hold them accountable. We will also update the SEND code of practice and publish new guidance so that local SEND partnerships have clearer expectations to work to. That is why we have not proposed changes to health and social care appeals to the SEND tribunal or made the decisions binding. This reflects the need for ICBs and NHS providers to retain the flexibility to plan services across their wider populations and prioritise support according to clinical and population need. This aligns with our commitment in the 10-year health plan to create a new NHS operating model where ICBs are the strategic commissioners of local healthcare services. It is worth noting that while tribunal decisions on health and care are non-binding, local authorities and ICBs are expected to follow them, and in most cases do. If they do not follow recommendations, they must send a response setting out the next steps they have decided to take and why.

There is no doubt that health and social care have crucial roles in SEND reforms, with shared ambitions across education, health and care for earlier intervention and support. I reassure the Committee that we are exploring further opportunities to strengthen accountability, as stated in the SEND consultation document. We are considering responses to the consultation, which closed on 18 May, and will set out our next steps in due course. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank everyone for their comments. I thank the Minister for her reassurances on the seriousness of this issue. Given that we are waiting for the response to the report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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

NHS Corridor Care

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for setting out so brilliantly, with her professional expertise and human touch, what it means for corridor care to be a normal habit across the NHS in all parts of the country—not just in the winter, with winter pressures, but throughout the year. She made many good points, and I hope I can add some context with the stories I have gathered in Mid Sussex, from constituents who have experienced corridor care first-hand, whether as patients or staff. They have shared some of the most frightening, painful and vulnerable moments of their lives with me. First, I thank them, and to those whose stories I cannot share today due to a lack of time, I apologise.

Many of those people wanted the House to be told one thing before anything else: the staff who cared for them were extraordinary. They spoke of nurses who never stopped smiling despite being exhausted, doctors who apologised because they knew patients deserved better, and paramedics who stayed compassionate under impossible pressure. One constituent arrived at the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath after falling and breaking both a shoulder and a kneecap. It was a Friday night, and A&E was overflowing. After X-rays, they spent hours on a trolley in a corridor beside the nurses’ station because there was nowhere else for them to go. They told me that the nurses were attentive and kind throughout the night. They checked in constantly and did everything they could. However, kindness cannot create another treatment cubicle, compassion cannot magic up another doctor, and dedication cannot create a bed that is simply not there.

Another constituent, Chris Philpot, shared an experience that I found impossible to forget. Following a ruptured appendix and serious complications, he spent 19 hours on a trolley in the corridor at the Royal Sussex county hospital. During that time, he watched an elderly lady have her blood pressure taken while resting her arm on his leg because there was nowhere else to support it. No privacy, no dignity—that is not the standard of care patients should expect in modern Britain.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has just highlighted a point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). That kind of experience causes concern not only for its lack of dignity, but for infection control, antimicrobial resistance and hospital-acquired infections. That kind of treatment not only has a lack of dignity, but can be lethal. That is a huge public health issue, which my hon. Friend’s specific example highlights.

[Alison Bennett]

I agree with my hon. Friend. What we see time and again is that one problem becomes another until eventually the patient pays the price. My constituent, Catherine Jeater, has seen corridor care as a patient and as a relative of a patient. She watched her father being treated for appendicitis in an emergency department that was so overcrowded that patients were double-parked on trolleys, changing into hospital gowns in full view of strangers. Months later, while undergoing chemotherapy herself, she attended the Princess Royal hospital with a chest infection. Because she was immunocompromised, she should have been isolated. Instead, she received intravenous antibiotics sitting on a chair in a corridor, because no cubicles were available. She told me the staff were amazing, but she also made it clear that amazing staff should never have to work in those conditions

Perhaps the most difficult responses I have received were from the healthcare professionals themselves. One doctor told me that they regularly examine patients in corridors. Another said that corridor care is not just an A&E problem, and that it is now normal for people to be on trolleys in non-clinical areas throughout the hospital. That means there are no curtains to provide privacy, no piped oxygen and no name above the bed, and patient safety is inevitably compromised. A senior nurse described to me the moral injury that they and their colleagues face every day, having to try to deliver the best care possible in terrible conditions, all the while apologising for something that is beyond their power to fix. They have to do that every single day. I am not personally enjoying this third heat wave, but imagine A&E departments without air conditioning: they become furnaces. Imagine trying to treat incredibly frail patients when the temperature in a corridor is 40°C. Another clinician wrote something that stopped me in my tracks. They said that corridor care had become so common that they were teaching medical students and junior doctors how to provide it—and that is not just during winter pressures, but all year round.

This should trouble every single one of us. We are training the next generation of clinicians to adapt to something that should never have become normal in the first place. The real danger is not simply that corridor care exists, and not that we begin to accept it, but that we shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves that this is just how the NHS works now. The solutions are not easy—hospitals cannot fix this on their own—but we do need to get it right. We need to invest in capacity, in workforce, in social care, and in reducing waiting lists so that treatable conditions do not turn into emergencies.

Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

For over 50 years, there has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system. The creation of Healthwatch was, in part, a direct response to the issues raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs. In a 2024 Healthwatch poll, almost a quarter of NHS patients said that they had experienced poor care in the past year, but 56% of them—more than half—took no action. Of that 56%, 20% said that that was because they were scared that giving negative feedback directly to NHS services would affect their ongoing treatment. Women, people living in areas of greater deprivation, disabled people and unpaid carers were significantly more likely to give the fear of retribution as a reason for not speaking up.

The Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to an independent body and express how the NHS can work better for them, patients will now be able only to give feedback to the same organisation that might have failed them. I have had experience of that in the past few weeks. My partner Emma has endometriosis, which has been an ongoing condition. She was worried that speaking to the local hospital trust specifically about the treatment she received might affect her treatment going forward.

The Government have argued that the changes will bring patient insight closer to decision making, making it much more effective at securing change. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that patients do not need “ventriloquists”. That blatantly disregards the vital role played by Healthwatch in advocating not only for vulnerable patients who, understandably, do not feel confident navigating health services with often complex or combative systems, but for whole communities with a pre-existing distrust of the system.

We believe that removing Healthwatch leaves the health service to mark its own homework, which creates a conflict of interest. It will significantly undermine public trust, as independence is removed. Will vulnerable people who have suffered harm or poor experiences in the health and care system really have faith in a system headed by a director in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is the very organisation running the system that caused them harm in the first place? On a local level, will they have faith going to the same ICB that oversees the providers that have failed them? One need only look at the long list of maternity failings in Mid Staffs to see that internal functions can fail catastrophically. We know all too well that the NHS default is sometimes to cover up. The public knows that, too, so independence is everything.

Healthwatch has been keen in spotting and exposing challenges in the health service, such as widespread failures in the NHS referral process, yet there will be no incentive for the new system to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main NHS performance metrics. The system does not always know what questions it needs to ask, so an independent route for unsolicited feedback is important. We also think that the provisions disadvantage hard-to-reach communities and those who may have a distrust towards the NHS and public authorities, making it harder to gain the feedback and concerns of those communities. That risks inadvertently further baking in inequalities.

More widely, clarity has not yet been provided on how those functions will be funded. The reform is coming alongside major reductions in ICB running costs. Healthwatch currently receives almost £26 million a year; that is already 60% less in real terms than the original DHSC estimate to fund the network. There is a risk that the money will be absorbed into wider budgets and never spent on the patient experience infrastructure. If people want to see the value of Healthwatch, they need look no further than the Cabinet Office briefing notes on the King’s Speech, which reference a May 2025 Healthwatch report on missing medical records to make the case for the single patient record.

Fundamentally, the Government are conflating patient voice with patient involvement in decision making. While greater patient voice in commissioning and decision making is needed, it is not a replacement for the advocacy and other functions of Healthwatch, which helps vulnerable people to navigate a complex health and care system and performs signposting functions. Splitting local healthwatch functions across ICBs and local authorities once again separates health and care and reinforces existing gaps between them. As we know, many issues span both areas and need a joined-up investigative approach. How will the new model ensure a joined-up view of people’s experiences across the NHS and social care? We urge the Minister to reconsider this decision. We have seen overwhelming support for Healthwatch across the sector, and it is becoming increasingly clear that many people in the NHS and the medical profession think that this is a huge mistake.

Healthwatch England has played a central role in escalating the findings of local healthwatch organisations and in advocating nationally. We have three examples. The first is the call to publish research highlighting inequalities in waiting times for disadvantaged groups, and for a demographic breakdown of waiting lists, which the NHS obliged with last summer. The second example arose after Healthwatch Sunderland supported a patient with a learning disability who had received accessible screening information but risked missing care because of inaccessible follow-up letters. Healthwatch England raised that gap with national bodies and highlighted inconsistencies in communication, and, as a result, the national easy-read templates were introduced across the cancer pathway, which improved accessibility and reduced risk. The third example is that Healthwatch feeds back patients’ horrific stories of corridor care—including that of a pensioner who was left in a corridor—to NHS leaders, and lobbies for increased transparency and oversight when it comes to corridor care.

I have several questions in three forms. Is the Minister genuinely sure that a director of patient experience in DHSC will be eager to advocate for patients and flag issues at a national level given that they will essentially be flagging to their bosses where work is not up to scratch? Is she sure that the level of persistence that has so often been needed to advocate for change at a national level would be forthcoming from a director employed by DHSC? What will be the mechanism for escalating local concerns that indicate national or systemic issues?

Will the Minister explain where the Government envision the new director sitting in the DHSC structure, and what the reporting lines will be? How will the Government ensure that they have the resources and sense of operational independence to investigate and raise concerns nationally? Healthwatch England has often flagged issues to MPs and to the Health and Social Care Committee as a way of applying pressure on NHS leaders and Ministers to enact change.

[Joe Robertson]

I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and the hon. Member is absolutely right to say that Healthwatch England raises issues with us. When the Department assumes those roles and functions, I very much doubt that it will be as keen to disclose such issues to the Committee.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman must have read the next line of my speech. We are concerned that a DHSC employee appearing before that Committee will not clearly and openly state whether DHSC is failing.

New clause 78

“would ensure that Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations are funded to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care”

in 2013-14. We do not just want to protect Healthwatch; we want to strengthen it. As I mentioned, it receives almost £26 million a year, which is spread over 153 organisations. In real terms, that is about 60% less than the £43.5 million that DHSC originally estimated would be needed to fund the network. The Healthwatch network does such amazing work—I will not go through it all again—despite being underfunded compared with those original estimates. Imagine the work it could do if it was adequately funded.

Even more worryingly, there is still no clarity on how Healthwatch’s functions will be funded once they have been transferred to the new system. Given the ongoing constraints and cuts to ICB running costs, there is a real risk that the funding for Healthwatch will simply end up being incorporated into wider ICB budgets, and money for the patient experience infrastructure could end up being cut entirely. The new clause aims to ensure that the Healthwatch network is properly funded, but it also raises the point that, if this change is to go through, funding for patient experience infrastructure must be protected. Otherwise, the Bill risks not just weakening patient experience, but removing it altogether as the funding gets swallowed by wider NHS operational demands.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell.

Healthwatch was established, at least in part, as a response to the Mid Staffs scandal. Mid Staffs came up three times in our evidence sessions, and the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned it just now. That scandal matters to everyone, but it has a particular resonance for my role in Parliament. Many of my constituents were harmed by the failing at Mid Staffs. I was born in that hospital, and I speak as a Staffordshire MP. None of us should ever forget what happened or allow it to be swept aside without examining it. There were a great many failings at Mid Staffs over a long period. Oversight was just not in the room when decisions were being made.

Staffordshire county council’s health and care overview and scrutiny committee clearly did not do that job. The Francis report stated:

“The arrangements for public and patient involvement, and for local government scrutiny in Stafford, were a conspicuous failure.”

The report recommended some changes to ensure that Healthwatch, which was in the process of being set up at the time, was funded properly. In that light, the framing of this debate is important and timely. Healthwatch has been going for well over a decade. It is right that we now examine its impact, as it is a significant part of patient voice within the NHS.

Despite the very best efforts of a great many hard-working staff and an army of committed volunteers across the country, the quality of local healthwatch organisations is pretty changeable. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. The feedback that I have received has ranged from, “My local healthwatch team is brilliant— I work with them really closely and they have really helped out with a huge amount; they deliver great things in my constituency” all the way to, “I have some pretty significant concerns about their impact.” In a couple of cases I heard, “What is Healthwatch? I have never heard of it.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her response. Given the commitments that she has made, I do not intend to press the new clauses, but I hope she will be able to come back to us on Report with some more concrete progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Assessment of risks posed by contracts with non-UK based suppliers

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK.

(2) In conducting an assessment under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) pay particular regard to contracts which provide technology companies with access to confidential patient data;

(b) consult national security experts on the risks posed to UK sovereignty by such contracts;

(c) consider risks associated with the sharing of confidential patient data with organisations based outside of the UK;

(d) assess public and NHS staff attitudes to relevant suppliers and any implications such attitudes may have on the use and effectiveness of products or services provided under the contract; and

(e) consider the background of relevant suppliers, known contracts with other states and organisations, and any relevant ethical considerations.

(3) Where any significant risk is identified, the Secretary of State must set out the Government’s intentions to manage and mitigate such risks, including its intention to use or develop domestic technologies, systems or products in place of those provided under the relevant contract.”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require the Government to publish a risk assessment of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Chambers]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic suppliers—

“In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert—

‘1CD Duty to prioritise domestic suppliers

(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health and care service, the Secretary of State must prioritise the awarding of any contract that will involve the handling of NHS patient data to suppliers based in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Secretary of State may only seek to procure technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data from suppliers based outside of the United Kingdom where a viable domestic alternative does not exist.

(3) Before signing any contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) patient groups,

(b) national security experts, and

(c) staff unions,

on the proposed contract and lay a report on such a consultation before Parliament.

(4) Where it is proposed to sign a contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must arrange for a motion agreeing to the signing of such a contract to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and no such contract may be signed where a motion for its agreement is negatived by either House of Parliament.

(5) If a contract is awarded for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must place a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out whether the Government is taking, or is planning to take, steps to develop or support long-term domestic alternatives to the systems provided by the contract.’”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based, suppliers for technology systems and contracts handling NHS patient data, and places restrictions on the signing of contracts for such systems with non-UK based suppliers.

New clause 5—NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy (‘an NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy’) which sets out the Government's approach to maintaining the security and resilience of relevant NHS information systems by—

(a) assessing, managing and mitigating risks—

(i) associated with foreign interference,

(ii) arising from reliance on foreign-supplied technologies, and

(b) preventing over-reliance on foreign providers by building domestic capacity.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant information system’ is an information system with access to NHS patient data.

(3) An NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy published under this section must—

(a) include risks associated with—

(i) hardware,

(ii) software,

(iii) supply chains, and

(iv) procurement processes;

(b) include a specific focus on security and resilience in digital procurement processes, detailing how the Government intends to reduce strategic dependencies on foreign-owned service providers to mitigate the risk of systemic disruption;

(c) include a commitment to prioritise the use of technologies developed in the UK by UK organisations in relevant information systems to reduce reliance on foreign technologies;

(d) recommend steps to support and develop sufficient domestic capability where it does not currently exist;

(e) where risks are identified, state how the Government intends to address these risks by supporting the use or development of domestic technologies or systems.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy setting out how it intends to address risks to relevant information systems posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies, including by supporting the use of domestic technologies.

New clause 9—Retendering of contract for the NHS Federated Data Platform—

“The Secretary of State must, before February 2027, commence a competitive retendering for the contract to provide the NHS Federated Data Platform.”

New clause 10—NHS contracting for IT or data services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by regulations establish a governance framework for the contracting of any IT or data services by the Department of Health and Social Care or any NHS organisation.

(2) The framework established under subsection (1) must include the following provisions—

(a) a party may not bid for any contract for services where such services have previously been provided by the party on a free trial basis;

(b) the automatic extension of contracts should be subject to audit by the National Audit Office;

(c) contract terms must include provision for the department or NHS organisation to take ownership of any bespoke system built or developed by the contractor during the delivery of the contract;

(d) the department or NHS organisation must, at the end of the contract period (or following any extensions) conduct a competitive retendering process; and

(e) where a retendering process takes place under subsection (2)(d), the contractor may not assist in the preparation of the contract specification.

(3) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.”

New clause 43—Data obligations—

“A contract given in relation to the provision of NHS services must include an obligation to provide data under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to that contract and to the patients served.”

This new clause would oblige those receiving contracts to provide NHS services to make available FOI data in relation to the patients covered by the contract and the contract itself.

[Dr Chambers]

New clauses 3 to 5 are related to the publication of risk assessments of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside the UK. They would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based suppliers in the case of technology systems and contracts involving the handling of NHS patient data, and place restrictions on the signing of such contracts with non-UK-based suppliers. New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy setting out how they intend to address risks to relevant information systems posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies, including by supporting the use of domestic technologies.

We had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject recently. The lack of transparency in how some contracts are awarded is one of the central concerns about Palantir’s involvement with the NHS. We are particularly concerned about the national security considerations of offshoring the whole of our nation’s health data to any foreign company, which makes us vulnerable to political and economic changes in other countries, but especially to companies of questionable integrity in an increasingly authoritarian jurisdiction with little respect for privacy and sovereignty. We should all be worried that our health data has been so closely linked with such an organisation, which has shown itself all too eager to work closely with Donald Trump’s Administration. We know that his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been using health data to identify people’s immigration status, and there is a lot of concern that people are not coming forward for medical treatment as a result. Doctors and patients have already voted with their feet and shown that they do not trust Palantir and its system for this very reason, which is also a key reason for the limited uptake of the federated data platform so far.

As such, we have tabled various new clauses to try to address those concerns, to ensure that they do not plague the single patient record, which we absolutely support and want to help the Government to deliver, along with any other vital technology or data system. New clause 3 would ensure that a risk assessment is conducted of all non-UK tech and data suppliers, with particular regard for national security. It is centrally important that doctors and patients trust the systems that hold their health data and that, as a country, we trust them to be safe and secure. We should not trust rogue actors with our nation’s health information. New clause 5 deals with how we mitigate that risk. It would require the Government to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy, setting out how they intend to address the risks of foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies.

Our potential answer to both those questions lies in new clause 4, which would prioritise domestic suppliers that handle sensitive or confidential NHS data. We recognise that that will not always be possible, but where domestic capability does not exist and it is therefore necessary to work with foreign suppliers, to ensure the transparency and effective oversight of a contract with a foreign supplier, it must be brought before Parliament. Should a contract be signed with a non-UK supplier, it would also be subject to consultation with patient groups, national security experts and staff unions to make sure that the system is onside. If it is not, uptake of it will be stunted, as we have seen with the federated data platform.

[Gregory Stafford]

Obviously, I have sympathy for what the hon. Member is trying to achieve—ensuring that our data systems are free from potential hacking by either state or non-state actors is very important—but I cannot see anything in new clause 4 about the size of contracts. Does his suggestion relate to any contract, however small, that was given to a non-UK-based company? It is not clear what he means by a non-United Kingdom company. Is that one that is headquartered here, one that is listed on our stock exchange, or one that has a CEO who is a British citizen? I am not quite sure what he means by a UK-based company, but if we can define an outside-based one, is he saying that any contract of any size given to such a company will have to come to Parliament?

[Dr Chambers]

The size of the contract would be pretty much irrelevant; what matters is the implications arising from the contract being signed. Does a contract potentially compromise our data sovereignty? Alternatively, if a contract failed for any reason, whether it was because of the action of a state actor or a non-state actor, would the service continue to function?

[Dr Prinsley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking my intervention and I am sorry that it is late in the afternoon. The question we are faced with is this: what is the best system to serve our patients? If the best system turns out to be a system that is procured from another country, would he in principle always object to that?

[Dr Chambers]

I would not always object to that, because the whole point of the new clause is that such a contract would come to Parliament and then might well be approved if it turned out to be the best system and in our national interest. The thrust of all three new clauses is to ensure that we do not get exposed and make ourselves vulnerable, which could affect the functioning of the NHS and compromise people’s data. A future Government could set up their own AI system in the UK. How would data be used by that system? We are looking at future-proofing people’s privacy and future-proofing the ability of our country to deliver a service properly.

There is also an economic opportunity. We should always prioritise domestic suppliers where possible, and even cultivate them, and help them to innovate and develop, because spending potentially tens of millions of pounds with foreign companies will not do anything to grow our own economy. Given the world-beating talent in our country, we see no reason why the long-term effect of domestic options to foreign systems could not be developed with sufficient Government support. As such, where a contract is signed with a foreign supplier, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to support domestic alternatives. We recognise the complexities involved with NHS procurement, and our new clauses represent one vision built on the core principles of domestic resilience and digital sovereignty.

I have a few questions for the Minister, which I would appreciate some comments on. How do the Government intend to build trust in the single patient record to make sure that it is not undermined, rather like the federated data platform has been? Does the Minister agree that the poor reputation of Palantir and distrust has been an important element in the slow roll-out of the federated data platform? Has she considered undertaking a risk assessment with a national security focus of current NHS digital and tech contracts? Does she agree that, in an ever more turbulent world, building domestic capability in this area is central to the security of our country?

Does the Minister agree that the domestic life sciences and tech sector is more than capable of developing and scaling many of the systems that we rely on foreign companies for at the moment? The Government have very much positioned AI and technology as the NHS’s white knight. We agree that the potential is huge, but do the Government not think that the NHS needs a long-term digital strategy to support a joined-up development and roll-out of these systems and technology? An analogy to this is how the defence investment plan and future defence procurement can help prioritise and boost economic growth in the UK. We think this is another way that economic growth could be nurtured.

[Dr Johnson]

I rise to discuss new clauses 3 to 5 and 43, which I am sure that the Whips will not let me forget. I understand the sentiment behind the Liberal Democrat new clauses. The hon. Member for Winchester is keen to ensure that uses of NHS data are limited to uses for which people can consent, uses in relation to their care or specifically approved research. Having heard examples of this data being tracked or leaked by accident, the hon. Gentleman is keen to ensure that that does not happen. He is particularly concerned about the risk of that happening in another jurisdiction where we have less control of the system. I am not sure that the new clauses have been properly thought through, however.

New clause 3 says:

“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK.”

That is “all contracts”. In subsection (2), it says that the Secretary of State must “pay particular regard” to contracts with technology companies, but not only to those. I am being a bit pedantic here, but has the hon. Member for Winchester considered the wording of “all contracts”? The NHS does not just provide drugs and medical technology; it provides bedding, blankets, pillows, bananas for people to eat at lunchtime, bedpans and loo roll. There is a whole range of things procured as supplies by the NHS that may or may not be procured from overseas. It would be cumbersome and completely unnecessary to include all of those.

Even with the tech companies themselves, there is a risk for small contracts for small pieces of tech to create a huge amount of bureaucracy. I am not sure that it would specifically improve data quality or data protection. It is reasonable that the Minister would consider risk assessments, and I hope that she would automatically consider them before contracts that are particularly sensitive or contain patient data, but I am not sure that the new clause works.

Moving on to new clauses 4 and 5, the hon. Member talked about Palantir. It may even have been his intention for these new clauses to target one specific American firm, but the actual impact would erect costly barriers to trade. The NHS contracts IT functions to firms based in other countries when the business case is strong. It uses Microsoft, an American company that offers software, cloud services and Outlook for emails; Oracle for standardising and automating financial processes; Sectra, a Swedish company, for transferring medical images and reports; and Dedalus, an Italian company, for migrating services to the cloud. To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, should the NHS prioritise a British company over an international company if the service has better functionality and a lower cost and is safe?

The hon. Member for Winchester spoke about the vibrant life sciences and tech sector in this country, but if we close off our markets to those from overseas, will others not do the same? Would he want those life sciences companies to be unable to export? There is a barrier to free trade here.

[Dr Chambers]

This is not about closing off markets or shutting off the potential to use foreign companies if they are most appropriate. It is about prioritising and investing in UK technology and our economy to solve some of our domestic problems while also providing security. Saying that we are closing off domestic markets is misunderstanding the thrust of the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I think it is about balance. I agree that we need to ensure that the data is kept safely. Using British technology where we can is a good thing, but we have to be reasonable about it. For example, there are alternatives to Microsoft Outlook, but how much more would that cost the NHS and how much would it affect patient care? There is a balance to be struck. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in protecting our data. That is an extremely important issue, and I am sure the Minister will tell us about the work she is doing to ensure our data is kept safe.

New clause 43, in my name, is about private providers’ data. We often do freedom of information requests about, for example, surgical procedures, but one in 10 procedures are performed in private settings and are not subject to FOI, which means that less data is available to the public. Data from private independent providers is less transparent than that of standard NHS provision. This is a probing amendment to find out the Minister’s thoughts about how to ensure people can access transparent data on operations performed in local independent hospitals, particularly as the Government have signalled their intention towards more and more of those being provided.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. I recognise the concerns behind them. Contracts involving NHS data, digital services and technology must be subject to proper scrutiny. Patients expect their medical information to be protected, and NHS staff expect the systems that they use to be safe and reliable. The Government agree that Parliament should be entitled to test how those protections work.

I also want to be clear that the Government want British businesses to win more public contracts and build stronger UK capability in digital and technology. The Government are already using procurement to support British businesses, jobs, skills and national security. More than 90% of UK public contracts are currently awarded to UK suppliers, and the Government have set out reforms to make procurement do more to support British industry and supply chain resilience.

I do not think that new clause 3 is the right way to achieve proper scrutiny. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside the United Kingdom. That would include contracts regardless of the value—we heard a little about that from the Opposition—and of the services being provided, the type of data and whether there is evidence of any sort of concern. Risk is driven by the nature of the data involved, not just where the supplier is located. That is why the Government’s approach is based on targeted assessment and proportionate control.

We already have the tools we need in the Procurement Act 2023, which gives contracting authorities the powers to exclude suppliers and terminate contracts where the legal tests are met, including on national security grounds. They may also refer suppliers for a debarment investigation. The National Security Unit for Procurement supports Ministers in assessing suppliers on national security grounds, working closely with Departments and the intelligence community. In health and digital contracts, those procurement powers sit alongside data protection legislation and data protection impact assessments, in line with the digital, data and technology playbook. That is not an argument for complacency; we should continue to identify risks before procurement begins.

A broad duty of the kind in new clause 3 would risk becoming a reporting exercise and would not necessarily make the highest-risk contracts safer. It could, however, draw time and resource away from the assurance activities that matter most. The right approach is to strengthen the targeted controls, not to create a single statutory risk assessment covering every non-UK supplier.

Similarly, on new clause 4, a blanket “buy British” rule would not be the right test for NHS data contracts, although I hope that I have assured the hon. Member for Winchester that home-grown domestic products are absolutely what we are trying to focus on. The UK must treat suppliers from countries with reciprocal procurement access fairly. Our international obligations matter and are an important driver of the UK economy, including the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement, which gives British businesses guaranteed access to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities overseas annually.

As the hon. Member will understand, new clause 5 would require the Government to commit to a new programme of work to develop domestic capability, to reduce reliance on overseas suppliers of IT services and technology. The strategy would also require us to set out an approach to managing the risk associated with our current use of technology provided by overseas suppliers. I welcome the notion of encouraging domestic innovation to ensure the security and resilience of our IT infrastructure. However, ensuring the security of our data and the resilience of our systems is already embedded in everything we do. The new clause is therefore simply not necessary.

Hon. Members will accept that we want to see continued growth of digital and tech industries in this country; it is one of our real success stories. However, it will not be achieved by cutting across procurement law and not seeking the solutions that provide the best value for our money and the right service for the NHS. Our approach to securing the best IT and tech solutions should always be to seek the best on offer in a diverse, global market, not to prioritise based on location. Prioritising domestic providers means making a decision on grounds other than the quality, integrity or value for money of a solution.

I understand the concern behind new clause 43, which the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham spoke to. However, where public money is used to provide NHS services, there should be proper transparency about the contract, the service being delivered and the use of public funds. Patients and the public are entitled to expect that information is not placed beyond reach simply because a service is delivered through a contract. I do not think the new clause necessary, and I am concerned that it could create confusion about the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act already deals with information held by another person on behalf of the public authority. The key issue is not where the information physically sits. It does not matter whether it is held by the authority or by one of its commercial partners; what matters is whether it is held for the public authority’s purpose.

The Government agree with the principle of transparency, but new clause 5 would not improve the existing framework. It would risk duplicating duties that already exist, cutting across standard contract terms and creating uncertainty about patient information, which is rightly protected. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press the new clauses.

Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Winchester that we have already debated the single patient record. Public trust is key, and there will be multiple suppliers. We are bringing patients and the public with us and will continue to do so. The hon. Member asked about the FDP roll-out. I do not think it was about the supplier. I think it was about the money. It was about inertia in rolling out some good technology that provides good efficiency. It was also about capacity, capability and an attitude to productivity, which we absolutely need to drive more of.

[Dr Chambers]

I appreciate the Minister’s response and the comments of other Members, which were insightful as usual.

When we discussed whether carers could access parts of the single patient record, Members made very good points about privacy and historical health issues that a patient might not want a carer to know about. Those are very sensible concerns, but someone watching these proceedings or looking back over the record would think that there had been a lot more agonising over whether someone caring for a patient could access relevant information than over the potential systemic misuse of health information facilitated by private companies. A lot of people are worried about that when it comes to procurement, trust and sovereignty.

I thank the Minister for her comments on new clause 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic suppliers

“In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert—

‘1CD Duty to prioritise domestic suppliers

(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health and care service, the Secretary of State must prioritise the awarding of any contract that will involve the handling of NHS patient data to suppliers based in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Secretary of State may only seek to procure technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data from suppliers based outside of the United Kingdom where a viable domestic alternative does not exist.

(3) Before signing any contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) patient groups,

(b) national security experts, and

(c) staff unions,

on the proposed contract and lay a report on such a consultation before Parliament.

(4) Where it is proposed to sign a contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must arrange for a motion agreeing to the signing of such a contract to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and no such contract may be signed where a motion for its agreement is negatived by either House of Parliament.

(5) If a contract is awarded for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must place a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out whether the Government is taking, or is planning to take, steps to develop or support long-term domestic alternatives to the systems provided by the contract.’”—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based, suppliers for technology systems and contracts handling NHS patient data, and places restrictions on the signing of contracts for such systems with non-UK based suppliers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

This subject is of particular interest to me. For quite a few years I was a trustee of a charity that supported evidence-based medicine and quality improvement. The hon. Lady talked about a no-blame culture. We now tend to use the term “just culture” but it is the same kind of thing: we must have a safe space for people to come forward, like in the airline industry. We want to encourage reporting not only of mistakes but of near misses so that improvements can be delivered without tragic incidents having to take place. If we are to create a culture in which people will come forward to admit even potential mistakes and near misses, they cannot in any way fear punitive punishment under regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that folding HSSIB into the CQC will make it difficult to create a culture in which people feel confident enough to want to come forward with and overtly discuss mistakes and errors?

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. When someone comes forward, they need to have trust in the system. If they think that coming forward will harm their job or career, or perhaps their colleagues’, they may be more reluctant to do so. There is a difference between a mistake and a reckless act. If people behave recklessly and badly, that needs to be dealt with for the sake of accountability, but if an individual is aware of a mistake, or aware of a loophole through which a mistake could have been made if only something else had not happened at that moment, they need to come forward and say so. It would be much more difficult for them to do so if there was a culture of fear.

Dr Benneyworth made it clear to the Committee that

“we are still working in a culture of fear”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 24, Q40.]

and that makes it difficult for people to come forward. People come forward now because they know that HSSIB is independent, but they will be less likely to come forward when HSSIB is an office in the CQC that is independent in name only. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), said that

“people cannot sit at desks near other people who are making decisions and at the same time be perceived as entirely independent. The perception of independence cannot be legislated for—the perception is everything”.—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 915.]

Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I suppose this is another chance to use the developing single patient record to ensure that we close the gap. The record could be formed in such a way, and the process put in place, to ensure equity in the system, with mandatory markers.

Amendment 72, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require prior membership of the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior armed forces membership visible on the single patient record.

There are just over 1.85 million armed forces veterans in the UK, 13.6% of them women and 86.4% men. The transition from serving in the armed forces to civilian life can mean that many of those individuals struggle with mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The issues are often specific to the service the individuals have given. Some stats show that more than half of England’s Army veterans have some sort of health problem. I should point out that veterans do not only have mental health problems. Specific back and knee problems are much more common among infantry soldiers because of the type of training they have done over many years.

The amendment seeks to make prior armed forces membership visible to all relevant healthcare workers, and to make the Secretary of State consult on the merits of doing so, so that when a GP is treating a patient, they are aware of that person’s service history without having to ask about it specifically.

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

I have a couple of questions about amendment 71 for the hon. Member for Winchester. First, can he comment on why the amendment refers to firearms, which have stricter licensing conditions than shotguns? Also, the GP should be aware, because all relevant medical information should filter back to them, that the person has a firearms licence, which, as I say, has stricter criteria. It is essentially harder to get a firearms licence than a shotgun licence. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on that.

On amendment 72, I have a large veteran population in my constituency, and I am very grateful to all those who have put their lives on the line to keep us safe, both today and in the past. I can see that there may be benefits to the amendment in respect of the delivery of the armed forces covenant and aspects of veterans’ care, but I am curious about how it is written. Proposed new subsection (3A) of proposed new section 250E of the National Health Service Act 2006 says that

“regulations must make provision for prior membership…to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record”,

but proposed new subsection (3B) requires a report on the potential merits of doing that. It seems slightly counterintuitive to do it and then decide whether it is a good idea, rather than decide whether it is a good idea, consider the pros and cons, and then do it afterwards. I am interested to understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks the amendment is drafted in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention; I had not appreciated that. If that is true, the security and safety of the individual who holds the firearms licence, and indeed of anybody else in the vicinity, is paramount, and we generally would not want people to know precisely where guns are held, because that could be a security risk. I think the hon. Member for Winchester has the best of intentions, but the consequences have not been fully thought through.

[Dr Chambers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question, but if it is relevant, I will try to get back to her on it.

People applying for a licence must now indicate whether they have seen a medical practitioner other than their GP. The Government also intend to make a statutory instrument to require licence holders to inform the police if they consult a third-party medical practitioner who is not their GP.

The single patient record will build on and connect with information from GP source records where appropriate; no new provision is needed for that to happen. That process should be agreed as part of operational arrangements with the profession, in line with the current approach to markers in the GP record. If it is agreed that it would be beneficial for health and care professionals to have wider access to the firearms marker, the single patient record could facilitate that, but we do not intend to fill the Bill with detailed operational requirements such as that.

We do not believe that the SPR is the appropriate vehicle for having a debate about regulations requiring a report on the merits of a mandatory marker. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we should not expand the clearly defined scope of the single patient record—the scope is limited to direct care—to include a debate about what is stored more generally in NHS records. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw amendment 71.

On amendment 72, as I have already outlined, the single patient record will build on and connect with existing source records, such as GP or hospital records, wherever possible. Where a person’s status as a military veteran is recorded, it will be possible to make that information available in the single patient record. Therefore, the provisions already ensure that the information is made available, where veterans opt to have that status recorded—that addresses some of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. There is no need to make any statutory requirement to ensure that staff have that information and consider any necessary adjustments or potential treatment options that may be relevant to ensure safe and effective care.

In addition, the clause contains powers to make regulations to allow people involved in the provision of an individual’s direct care, including that of any veteran after they have left the military, to access their single patient record. We want the single patient record to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of care for everyone. That includes making sure that military veterans can access necessary support and that staff can provide them with appropriate care. Furthermore, duties in the Armed Forces Act 2006 require the NHS and local authorities to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, which, of course, I fully support. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester not to press amendment 72.

[Dr Chambers]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

(b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity,

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

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

(e) those considered lacking digital skills.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I have listened very carefully to people’s speeches, and it is important to say that we are debating that clause 47 stand part of the Bill. The clause creates the single patient record and, while many Opposition Members have justifiably and understandably asked how we will do this right and what safeguards we will have, it is important that what we are debating is that the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause creates the single patient record, and it creates the overarching ability for the NHS to use data better than it currently does. I am not a data scientist. I am a physicist by training, and I taught physics and worked in trade unions for a long time. Because of my training and my use of data, every group of people I have ever worked with invariably came up with nicknames for me, which usually boil down to “Data Dave”. There is something so valuable about being able to use aggregated values to tell us something that we do not already know.

One of the most valuable things we may get from this is that, when a clinician talks to a patient and they say or present something that does not match what is on the single patient record, it will raise a red flag that leads the clinician to realise something they would not have realised if they did not have access to notes previously taken elsewhere. I genuinely think that is one of the most valuable things that will come from this.

On a wider stage, the ability to aggregate data and properly track what is going on within the health service, and for people to be able to track what is going on with their care, with a wider view of what is going on, will be so valuable to clinicians and wider afield.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

Amendments 60 and 61 would introduce a primary care investment standard that required integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of their total programme healthcare funding. We have discussed the importance of primary care in previous sittings, so I will be brief now, because we have a lot to get through.

The primary care investment standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard. It would set a clear benchmark to which to hold the Secretary of State. Primary care is the very frontline of a health service, and it is vital to stop the rest of the health system becoming overburdened, with issues such as corridor care and long ambulance handovers often a direct result of the system’s failure properly to shift resources and focus into primary care and community care, so that we can catch diseases early and prevent people from going into hospital.

If people cannot get GP or dentist appointments, they turn up to A&E. That transfers the load to what is not only not the most efficient part of the NHS for dealing with routine issues, but the most expensive part of the NHS. That is hugely expensive, as well as not ideal for the individual. Although more than 90% of patients’ direct experience with the NHS is through primary care and GP practices, less than 10% of the NHS budget in England is spent on primary care.

Despite years of all Governments promising to shift patient care out of hospitals into the community, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on general practice has fallen to its lowest point in the past 10 years. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ 2025 practice manager survey revealed that although 61% of practice managers said that they need to expand the GP workforce to meet their patients’ needs, 62% said that the lack of funding in general practice is a major barrier preventing them from hiring the number of GPs they need.

It has been revealed that 22 out of 27 of the first round of neighbourhood health centres are already doing some of those functions; they are simply being rebadged and slightly expanded. We know that in the NHS, money is key, and there are constant important and competing demands for the limited amount of funding. Protecting funding streams for primary care would ensure that the Government actually provided the funds to back up their ambition of shifting care into the community. The benchmark that amendments 60 and 61 would set for the Government is modest, but it would have a huge impact if we could successfully transform the NHS by shifting care into the community. We hope that the Government will view this as a spend-to-save initiative as well. One question is always where the money comes from, but having fewer demands on A&E, the most expensive part of the NHS, would save money in the long run.

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

The amendments would introduce a primary care investment standard, requiring the ICBs to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of the total funding that they receive. The Secretary of State would be able to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply.

As the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not need to talk about the importance of primary care, because we all know it is very important and quite efficient. The Darzi report said that primary care is one of the most financially efficient parts of the NHS. The challenge is that demand is increasing across the whole system, and unless overall funding is increased, then giving primary care a bigger share must mean giving somebody else a smaller one.

My other concern is about how the hon. Gentleman thinks this will be measured. Is measuring inputs rather than outputs really the right way to run the health service? We have tested almost to destruction the idea of just giving more and more money, which I suppose is why the Government have introduced this Bill: to try to reform things and make them more efficient. We can argue about whether they are doing that well or not, but that is the thrust of what they are trying to do.

I think the idea behind the amendments is interesting, but I would be interested to hear more about how the hon. Member thinks the standard would work, and in particular whether he thinks it could be justified if there was huge unmet demand in the secondary care or mental health sector. The balance of need may change over time, and if it does, then legislating for a set proportion to go on this or that type of care, rather than on delivering this or that type of outcome, might not be the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dr Chambers]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.

New clause 34—Duty to promote mental health wellbeing—

“(1) It is a duty of the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.

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

(a) the prevention of mental illness,

(b) the promotion of positive mental health,

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

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

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

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

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

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

This new clause creates a duty for the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

I would happily speak for several hours on the multifaceted reasons why young people in particular are struggling with mental health. One of my passions is ensuring that people get intervention and support before they require clinical care, but at the moment that is not happening. For a whole variety of societal reasons, including young people applying for 300 or 400 jobs and not even getting a response, more and more people are ending up on mental health waiting lists.

The mental health investment standard has been widely hailed for bringing about positive change in the health service. It protects funds and provides certainty for services that are seeing dramatically rising demand and, importantly, it provides certainty about future finances. Placing it on a statutory footing in primary legislation would make it more transparent and prevent it from becoming a political football. It would also help to stop the watering down of targets that seems to have happened over the last few years. Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, essentially resigned over those changes.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the Milburn report and the report by the Children’s Commissioner this week showed that the number of children referred to mental health services in England has risen by over 10% in just one year—it is now at more than a million. The pressures on NHS services and funding are clear. If funding is not protected, there is a real risk that it will be cut due to competing demands.

One thing I found when speaking to staff at Winchester’s A&E department is that when mental health patients turn up, having been unable to get support and often having already been on a waiting list, sometimes for more than 18 months, the average time they spend in A&E is more than 18 hours, during which some of them require constant supervision. So, we are badly supporting people with mental health issues in the most expensive part of the NHS. We cannot afford to let the mental health crisis in this country continue slipping out of control, and funding for NHS mental health services is an essential part of stopping that.

New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to

“conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.”

Something I found interesting growing up on a farm and working as a vet is the almost unrecognised mental health issues in rural areas. That is partly because many people who work in rural vocations have minimal contact with people outside their workplace. Sometimes the vet and the postman might be the only people that a farmer sees in one, two or three weeks. There are a lot of questions about why disparities in accessing treatment in rural versus urban areas exist. Alternative approaches are needed, and some of the ideas floated have included mental health support officers for rural GP surgeries, or training vets up as mental health first aiders, because they might be a point of contact for a farmer and recognise when they are struggling.

Different communities require help in different ways, and farming communities often feel overlooked. They are vital for keeping the nation fed and fit and healthy, but they have a job that involves working from before 5 or 6 in the morning until late at night. If services are provided that do not fit with that person’s lifestyle and job restrictions, they can often struggle to access them, which, when coupled with having virtually no mobile signal and poor broadband, means that people in rural areas are sometimes cut off in more ways than one.

The Mental Health Act 2025 had a fairly limited focus on providing care to those with the most acute mental health problems. We need to look at preventive measures to ensure that people are supported through difficult times in their lives. These new clauses will require a report from local authorities so that we can ensure that they are providing tailored support to those in need. The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that early intervention and preventive services are key to tackling to mental health issues. These new clauses would urge mental health service providers to look beyond putting out the fire. This is about moving from crisis management to ensuring that people are supported in their local communities so that they do not reach the point of crisis. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat physical health. I know the Minister agrees with that; we think these new clauses will enable the Government to deliver on that ambition.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 9 and 10 have some similar issues to the last two Liberal Democrat amendments. They referred to the primary care investment, while these amendments refer to the mental health investment standard, which seeks to define the proportion of NHS money spent on mental health and maintaining it at a static position. Essentially, similar arguments apply.

In 2016, the mental health investment standard was brought in, albeit not on a statutory footing, to ensure that mental health got the attention it deserved and that the resources provided to it were higher, because the number of people with mental health problems was increasing. There was good sense to that.

However, the challenges to the NHS evolve over time. If the standard were to be fixed in statute, what effect would that have? Would that create an upper limit on spending on mental health at a time when mental health was increasing in prevalence as a problem? Would it increase the lower threshold when the reverse was the case? The Government need flexibility. I would hope that the Government make the right decisions, but that is the democratic process, and they need the flexibility to make the decisions that are appropriate for the time, rather than having this fixed in place.

If we look at current waiting list figures on the Government’s referral to treatment dashboard, in general, the number of people waiting has risen in the last month for which figures are available. If we look in particular at people who require an admission to hospital for a procedure or operation, the numbers are higher over the last month, and also over the last year, for all types of admissions. Not all mental health figures are covered in the dashboard, but those that are have improved slightly in the last month. The point I am making is that things fluctuate over time, and the Government need flexibility to deal with that.

Let me turn to new clauses 33 and 34. As a rural MP, I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Winchester made about rural healthcare. It is more difficult to get to the major, tertiary centres that provide the most up-to-date treatments. People might have to travel quite long distances to get to the doctors they need to see or to visit in-patients. Of course, those individuals also face transport costs, as we discussed in a previous sitting.

I note for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the British Medical Association, and an NHS consultant paediatrician. Last week, the Children’s Commissioner published a report that found that 60,000 children were waiting for more than two years for support; the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has also sounded the alarm about the number of children attending A&E because of mental health service issues. In that sort of the situation, the Government might want to move money from A&E services to mental health support to prevent A&E admissions. They may also need to do the reverse, in order to treat those A&E admissions in the first place. Flexibility is required.

New clause 34 would create a duty for the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to

“promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.”

That is a statement of his job, and a statement of the obvious; if the Minister is responsible for the mental health services of the country, of course he has a duty to make sure that they do their jobs properly.

It is a nice amendment—it is one of those things that it is politically difficult to vote against—but I would ask the hon. Member for Winchester what practical effect he thinks it would have on mental health. Does he think the Secretary of State is not thinking about mental health? I do not sit on the same side of the House as the Secretary of State, but I think he is interested in mental health and wants to do his best job. Does the hon. Member for Winchester think that is not the case? What does he think the new clause would achieve in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

While I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester, I note the irony that he is talking about how he wants more independence in this clause, whereas the amendments he tabled previously would have taken independence away from the ICBs—but hey, ‘twas ever thus with the Liberal Democrats.

On the new powers in clause 43, we have previously discussed the power of the Secretary of State to direct how ICBs use and manage both financial and other resources, impose expenditure limits, require approval of local decisions and compel repayment of funds where directions are not followed. These provisions substantially weaken the operational independence of ICBs, transforming them from organisations that are intended to exercise local strategic leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, into bodies primarily responsible for implementing centrally determined priorities. Such centralisation risks diminishing the flexibility required to respond to local, demographic, clinical and population health challenges.

The timing of these legislative changes also raises significant concerns, because they coincide with the abolition of NHS England, the redistribution of its functions and the requirement for ICBs to reduce their operating costs by at least 50%--and, in some cases, even more than that. Collectively, those reforms represent one of the most significant reorganisations of NHS governance. However, there remains little clarity regarding which responsibilities will remain with the ICBs.

The clause makes it even less certain which responsibilities will transfer to regional teams or providers, and how accountability will operate across the system. Introducing substantially enhanced ministerial powers before the future operating model is fully defined, as we have discussed with regional mayors and other bodies, will essentially risk creating uncertainty, duplication and potentially gaps in oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

[The Chair]

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

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

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

[Dr Chambers]

I agree that there is no need for carers to see irrelevant or extremely historical information in the single patient record. Currently, however, there are a lot of carers who, for various reasons, such as not having legal power of attorney, cannot access the information that they need.

We also sometimes find that the people who are carers, who are potentially the spouse of the patient and are themselves elderly—because a lot of people receiving care are elderly—do not understand the information that they are being given. There can be a situation where the person providing care does not fully understand why the patient is getting some medication, or the best way to treat them. We hear that quite a lot.

We understand that the Bill is not designed to set out all the specifics of what the single patient record will look like—that key point was made in the interventions by the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Ashford. However, although we do not know exactly what it will look like, as it is being created, drafted and thought through, we would love the Minister to confirm to us that carers will be able to see the appropriate parts of the single patient records of those they care for, so that they can oversee their medical care and flag any issues.

There are some specific advantages to having a single patient record when travelling between hospital trusts. For example, being able to quickly see what historical medication the patient has had, especially when it comes to antimicrobials, and the results of tests that were performed in other hospitals and healthcare settings, is absolutely vital to ensure that we do not allow antimicrobial resistance to increase at an unnecessary pace. Often, patients do not understand the type of antibiotic they are on, or remember the name of it, and that is a specific but big issue, because it can generate antimicrobial resistance. There are a few more issues that I could speak to, but I will sit down.

[Dr Johnson]

I rise to talk about amendment 8. I essentially understand what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to do—to make sure that carers are provided with the information that they need to provide the best possible care—and I think we would all agree with that ambition. However, I have a couple of questions for him. The Bill, as drafted, discusses “making” information

“available to people other than a patient on the patient’s behalf”.

I am not quite clear why would that not encompass a nominated carer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made an important point about privacy. The single patient record will encompass a patient’s entire medical history, medical notes and medical information, but every person who provides that patient with medical or social care does not need to see all of that, and in some cases, the patient may not want them to. My hon. Friend gave a good example of that; another example would be an elderly lady who does not want her carer to see that she had a termination at 23. There are lots of things that are private to people that they do not want others to see. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on this issue. Access to the record is seen as a binary choice, but in some respects, it needs to be a much more nuanced affair than that, while still allowing someone access to the areas of the record that are required for them to complete their duties.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Lady is making very good points. The whole thrust of the argument is that there is little detail around how the single patient record will be created and implemented. This is a perfect opportunity to work out how we can empower carers while preserving patient confidentiality where necessary. If we do not focus on that in the early stages of the SPR’s implementation, before it has even been designed, we will miss the opportunity to ensure that carers have an easy way to get the right information. We should not miss that opportunity.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, but we need to start with the patient at the centre and ask what is best for patient care. It is about what the patient wants to share with their carers. The patient may make an informed decision not to share information that is potentially useful, but if they have capacity, they are free to do that. It is about starting with the patient.

I have huge sympathy with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that that is not already included in proposed new section 250E(2)(c)(i) of the NHS Act 2006, which mentions “making” information

“available to people other than a patient on the patient’s behalf”.

The important thing is that patients make the decision if they have the capacity to do so, or that someone acting with power of attorney has done so on their behalf.

Amendment 65, which is also in this group, talks about support needs. I have some sympathy with that as well. When I see a patient in clinic—I am a paediatrician, so they are all children—I look at the notes, which say they have a particular issue, and I go out into the waiting room and call the child’s name. There is nothing on the record, necessarily, to tell me that the patient and the mum are deaf, or that the other parent is deaf and may not be able to hear me calling them in the waiting room. So I have sympathy with the idea that the record would flag up reasonable adjustment needs; I think there is a place for that.

There is something called the reasonable adjustment flag on the NHS Spine, and perhaps the answer is to use that rather better than is happening at the moment. With carers, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, or with parents or legal guardians looking after children, we should consider whether reasonable adjustments also need to be made for the parent, guardian or carer who is likely to bring the patient to be seen.

[Gregory Stafford]

As I expressed in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve with amendment 8. Whether by accident or design, he has allowed us to have a real think about—

[Dr Chambers]

It is by design.

[Gregory Stafford]

I will be charitable and take him at his word. We have opened a vital conversation about who will have access to this record, how it will be shared, which bits of it will be shared, and how we ensure that the laudable aim of a single patient record—to ensure that a clinician treating a patient has all the vital facts in front of them—is balanced with that patient’s privacy. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we must make sure that the patient is put at the centre of this.

We need to look at the amendment under that microscope of scrutiny. We must use our role as legislators to ensure that gaps in legislation are closed so that loopholes cannot be exploited. I am fully in favour of the Government’s intention on that. However, I have some concerns about privacy and access, and amendment 8 potentially highlights those.

The amendment provides for a nominated carer to access a patient’s record, but who nominates the carer? Is it always the patient, and how will that consent be verified and continually checked so that if the patient wishes to remove consent for the carer to see their record for whatever reason, there is a way of doing so? What protections exist for vulnerable patients who may feel pressured or even coerced into granting access? If circumstances change, how easily can that access be withdrawn, by whom and through what process?

Although I am not being critical specifically of the amendment, the Government will need to think about those questions when they introduce the single patient record. It is not as simple as saying, “Here is a wonderful record and everyone can access it,” because it will contain some of the most sensitive information an individual holds, including details of their physical and mental health.

I entirely accept that carers often play a vital role in supporting patients, but unrestricted or poorly governed access could undermine patient confidentiality and therefore trust in the system. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Member for Winchester and think that, not just in relation to this amendment but as the record is pulled together, we really need to consider these vital issues.

On amendment 65, like the shadow Minister, I have a lot of sympathy with the point about reasonable adjustments. We need to be careful when deciding as legislators the purpose of the single patient record. Is it simply a repository of treatments, illnesses, conditions and so on, or does it give a wider commentary on those conditions and treatments? In the example given by the shadow Minister, knowing that someone has hearing difficulties would be useful, but is the single patient record the appropriate place for that? I do not know the answer, but we need to discuss and decide that, because there is a danger of scope creep. If we try to make it all things to all men and women, it could lose the stated purpose, which is to ensure that a clinician has the full facts when dealing with a patient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady knows that we are talking about an enabling power in the Bill. All the details will be brought forward in regulations, through discussions and consultation. We will discuss that more broadly as we talk about the wider clause.

One of the key issues I have been asked about is protecting vulnerable people. Patients will access a single patient record through the NHS app, and NHS England has published guidance on clinical safety, safeguarding and the NHS app, which provides advice on minimising the risk to those where there may be challenges or potential risks. We will adopt a similar approach to the single patient record. Clinicians will be able to redact information that is too sensitive to share, and we will agree a protocol with professional bodies on how that will be applied. I am sure that we will discuss that in more detail, because it is an important area to get right.

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 39 broadens the Secretary of State’s ability to delegate or jointly exercise health service functions with NHS bodies and local government. Currently, section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006 enables the Secretary of State to arrange for any of their public health functions to be exercised by relevant bodies, such as NHS England, ICBs and local authorities. Section 65Z5 sets out how relevant bodies may jointly exercise delegated functions, and section 65Z6 sets out how funds may be pooled for such purposes. Section 65Z7 sets out that NHS England may issue guidance for exercising functions under those two sections and that relevant bodies must have regard to any guidance. Section 75 then sets out that the Secretary of State can make regulations to enable NHS bodies and local authorities to enter into arrangements related to the delivery of health functions.

Clause 39 deletes section 7A, removing the separate power for the Secretary of State to delegate public health functions. It amends section 65Z5 to create a wider power that allows the Secretary of State to arrange for any health service-related function in England to be exercised by or jointly with relevant bodies, local authorities, combined authorities, combined county authorities or other prescribed persons. It removes outdated references in section 65Z5 linked to NHS England and updates the wording so that arrangements can be made with a wider range of persons and not just bodies.

Clause 39 also replaces section 65Z6 so that where functions are exercised jointly, the parties can use joint committees and pooled funds. It provides that pooled funds can include payments from relevant bodies and the Secretary of State, and can be used for expenditure connected to jointly exercised functions. It amends section 65Z7 so that guidance on joint working and delegation is issued by the Secretary of State rather than NHS England. It makes consequential amendments to provisions on directors of public health and local authority public health functions, reflecting the removal of section 7A. It also makes consequential amendments to section 75 partnership arrangements and the Local Government Act 1974, again removing references to section 7A.

Once again, it is necessary to move functions to the Secretary of State when NHS England is abolished—somebody else needs to do the work. The changes introduce more flexibility for joined-up working between the Secretary of State and other entities in the health system, which could support integration and the shift to place-based care, with localised approaches to prevention, integration and service planning in line with the Government’s 10-year plan.

However, the power is very broad, relating to any function in the health service. The Secretary of State could arrange for functions to be exercised by or jointly with any person prescribed, which could mean anyone. How will it be possible to determine who is responsible for things that have gone wrong when joint committees are established and funds are pooled? The Minister has spoken a number of times during our sittings about the importance of clear accountability. In the event that the work, funds and activities are pooled, how will it be made clear who is responsible and therefore accountable for the activity that occurs?

Melanie Williams, the then president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, told the Health and Social Care Committee that we spend

“a lot of time debating about who pays, rather than having a conversation about how, in the longer term, we can invest in people’s outcomes to enable better health and wellbeing.”

Is it the Government’s intention to decide the allocation of money for social care and health providers, or that whoever they decide will work together?

The Government have said that this is all about the devolution of power. This morning, we discussed the abolition of integrated care partnerships, on which ICBs and local authorities work together on projects that they choose locally. The Government are now introducing another power that will enable the Secretary of State to direct them to work together on things that he or she chooses. That does not sound terribly like the devolution of power. Could the Minister explain that to me?

I shall leave new clause 26 to the Liberal Democrats. Government new clause 20 ensures that there is a complete list of authorities that may be included. I think some were missing from the first iteration. I just make the point that the more actors there are in the mix, the harder it may be to see who is responsible overall. We also need to discuss how to maintain the balance between clinical need and political priorities in the choice of what healthcare is provided.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

New clause 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who both sit on the Health and Social Care Committee, would require the Secretary of State to review the arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 and consider whether to require NHS bodies and local authorities to enter into new arrangements with one another if that is likely to lead to an improvement in how their functions are exercised.

A recurring theme of Health and Social Care Committee inquiries is the impact of financial flows and how they frustrate attempts to deliver truly integrated care—an issue we discussed in earlier sittings. We all recognise that closer arrangements are needed to properly address discharge delays, which directly lead to corridor care or even unnecessary admissions to hospital. It seems that a consensus has been reached, yet the action to back that up is not there. We feel that, through this Bill, the Government are moving away from closer integration.

Melanie Williams, the then president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, told the Health and Social Care Committee that the NHS and local authorities

“spend a lot of time debating about who pays, rather than having a conversation about how, in the longer term, we can invest in people’s outcomes to enable better health and wellbeing.”

She highlighted concerns about the funding of intermediate care and community health services through aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and NHS continuing healthcare.

Section 75 of the 2006 Act provides a legal mechanism for NHS bodies and local authorities to pool budgets and jointly commission health and social care services. The Select Committee has heard evidence of positive examples of such arrangements being used to commission integrated services. It also heard that the use of section 75 arrangements is inconsistent.

In October 2023, the Government launched a call for evidence to explore how section 75 could be better utilised to support integration. A summary of responses published in December 2024 identified several areas for improvement, including the need for stronger inter-organisation relationships, clearer governance and financial structures, and better data sharing. The Health and Social Care Committee recommended that the Government expand the use of section 75, including the range of services that it will be used to support.

This Bill is a missed opportunity for the Government to reform or promote the use of section 75 arrangements, or to provide an alternative mechanism that they believe would be more effective in addressing the challenges that funding flows present to the integration of health and care services. That is why the Select Committee suggested this new clause to prompt a review of section 72 and the introduction of guidance to support pooled budgets and jointly commissioned health and social care services.

Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 24 puts neighbourhood health plans on a statutory basis. Currently, section 116A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 requires local authorities and partner ICBs to prepare a joint local health and wellbeing strategy once they have received their integrated care strategy. Essentially, that means that the ICBs and local authorities produce their overall strategy, then it devolves down, and then the joint health and wellbeing strategy looks at how it will be delivered. The local authority and its partners must give regard to the integrated care strategy, the NHS England mandate and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The strategy must be published and local people and the local Healthwatch must be involved in its development.

Section 116B of the 2007 Act places a duty on local authorities and partner ICBs to have regard to various strategies when exercising their function, specifically, a joint strategic needs assessment, an integrated care strategy and a joint local health and wellbeing strategy. NHS England also has regard to these when providing healthcare for a specific area.

Clause 24 changes the JLHWS to a neighbourhood health plan. In many ways, that aligns with the shift in the Government’s 10-year health plan from hospital to community. As they have described it, more care in the neighbourhood will allow hospitals to focus on the more specialist care that may be needed, so more people can be cared for closer to home, which seems a reasonable aim.

However, if local authorities and partner ICBs have to give regard to what the centre is doing when developing neighbourhood health plans, to what extent does the Minister envisage that being directed? Local authorities and partner ICBs giving regard to the centre could mean there being a very loose requirement from the centre to provide for the local population, and then they get on with it; it could also be very prescriptive—my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has talked about the pros and cons of having targets—with a whole litany of targets in the plans. Whether that squares with the Government’s claim to be devolving power, or whether it strikes as a centralising power, depends on how that is done and to what extent the Secretary of State plans to direct it. I would appreciate it if the Minister could talk about that.

As has been said, Sir Andrew Dilnot told the Committee that

“we cannot really address many of the fundamental problems facing the NHS if we do not sort out social care.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 84, Q131.]

The Government have asked Baroness Casey to review social care, but they have developed this measure in the meantime. Is that because they have been talking to her and know that it is the sort of thing that she will recommend—or are they putting the cart before the horse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon suggested?

Later in the Committee’s considerations, we will come to Healthwatch, its benefits and the concerns that I and, I am sure, many other Committee members have about its abolition. What mechanisms does the Minister envisage there being for local people—local patients—to contribute to the neighbourhood health plans? A local Healthwatch currently contributes to the equivalent, the joint local health and wellbeing strategy, as a way of ensuring that it captures patient and community voices. How will that be done otherwise?

Some 80% of the Government’s new neighbourhood health centres that will deliver these plans are expected to be funded through public-private partnerships. Does the Minister have any comments on that, particularly in the light of the expensive private finance initiative that the last Labour Government entered into and left us stuck with?

In March 2026, the Government produced a neighbourhood health framework policy paper, which identified the goal of reducing non-elective admissions for those with severe frailty. Given that goal, why are the Government not on track to deliver the fracture liaison service improvements that they promised?

The policy paper also commits to what it calls

“a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high volume specialties”.

What is a “diversion rate”? It essentially requires more GP referrals to be rejected, so let us be clear about what that means. When someone, either hon. Members or constituents, goes to see their GP, they are referred to a consultant for care; I should declare an interest as a consultant in the NHS. The consultant will then review that referral and decide whether they think it is clinically appropriate to see the patient, whether a different specialty may be more appropriate, or whether they can give advice or make suggestions about treatment that could be given in primary care instead.

When a patient is given an appointment in secondary care, it essentially means that the GP has decided that they clinically need it, and the consultant has decided that they clinically need it too. If the Government want a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high volume specialties, are they suggesting that patients who the GP and consultant agree clinically need an appointment should not get one? If so, why?

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I have been itching to speak on this new clause, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—I am not sure how to pronounce that, but I am sure it is a very beautiful place; I have never been. It would ensure that a certain range of primary care providers were consulted by integrated care boards in the development of the healthcare plans.

The recent King’s Fund report, as well as many others, showed that over 90% of NHS contact with patients is in primary care in all its forms. New clause 70 relates to new clause 60, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which is about having GP representation on integrated care boards. This is an extension of that, so that dentists, pharmacy contractors and providers of ophthalmic services can all feed into integrated care boards’ healthcare plans. That is how most people come into contact with the NHS, which means that those providers have a close and deep understanding of the healthcare issues facing the demographics in their communities.

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 70 talks about a certain range of primary care providers being consulted by the ICB. Can the hon. Member clarify whether it is his intention for all providers of those services in a defined area to be consulted, or would it be a representative selection? If it is the latter, how would they be chosen?

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The purpose is to ensure that those who are deeply embedded in community care are consulted by the ICBs, so that they do not miss obvious localised issues in their demographics when developing care plans.

Just to give a brief example from a surgery I held recently, Joanne Cook is an occupational therapist who is campaigning for occupational therapists who have received specific training to be able to prescribe, and crucially de-prescribe, medications, in the same way that trained paramedics can. Often, occupational therapists see patients on a daily basis. They give them intimate and regular care, and are even better placed than GPs to notice small changes and adjust medications to keep people out of hospital.

If integrated care boards are not drawing on the experience, knowledge and data from primary care providers in all their forms, any healthcare plans they come up with will not be relevant to those demographics. We will not be keeping people out of hospital or treating them as effectively in the community, and the whole system will not be as efficient or as targeted as it could be. I would appreciate it if the Minister considered accepting the new clause.

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

The clause will replace the constitutional requirements contained in paragraph 8(2) to (4) of schedule 1B to the 2006 Act so that “ordinary members” must now include at least one member nominated by the mayor of each mayoral strategic authority whose area coincides with or includes the whole or any part of the ICB’s area. The ICB’s constitution must set out a process for making such a nomination, and a mayor nominating an ordinary member must have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State, following the abolition of NHS England, as to the selection of candidates.

The definition of a local authority in paragraph 8(7) of schedule 1B to the 2006 Act will be replaced with the definition of a mayoral strategic authority. Sub-paragraph (1), outlining the process to determine the appointment of an ordinary member, and sub-paragraph (6), specifying that one ordinary member must have knowledge and experience in mental health services, are both retained. The clause therefore represents a clear shift in the structure of integrated care boards and, in my view, an unwelcome one, by removing the requirement for representation of GPs, local authorities and NHS trusts, while introducing a requirement for representation from mayoral authorities.

Those are not minor features of the system. The inclusion of local authorities in particular was designed to ensure that decision making reflected local needs and supported genuine integration between health and social care.

For as long as I can remember, Governments of all colours have talked about bringing health and social care together. Some have been more successful at that than others, but there should be agreement across the House that much more needs to be done. With this clause, the Government seem to be taking at least one step back—I would say numerous steps—from trying to bring health and social care together. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I watched the Health and Social Care Committee’s discussions with the Minister for Care yesterday, and I too cannot fathom why the Government are doing it. I hope that it is an oversight and that, once the Minister goes away and reflects on it, she will look to table some amendments further down the line—I am sure that she will vote against ours today—so that we can bring these matters back.

I am especially concerned about the removal of local authority representation. We are effectively asking local authorities to continue to deliver vital services while removing their voice in the room where strategic decisions about health and social care are made. That raises a fundamental question about how the integration is intended to work in practice. There is also a broader concern about the direction of travel. We are moving away from place-based representation towards a model that places greater emphasis on these mayoral structures, yet the legislation is not prescriptive about who the mayors appoint, and colleagues within and without this Committee have already raised concerns that there is a gap in the understanding at the centre about how local authorities operate in practice.

That brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Winchester. I apologise; the Minister said that she did not want a geographic tour of our constituencies, but I am afraid that she will get one now. Part of my constituency sits in Hampshire in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB, and as the hon. Member for Winchester said, we may or may not have mayoral elections in a year’s time. Hampshire county council has launched a judicial review against the proposed local government reorganisation; if that is successful, or even if it delays the process, this Bill will come into effect without our having a mayor, and there will be no representation for anybody on this board. We need clarity from the Minister on who will represent the people on the board if there is no mayoral authority. I would say that local authorities—Hampshire county council in this case—should remain on that board, at least until there is a mayoral authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

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

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

[Edward Argar]

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

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

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

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

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