Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

Question again proposed.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said before the break, technology is a game changer. It is a key enabler of our 10-year health plan and a modern NHS. This new clause follows the plan’s five big bets, the transformative technologies key to NHS improvement: data to deliver impact; AI to drive patient power and productivity; genomics and predictive analytics for pre-emptive personalised care; wearables to make care real-time; and robotics to support precision. To require those diverse areas to be subject to a cohort of plans to be laid before Parliament, and to make them subject to perpetual monitoring by Parliament, would be to legislate for micromanagement. One of the priorities of tech delivery is that it needs to be agile. The new clause would inhibit that.

Parliament does not usually have a role in overseeing delivery plans for specific elements of NHS technology. Adding in new reporting structures is unnecessary bureaucracy that would slow down delivery of the technologies and their impact on patients. In some areas, we already have arrangements in place to underpin delivery, via legislation approved by Parliament. The Health and Care Act 2022, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and related legislation have established a framework for mandatory information standards, which can set the technical and data requirements to ensure interoperability. Along with our 10-year plan, our ambition to be the most artificial intelligence-enabled healthcare system in the world by 2035 and our commitment to an AI road map, that means that the new clause is unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

The new clause is a probing amendment. The aim is to press the Government to explain why the Bill does not include provisions to implement statutory regulation of NHS management, as they had said they would, and to commit to a timetable for bringing the regulations they promised into force.

I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and am regulated as such by the General Medical Council. The GMC regulates doctors, the Nursing and Midwifery Council regulates nurses and midwives, and different bodies represent other professionals in the health service—but not managers. The Government said that there would be such a register. I know that there are many excellent managers—the Minister was one—but as in every profession, bad apples need to be identified and managed appropriately.

The Times has reported that senior bosses at Leeds teaching hospital NHS trust asked consultants and nurses to work in ways that lie outside the national service recommendations. We have also heard from Donna Ockenden that of the 66 former senior staff members in Nottingham she approached, only 35 agreed to be interviewed. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has said that he finds it

“unconscionable that people who worked for the NHS would deny them”—

the families—

“an honest account of what went wrong”.

Establishing a register would be the first step in ensuring that bad apples can be held to account. Those who bully staff, cover up problems, endanger patients or misappropriate funds should not be allowed to fail upwards. The NHS benefits from having outside experience, including from the private sector and the armed forces, so I am looking not for full occupational licensing, but simply for a register of those who are not suitable to be appointed. We should not see managers going from one trust to another and another after they fail at the first. I should finish by declaring that I worked at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust during late 2012 and early 2013.

[Karin Smyth]

May I put on record my thanks to all the excellent managers in the NHS? I am not sure whether I raised the bar, as the hon. Lady said, but it was a great career and one that I enjoyed very much. It is a difficult job, and we want to support managers in future. We cannot deliver our 10-year health plan without them. That is one of the reasons why we have already established a leadership college to support their development, as we committed to doing.

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

Does the Minister agree that managers in the NHS sometimes get a very bad press from the medical profession? I believe that to be wholly unjustified.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister for their comments about NHS managers. I agree that they often get a bad press, and often from politicians as well. We cannot run the health service without both clinically and non-clinically trained managers, so we need to ensure that they have the right support to do their difficult job. My experience is that when the partnership with clinicians works well, it is really powerful. I have certainly learned a lot from working with some fantastic clinicians in my career.

We are absolutely committed to introducing a statutory barring system. We will do that by introducing secondary legislation within this Parliament to enable the Health and Care Professions Council to operate that barring system. We intend to do so as part of the planned secondary legislation to modernise the framework that governs the Health and Care Professions Council.

Changes to this legislation are subject to a statutory three-month consultation period, in addition to which this legislation will be novel and complex. It will require extensive stakeholder engagement to ensure that we develop a barring system that is proportionate and operates efficiently alongside existing frameworks, codes of practice and other regulation governing the work of NHS senior leaders. For those reasons, a 12-month timeline to bring forward the section 60 order is unfeasible. The new clause also sets out prescriptive duties on the content of the section 60 order; we would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of detailed policy development and consultation.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for the broad programme of initiatives to professionalise and increase the accountability of managers and leaders in the NHS. Although we do not agree that it would be proportionate to set a requirement in primary legislation to lay before Parliament a timetable to which those measures will be delivered, officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and in NHS England are already working in partnership with organisations across the health sector and will set out more on the individual timelines in due course. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 52

Access to dental provision: Dental deserts

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to improve access to dental provision (‘the Scheme’).

(2) The purpose of the scheme is to end dental deserts.

(3) A dental desert is defined as any local authority area with fewer than ten active dental practices per 100,000 people.

(4) The scheme must make provision to support integrated care boards to—

(a) guarantee emergency access to an NHS dentist,

(b) provide free dental checks up for—

(i) children,

(ii) mothers within one year of having given birth,

(iii) pregnant women, and

(iv) low-income households, and

(c) guarantee dental appointments for persons commencing—

(i) surgery,

(ii) chemotherapy, or

(iii) transplant procedures.

(5) The Secretary of State must, before publishing the scheme, issue a reformed dental contract.

(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the establishment of the scheme, publish a dental workforce plan to support delivery of the scheme.”—(Helen Morgan.)

This new clause would establish a scheme to support integrated care boards to end dental deserts.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I rise to discuss new clause 104, which stands in my name. The Labour Government’s general election manifesto made a bold pledge:

“Never again will women’s health be neglected.”

The Government have been in power for two years, and I am not convinced that they are doing all they can for women’s health. The latest NHS statistics show that waiting lists are rising under this Government. The trend is particularly acute for gynaecology services. More women are awaiting admission to hospital for gynaecology treatment or procedures than in July 2024. How does that square with the Government’s ambition to improve and prioritise women’s health?

We talked this morning about fracture liaison services, which is another treatment that would predominantly have benefited women if the Government had kept their promise and rolled it out as they said they would. The previous Conservative Government commissioned the Hughes report. The Labour Government have repeatedly pledged to address the issue at the earliest opportunity, but when will the Minister respond to the women who have been waiting so long? The Government published their renewed women’s health strategy in April, but where are the timelines, steps and milestones to deliver and implement improvements to women’s health? Where is the plan to reduce gynaecology waiting lists? Where is the timetable for delivering on long-acting reversible contraceptives, for example?

I have no doubt that the Minister has a desire to improve outcomes for women and improve their care, but I am concerned about the actual delivery, which has been a theme throughout the day. I tabled new clause 104 because this Labour Government have made promises to women that they need to keep, and that they need a plan for how they will keep them. My new clause would ensure that they have a plan to deliver, rather than just making promises in glossy brochures.

[Karin Smyth]

Hon. Members have brought to the Committee a really important discussion about women’s health. I am very happy to have that discussion, because the Government are committed to prioritising women’s health. That is why I am so proud that we published a renewed women’s health strategy earlier this year.

I say in response to the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, that we renewed the strategy partly because—to be absolutely fair to the Conservative party—we agreed with much of what it put in place under its women’s health strategy. We did not see the need to start it from scratch, so to speak. There had not been a men’s health strategy, so they are very different propositions.

Much of the direction had been covered, but the implementation had not. On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, we wanted to go further and faster and acknowledge some things, as the former Secretary of State did, about medical misogyny, as well as the need to renew that strategy.

I fully agree with new clause 57 that women should get equal access to high-quality elective care. We are committed to tackling the long waits for services primarily affecting women; I am acutely aware that women can wait disproportionately longer for a wide range of treatments, although none solely impacts women more than gynaecology services. The Government recognise that injustice. That is why we have implemented measures to improve gynaecology services and women’s access to care, including piloting gynaecology pathways in community diagnostic centres for patients with post-menopausal bleeding, increasing the relative funding available to incentivise providers to take on more gynaecology procedures, and using surgical hubs to help endometriosis patients to get quicker treatment. Those measures have helped to improve 18-week referral-to-treatment times for gynaecology by 5.1 percentage points over the past year.

We will go further over the course of this Parliament, including by launching NHS Online clinical services from 2027. That will initially prioritise nine conditions, including women’s health conditions such as severe menopause symptoms and menstrual problems that may be a sign of endometriosis or fibroids. Patients will have the choice of getting the specialist care they need from home, and we will provide additional appointments to reduce waiting times.

More broadly, we have committed to returning to the NHS constitutional standard by March 2029 so that 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment across all patient groups and specialties. Delivering against this standard would also require the waiting times for a diagnostic test to improve significantly. We recognise that, which is why in the medium-term planning framework, the NHS target is to ensure that by March 2029 no more than 1% of patients are waiting more than six weeks for a diagnostic test.

On new clause 58, we acknowledge that women’s health has been neglected and that women deserve better. We acknowledge that there have been longstanding failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. That is why we published the renewed women’s health strategy, making it clear that women’s voices and choices are central in healthcare. We will transform NHS performance in the services that matter most to women, support all women to live healthy, prosperous lives, and create an approach to research and development that works for and empowers women.

Reducing inequalities is hardwired throughout the strategy. Actions are targeted by deprivation, ethnicity and unmet need, with a focus on marginalised women, community-based services, neighbourhood health models, and transparent data. The renewed women’s health strategy marks a decisive shift from identifying problems to delivering change. By listening to women’s voices, improving performance where it matters most, and tackling the drivers of poor health and inequality, we will ensure that women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes they deserve. As a result, we do not think that conducting an independent inquiry into women’s health provisions and outcomes in England at this time would add value. Instead, now is the time to deliver the change that we all know and agree is absolutely needed.

I recognise the intention behind new clause 104, but I do not believe that it is necessary to publish an implementation plan. The action summary tables in the renewed women’s health strategy clearly highlight the responsible delivery organisation and the planned timeframe for all 117 actions. Some actions are already under way or funded for this year; others will be delivered over the next two to five years, and more fundamental reforms will be phased in over the next decade, aligned with the 10-year health plan.

Progress in the renewed strategy will be judged against three overarching outcomes: reversing the decline in healthy life expectancy since the 2010s, raising healthy life expectancy in the poorest regions to at least 61 years, and reducing the time women spend in poor health, particularly where inequalities are greatest—something I see very starkly in my Bristol South constituency. We will also be transparent on progress through a new women’s health data dashboard, publishing neighbourhood-level data on performance, access, outcomes and experience.

This Government have already undertaken extensive engagement to inform the development of the strategy. We had nearly 100,000 responses to the 2022 women’s health strategy call for evidence, more than 400 submissions from individuals and organisations with expertise in women’s health, and analysis from the Change NHS engagement exercise, where roundtables brought together women with lived experience, clinicians, academics and expert organisations. I was part of some of those roundtables and it was very instructive. I thank them for the work they did to get us to this point. We will continue to engage and to listen to women through the new women’s voices partnership and through patient-reported experience and outcome measures, which will help to shape and improve services.

Creating a new statutory duty to publish an implementation plan risks diverting attention and resources away from delivering the actions in the renewed strategy, which should now be our priority. It is for those reasons that I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Usually, I say that I am grateful that a discussion has been brought before the Committee and that I am happy to have it, but it is unusual to have a discussion on a clinical trial in a political environment. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that there has ever been a clinical trial subject to a parliamentary vote. There has been an Opposition day debate about this, in which many issues were rightly aired, so we will not spend much time discussing it this afternoon.

The safety and wellbeing of children and young people is paramount. Children’s healthcare must always be led by evidence and expert scientific and clinical advice. We all know that that was not the case in some of the instances at the Tavistock over time, in the late 2010s. We pay tribute, as we have done several times, to the then right hon. Member for Bromsgrove when he was Secretary of State for Health—in 2022, he finally took action on that particular service and what went on there, commissioning Dr Hilary Cass’s review, which we supported on a cross-party basis, for the health, safety and wellbeing of children. Hilary Cass’s interim review in 2022—which bears reading, for those who have not read it recently—found the evidence for the service model and the clinical base to be woefully lacking. In the 2010s, that was allowed to continue for a long time, but fortunately started to be stopped in 2022.

Ever since, we have had cross-party agreement in support of Dr Cass’s review. She found that the evidence on the use of puberty-supressing hormones for children and young people for treatment of gender incongruence is “remarkably weak”. Based on the available evidence, NHS England introduced a new clinical policy in March 2024 that means that puberty-suppressing hormones are no longer available routinely in the NHS for children and young people with gender incongruence. In December 2024, for non-NHS prescriptions, the Government introduced an indefinite ban on the sale and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones to children and young people for the purpose of gender dysphoria or incongruence. That followed independent advice from the Commission on Human Medicines.

Clinical practice should be based on evidence. When evidence is lacking, clinical research takes place to improve the evidence base. That is why, to properly understand the impact of puberty-suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence, the Cass review recommended a clinical trial. In line with the Cass review’s recommendation, a trial has been developed and has now secured updated study approvals from the MHRA and the Health Research Authority.

This country has a well-deserved international reputation for academic and scientific excellence, with robust independent regulatory processes in place to properly scrutinise and assure the scientific rigour and ethics of publicly funded clinical trials. That helps to ensure that individuals receive evidence-based care, based on the highest quality research, regardless of their clinical diagnosis. I therefore disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that, uniquely, clinical trials for those types of medicines must be subject to the scrutiny and approval of both Houses.

[Dr Johnson]

A couple of points. Does the Minister recognise that the cancel culture associated with much of the work in this area, and in looking after those vulnerable groups of children, means that the tendency among those who get involved is to have a particular view? How has she worked to ensure no bias among those on the committee involved in producing the trial? Does she recognise that by choosing a cohort of children—226 of them—to do this experiment on, she is selecting a group of children of whom most will have a gender incongruence that will get better by itself? There are two effects of that. First, these children will have unnecessary treatment. Secondly, even if there were in theory a benefit to the small group of children who would have persisted in a trans identity, that would affect the reliability of the results; therefore, whatever the results, people would think them unreliable.

[Karin Smyth]

I think that was yet another addition to the hon. Lady’s speech. Initially, she asked whether I recognised the cancel culture in this area. I have already alluded to, absolutely, recognising that what occurred in the 2010s at the Tavistock and around was not acceptable. Under the stewardship of the Conservative party of the NHS and so on, it took until 2022 to start rectifying that situation in order to give good treatment to children and young people. She is herself a clinician, so I am somewhat surprised at her. Noting what I set out, I am surprised that she does not recognise that a clinical trial has never—I stand to be corrected—been subject to a vote in Parliament, whereby politicians who are not experts have a say; but we can come back to that.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to move on.

Noting what I have set out, having such a vote would set an uncomfortable precedent that would be likely to significantly compromise the value and reputation of UK research, as well as creating an inequity unique to individuals with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I am not aware of any clinical trial that has provided potentially extremely harmful medication to children who have a self-limiting issue and who are physically healthy, to change their physically healthy bodies by changing puberty or anything else to a physiologically abnormal state from a physiologically normal one. These are children going through normal, physically healthy puberty. Their normal puberty is being stopped. I think the trial is badly designed, and I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Unlike that of the hon. Member for Guildford, my constituency covers both Surrey and East Hampshire, so I welcome the focus that new clause 72 places on our local area. Constituents regularly raise with me their concerns about seeing an NHS dentist. As I have announced a number of times in this Committee—although I have not checked today, so may not be true any more—there is not a single dentist in my constituency taking on adult or child NHS patients at the moment.

For many people, the challenge is not simply one of convenience; it is about being able to access timely care when they need it. Good oral health is an essential part of overall health, and we cannot allow dentistry to become an afterthought in our healthcare system. The ability see a dentist for routine check-ups, preventive care and urgent treatment helps to reduce pressure elsewhere in the NHS by dealing with problems before they become more serious.

The new clause rightly highlights the need both for urgent appointments and for improved access to routine NHS dental care. Prevention is at the heart of a sustainable healthcare system, and regular access to dental services plays an important role in achieving that. I welcome the accountability that the new clause seeks to introduce. In places where there are persistent challenges in accessing services—so-called dental deserts—local communities deserve transparency about what action is being taken and why improvements have not yet been delivered. As I have mentioned before, the spanking new dental surgery in Haslemere hospital has sat entirely unused since it was built, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to use it. That seems like a shocking waste of money and, more importantly, a shocking waste of a dental surgery that could be treating patients in Haslemere and the wider area.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire always wants to place the blame with the Conservatives, and does not seem to feel the need to challenge the Government, but I gently remind her that there was a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care for five years, and apparently they did absolutely nothing to raise this issue.

Although this issue is particularly important for Surrey and East Hampshire, it reflects a wider challenge facing communities across the country. Residents should not have to struggle to find an NHS dentist, and ensuring that provision is adequate must remain a priority. I hope the Government take that on board.

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Hopefully, this is a pleasure postponed. I rise to support new clauses 81 and 82, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As legislators, we have a moral duty to ensure that patients are protected during times of disruption in the NHS. Nobody disputes the fact that NHS staff work incredibly hard. They absolutely do. The dedication shown by doctors, nurses, paramedics, midwives and all those who keep our health service running deserves enormous respect. Having worked in healthcare for pretty much all my career, including for professional organisations such as the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, I know at first hand how hard they work.

Equally, we need to recognise that the NHS is not an ordinary service. Working for it is not like being a shop assistant, a bin collector or a tax inspector; in its importance to the health and safety of this nation, it is more akin to being a police officer or a member of our armed forces. It is an essential public service. When people are at their most vulnerable, whether that is because they are waiting for an operation, procedure or intervention or because they are in the process of having those interventions, they must have confidence that the care they rely on will still be there.

The right to strike has to come with responsibilities. In the NHS, the consequences of industrial action are real: cancelled operations, delayed treatments, missed appointments and increased pressure on emergency services. When I raised some of these issues with Sir Jim Mackey when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee, he could not tell me, hand on heart, that people have not died because of these strikes. I suspect that they probably have. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, for someone requiring urgent surgery or for families relying on maternity services, the impact can be deeply serious and potentially even deadly.

There is a moral obligation, both on NHS doctors and on us as legislators, to ensure that we have a universal, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service that is free at the point of use that patients can and should expect to rely on. I therefore support new clause 81’s minimum service requirements and new clause 2’s the removal of clinicians’ ability to strike. We must ensure that our NHS staff are supported, protected, paid appropriately and given the resources they need to do their job, but the corollary is that they should remain on the job to serve our constituents.

[Karin Smyth]

There have been interesting discussions on these new clauses. I recognise that the intention behind them is to reduce the impact on patients and NHS budgets when doctors take industrial action. That is an objective that we all support, but I do not agree that the new clauses are the best way to achieve it.

I respect the shadow Minister’s professional background and the strong moral case she set out to explain why she does not feel it is appropriate. For a long time, as she says, doctors did not go on strike, but something changed in the industrial relations landscape roughly 10 years ago to start that process, that change of culture and that frustration that led doctors to strike. I listened with interest to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), reflecting on this issue recently—we’re all subject to podcasts these days, aren’t we? He spoke about those relationships at the time, and I think we should learn from that; it is very helpful to have those recollections. But something changed, and this has been the result.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and many others of his vintage, if I can say that—

[Dr Prinsley]

A fine vintage.

[Karin Smyth]

Indeed. They wanted to work with resident doctors to talk through a way to make progress without resorting to strike action, because that is a sign of failure in any system.

On new clause 81, we are committed to reforming trade union legislation to bring it into the 21st century. We want to create an industrial relations framework that is fit for a modern economy, and workplaces that work for everyone. That is why the Employment Rights Act 2025 repealed the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act 2023. The previous legislation created a hostile environment, which was not conducive to good partnership working with trade unions or to settling disputes.

On new clause 82, although strikes are hugely disruptive, a ban on a doctor’s right to strike is not the answer.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer. The driving force behind a significant majority of those industrial actions was not pay; it was often the safety of staff, the safety of sites, bullying managers or the inability to deliver an environment in which members felt they could deliver their best. Does the Minister agree that the ability to take industrial action is not always about money-grubbing or about pay? It is often about health and safety and about delivering the very best workplaces for our workers.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his experience to bear on this matter. I absolutely agree. New clause 82 stems from that resident doctors dispute. One of the first things that we did was to agree the 10-point plan with regard to the management in trusts. I have said before how truly shocking the working conditions are in many trusts not just for resident doctors, but for other doctors and professionals. There is no ability to take a break, have a rest or get away. Some of the equipment that they are dealing with is also shocking, as are the levels of the estate. Those are some of the many things that have driven and continue to drive poor industrial relations, along with the fact that there is no one to speak up for them.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister says that if doctors want to go on strike, that is a failure of the system. The consultants have just balloted to go on strike. What failure in the system does she think has caused that?

[Karin Smyth]

I think I said that it is a failure of representatives on both the management side and the union side to agree a solution. That is what I meant by a failure of the system. Ultimately, strike action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield would attest, is a sign of the failure of good, conducive relationships and partnership working. That is why we never want to see it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

In their final months in office, the last Labour Government introduced the Equality Act 2010. That consolidated several pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, which was welcome, but it also introduced a new public sector equality duty, requiring public authorities to have “due regard” to preventing unlawful discrimination and fostering equality of opportunity between groups. The public sector equality duty also requires authorities

“to…encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.”

Unfortunately, that has become a vehicle for social engineering. It was designed, I believe, to improve equality of opportunity, but it is being used to gerrymander equality of outcome instead. That can mean discrimination—against different groups of people, but discrimination nevertheless.

That is clinically objectionable, because it means that health and social care staff may be recruited for reasons other than their clinical abilities, which are what we need and are most important. We have parts of the health service spending their time working on cultural learning classes and pushing paper around, rather than on patient care.

We must get the health service back to basic healthcare, ensuring that it delivers the very best healthcare, free at the point of use, to all individuals based on their clinical need, not their ability to pay. We need to focus on clinical need and the best possible staff, not on trying to gerrymander some sort of social engineering.

[Karin Smyth]

With new clause 83, I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would like to exempt organisations that receive public funding to provide health and social care services from the public sector equality duty. I do not agree with the intent of this measure.

The duty under the Equality Act 2010 was designed to ensure that public authorities

“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity”

and

“foster good relations”

in the exercise of their functions. That includes when designing and delivering services. It is not an unnecessary addition but part of good service design and delivery.

The duty is not there to dictate a particular outcome or set of priorities for the decision maker; it is there to help decision makers understand and take account of the consequences of their choices. It ensures that issues of discrimination, equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups of people are not overlooked during complex decision making. That is why it is important for publicly funded providers of health and social care to have due regard to the duty.

The public sector equality duty should always be applied in a proportionate way. It should not create an administrative burden. If a provider of health and social care is taking a decision that has little or no consequence to equality outcomes, it needs only to note that. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee again today. The safety recommendations are an important mechanism for improving services and securing better outcomes for patients. We support the aim of bringing greater clarity to the recommendations landscape, and we are already taking forward work in this area.

The Dash review of patient safety across the health and care landscape found that a very high number of recommendations have been made to the NHS that often lack any cost-benefit analysis, which is why the 10-year health plan committed to giving specific responsibility for reviewing, analysing and taking forward recommendations to the national quality board. In line with the Dash review, work is progressing on a recommendations hub that will sit within the Department.

The hub will include a repository to hold all national-level recommendations relevant to care quality, including safety, effectiveness and patient experience. It will provide an efficient system for co-ordinating, prioritising and overseeing recommendations made by the national quality board. The hub will record responsibility for implementing prioritised recommendations and, once fully operational, strengthen transparency and accountability for how they are taken forward, which is something I think we all welcome. This new approach will enable the NHS to focus on the actions most likely to enhance patient outcomes.

Where reviews or reports commissioned by the Secretary of State make recommendations to local bodies, those recommendations will remain subject to local governance arrangements within the overall co-ordination retained by the Department. Our existing plans meet the intention behind new clause 85; in fact, they go further by prioritising national-level recommendations for the NHS in a proportionate way, without being bound to specific timescales. They will provide the greater clarity that the new clause seeks without the need for legislation.

On the specific question, I am sorry to disappoint the many campaigners on this issue and Opposition Members by saying that we will not be announcing anything in the next two hours, but the point has been well made. I responded to a Westminster Hall debate myself, and the Minister responsible for patient safety has previously responded to the commissioner and made public the work that the Government are doing. Due to the cross-Government nature of the work, we cannot give exact timelines.

We have heard the calls for clarity, speed and decisive action, and we have committed to setting this out at the earliest opportunity. I have not had a chance to speak directly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield about this issue, but I am sure many conversations on many subjects will be coming our way soon. As both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister made clear during Tuesday night’s debate on the Hillsborough law, redress and patient trust are important aspects of rebuilding the confidence of the public and those who have been wronged in all parts of the state. We are committed to getting this out as soon as is credibly possible. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

The new clauses ask the Government to respond to recommendations on patient safety, and to say within six months whether they will implement them. As I said, we have been waiting several years for the Hughes report response. All new clause 98 would require is that the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the Bill’s passage, publish the Government’s response to the report. That, in itself, is not immediately soon; it is 30 days after the Bill is passed, and it is still yet to go through the Lords and return to the Commons. The new clause would effectively provide a backstop or legal end date—it is still too far away—after which the Government cannot go any further. I will be very disappointed if the Government are not prepared to do that, so I would like to press the new clause to a vote. These people have waited long enough.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

If they are, they can use the advice and guidance service. The point is that when a general practitioner wants to refer his or her patient to a consultant on the basis of their clinical need, they should be able to. That is the purpose of the new clause.

[Karin Smyth]

As someone who previously set up a referral management service, I feel the need to join in this interesting clinical discussion while everybody else watches us for the next hour and a half, but I am not going to do that.

Some interesting points have been raised. To add my two pennies’ worth to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the change in practice is partly due to increased specialism among consultants, which makes it harder to refer. When we set up a referral management service in Bristol, two issues were the pressure on general practice and the use of locums, who were perhaps working temporarily in the area and did not know the full range of available community services. That was some 12 years ago, so greater support on advice and guidance is long overdue as we roll this out.

At the end of the day, the aim is to support patients getting the right clinical care in the right place as fast as possible. We want patients to have timely assessment of their care needs and clear next steps in the right settings. GP referrals and support for GPs in making those referrals is crucial.

The advice and guidance model, which allows GPs to seek rapid specialist input into a patient’s care without an initial face-to-face appointment, and the single point of access model, which will be rolled out in October, support GPs and hospital specialists to work together and make the best treatment plans for patients while reducing unnecessary referrals and increasing waiting lists.

Trusts and integrated care boards must ensure that local GPs, GP leaders, local medical committees and interface groups are involved in the design and ongoing refinement of elective single point of access pathways. In my experience, that is important because we gain their expertise and there is more buy-in to making the pathways a routine part of their work. Advice and guidance is already a routine part of much GP practice. GPs continue to be able to make clinical decisions to refer for specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests. Advice and guidance and the single point of access do not alter the clinical threshold for a referral, and a GP’s clinical decision to refer remains unchanged. All requests for advice and guidance will receive a response from a named consultant with clear accountability and oversight.

We are clear that GPs should continue to make a clinical decision to refer to specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests. The model is intended to support decision making, not override it. To be clear to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the intention was never to mandate. There is a difference, which I think was made clear in subsequent guidance on the system. The diversion rate, as she calls it, is an estimate of the potential of patients who are not referred to the right place in the first place. It is not compulsory. What the new clause proposes already exists and does not need to be set out in primary legislation. For those reasons, I ask her to withdraw it.

[Dr Johnson]

If the hon. Lady is correct, she will not be perturbed by the new clause, which simply says that general practitioners must be able to directly refer patients to consultants when clinical need requires it. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 87 would amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places. Prioritising British students in the selection process would have been the right thing for the Government to do, but way the Medical Training Act has been drafted places British students who studied at international branch campuses of British universities at a disadvantage.

On Second Reading of the Act, a Member spoke of a constituent who had been given

“a formal guarantee that he would be at no disadvantage if he chose to study at the Malta campus.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 801.]

Another Member said that he had

“representations from all quarters, both in the UK and in Malta, about the impact on Malta of this.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 802.]

My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about

“British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service”. —[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 803.]

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke of a constituent who was schooled and grew up here and was

“given a guarantee by the university that she would face no disadvantage compared with students on the London campus.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 842.]

These concerns are shared across the House.

Young British people who have trained at a British or London-based university and gone to study in Malta, perhaps in an adventurous spirit—it is a beautiful place to go—and have graduated with a British degree have found themselves at the back of the queue, unable, round after round, to get jobs in the foundation programme in their home country. That will not just be the case for students who are due to start their degree; it is the case for students who have just completed their degree. They have done the five years of training, they have worked really hard and they have passed their exams, but suddenly they cannot get a job on the foundation scheme in their home country to complete their full registration with the General Medical Council.

Our new clause would ensure that British citizens who studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised. I invite Members to do right by our constituents and the NHS and to vote for it.

[Karin Smyth]

I appreciate the intention behind new clause 87, but the Government cannot support it. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act is designed to support a sustainable medical workforce that can meet population health needs and deliver the best patient care while reducing the UK’s reliance on an unpredictable international labour market. By creating a clear pathway for medical school to speciality training, we also strengthen domestic talent and improve retention.

What matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they were born. Data shows that domestic graduates are more likely to stay in the country they trained in than those trained internationally. Doctors trained primarily in the UK are also likely to be better equipped to deliver healthcare that is tailored to the UK’s population, because they have a stronger understanding of UK-specific epidemiology and NHS practice.

In addition, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. Student intakes and graduate outputs of overseas campuses are not included in our domestic workforce planning. If we prioritised British citizens for foundation training regardless of where they studied, it would undermine our aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring that we do not provide more foundation programme places than we need.

I would like to emphasise—this is an important point—that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. Non-prioritised applicants can still apply for the foundation programme and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers—I understand that is already happening for the 2026 recruitment round. For individuals who do not secure a foundation post this year, there remain alternative routes to pursuing a medical career in the UK. Those include obtaining GMC registration through the established pathways, such as completing an approved internship in the country where they trained and entering the UK healthcare system through a locally employed doctor role or other non-training posts. I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. These two new clauses, the latter of which is in my name, deal with the publication of an annual report detailing NHS and social care provision for dementia care and how the Government are performing against targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services. I would like to thank three important charities working in this area: the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. All three back the two new clauses.

The data requested is imperative to ensuring that the Government can measure and monitor progress against relevant national targets, standards and guidance, including the new modern service framework on dementia, the forthcoming Care Quality Commission statutory guidance and outcome measures that may be set in future NHS operational planning guidance. That is crucial to improving transparency and accountability, allowing systems to see the full picture of dementia provision in England and highlighting challenge areas or inequalities. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of information systems to collect, analyse and publish health and care data that is in the interest of the health service in England. The clause fits into that and would require the collection of data on the provision of dementia services in health and social care.

I do not propose to speak too long, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on the current situation, which sets these new clauses in context. Dementia data is not currently comprehensively or consistently collected, analysed and published. That means that we cannot fully understand the provision of NHS care or social care for dementia, which is the biggest cause of death in the UK; how national targets, guidance or frameworks are being met; and where inequalities and challenges lie.

As well as being the leading cause of death, dementia is a disease that around 1 million people live with. That number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That will, of course, impact many more friends, families and carers who support those living with dementia. More than a third of people living with dementia in England do not have a formal diagnosis. Those who do receive a diagnosis live with the condition for an average of three and a half years before that diagnosis. Post-diagnostic care and support is often fragmented, leaving people affected by dementia without a clear point of contact, co-ordinated care, or access to specialist support for those with complex needs. Recent findings show that only 14% of people with dementia have an advanced care plan in place. That is not good enough for a disease that affects so many people and is the leading cause of death in England.

Dementia puts immense pressure on our healthcare system: one in six hospital beds is occupied by someone living with the condition. Lord Darzi’s investigation into NHS performance highlighted how

“there is an important challenge to improve both the quality and quantity of care for people with dementia.”

The new clauses would go some way to addressing that, and I urge the Government to support them.

[Karin Smyth]

We largely agree with new clauses 96 and 97 and the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He cited some organisations: Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK; hon. Members across the House have worked with them, and many other organisations in this field, and value the work that they do. The hon. Member rightly notes the work that they do to support the friends, families and carers of people with this disease, which is increasing in prevalence. He also commented on the importance of getting diagnosis earlier, and we are moving forward but we need to do so as fast as we can; I think we would all recognise that. I completely understand the rationale behind the new clauses and the urgency with which people want to have sight of the sort of information outlined in them, but we do not think that the new clauses are necessary. I will highlight why.

Some of the data that would be requested by new clause 96, such as details of research in the NHS and reports of lived experience, is already available and often provided by our charity partners, as well as by others. The new clause would therefore lead to a duplication of work. Provision of the other pieces of requested information and the data collection required to produce the report required by the new clause would likely be very onerous, placing additional stress on an already overstretched sector, and would distract from the core task of improving dementia care. It would be especially difficult to get consistent and comparable information from across the adult social care sector, where data can sometimes be fragmented.

Instead, we think that the modern service framework for dementia and frailty is a more helpful vehicle for setting national standards of dementia diagnosis and care, and will serve to hold the sector to account. Additional reports, such as those requested by the new clause, would distract from that and result in duplication.

The framework is still in development and work is ongoing to review the relevant data, metrics and targets to inform it. The framework will also set new national standards, which will help to inform meaningful analysis in the future—something that we are all very keen to see. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.

[Joe Robertson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 97

Publication of annual dementia care report

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and

(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.

(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.

(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—

(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,

(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,

(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,

(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,

(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,

(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and

(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”—(Joe Robertson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

It would amend the relevant part of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, so that when people are put forward for these jobs in the foundation programme, it should be done on the basis of merit. At the moment, as the hon. Member is aware, it is done on the basis of random allocation—preference-informed allocation—which I think is wrong. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on the subject.

[Karin Smyth]

This is an area of some discussion, some of which we have heard, but we do not think it is necessary, where we are now, to put such a measure in primary legislation. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act establishes a statutory process for prioritising certain groups for training posts; it is not intended to change eligibility for training or the high standards that applicants must meet. Embedding some of these provisions in primary legislation would leave them inflexible to future workforce needs or standards of education and training. If Parliament wishes to change how recruitment processes themselves operate, that is best done outside legislation through established routes.

The preference-informed allocation system was introduced in 2024 following stakeholder engagement, because the previous system was felt to be unfair and stressful for applicants, with a lack of standardisation across schools. Since its introduction, as I understand it, 82% of applicants have been allocated their first choice of foundation school this year, up from 71% in 2023. NHS England has committed to a review of the system, which will commence later this year. Prescribing the allocation method in legislation would pre-empt that review and limit our ability to make future changes to ensure that the system remains fit for purpose. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

The new clause deliberately says that applicants would be prioritised based on merit, and it gives examples of ways in which merit might be judged. I understand what the Minister says about some people getting the job of their choice, but the people who do not have no control over the process, and no ability to influence it through their own hard work and effort. That is fundamentally wrong in principle. Although I recognise that the current method was brought in as a result of consultation, I feel confident that the same consultation, done now, would reject it. We would like to vote on the new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

During a Westminster Hall debate in December, a Government Minister said:

“In the coming months, in the first half of next year, I confirm that we will publish the acquired brain injury action plan”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 472WH.]

We are now in the second half of 2026. Members may be familiar with the charity Headway UK, which does phenomenal work to support people affected by brain injury, including people in my constituency. Headway has called for the Government to treat the plan as a priority, reiterating that every delay has real consequences and that survivors need support now. The all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett has done a great deal to support, has called for the Government to take action.

So why is action not forthcoming? Why have the Government failed to deliver another policy on time? It is part of a pattern. The Government spent a year writing a 10-year plan. They spent another year working on a workforce plan, which still has not been published. It is simultaneously “imminent” as of 30 days ago and non-existent today. They are behind on the Hughes report, the modern service frameworks, universal 24/7 mechanical thrombectomy, fracture liaison services and more.

The new clause would simply commit the Government to delivering on their promise to the 1 million people living with the effects of acquired brain injury. I struggle to see how the Assistant Whip can compel Members to vote against that.

[Karin Smyth]

I think all Committee members can recognise the importance of this issue. An acquired brain injury is a life-changing event for those affected, and for their families and loved ones. Its treatment involves co-ordination between primary, community, secondary and specialist care, and is personalised to the needs and life circumstances of the individual. Its effects are not limited to a person’s health: it can impact their journey through education, their employment prospects and so many other aspects of life. Because of that, they rightly expect coherent, joined-up support from across Government.

Therefore, as we have discussed, we are working in partnership with eight other Government Departments, ABI charities, patient representatives and the NHS to develop an ABI action plan. We also continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum, which is the umbrella organisation for brain injury charities, as the plan develops and moves towards publication.

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

I am glad to hear that work is going on, but as the Minister may remember, work has been going on for a very long time—some Opposition Members may remember that past work. The issue is clearly important to people, so we need to see action—again, it is about how we get to that end. I would like to see some commitment from the Government. I recognise that the Minister is not in charge of the acquired brain injury strategy, but could she help us by referring the issue to the relevant Minister for an urgent discussion?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on and commitment to this issue, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister. I thank her also for her work on the APPG and with organisations such as Headway, to which we pay tribute for its work supporting patients and the public, and for her work with Members of Parliament and the Government on getting this right, which is legion. My hon. Friend has made similar comments in the House. The Minister responsible is continuing to work on the action plan, which I will talk about as we continue our consideration.

The new clause raises the issues of prevention, identification, acute treatment, rehabilitation, long-term support, care planning, workforce capability, data and research, all of which are being considered in the work being done across the eight Departments. The Government agree that there should be a plan, and the relevant Minister, to whom I will of course pass my hon. Friend’s comments, will be working on that.

The question is whether the proposals in the new clause are best placed to ensure that any plan will be robust, sustainable and timely for the patients it is designed to serve. I say gently to the shadow Minister that I think they are not. First, setting an arbitrary 30-day timeline for publication risks causing either an unnecessary delay or a duplicate plan. Secondly, as I hope she will appreciate, we have engaged more widely than with just the three Departments named in the new clause. As I have said, as many as eight Departments are contributing, which reflects the wide range of areas that are impacted by brain injury.

Let me give the shadow Minister the assurance that I believe she is seeking, as are others: a plan will be published as soon as possible. That plan is being developed with the breadth, rigor and pace that the issue demands and is receiving input from across the health system, as well as from other Departments responsible for supporting people with acquired brain injuries and sector-specific stakeholders and organisations. I hope that she will work with us to support the plan once it is published, in the interests of our constituents, who desperately require a new approach to ABI prevention, care and support. I ask her to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister said that the plan is being developed with the pace that is needed, but it is not. It was due to have been published already, but it has not been. It was due to have been published, then a later promise was made, and now she is making another promise with an uncertain date. I just do not think it is good enough. A theme of our consideration this afternoon has been all the different things the Government have promised but have failed to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

On new clause 105, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to supporting self-care. Community pharmacies already play a vital role by offering accessible advice and, where appropriate, over-the-counter medicines for minor ailments. Through Pharmacy First, patients can walk into a pharmacy or be referred by NHS 111, a GP or A&E for expert support, including access to treatment under the seven clinical pathways. That helps people get the right care quickly while easing pressures on other parts of the NHS.

However, we do not think that it is necessary to specify health literacy and self-care in neighbourhood health plans. The neighbourhood health framework is clear that ICBs and local authorities should work together through health and wellbeing boards to develop locally led neighbourhood plans to improve local population health and reduce health inequalities. The framework sets out what should be included in those plans, and is clear that neighbourhood health plans should be informed by local joint strategic needs assessments.

If local areas think they would benefit from having a greater focus on self-care and health literacy, they are of course free to do so. However, that is for them to decide, based on their understanding of the local area’s needs. That permissive approach recognises that local leaders know their communities best and are therefore best placed to determine how to meet the population’s needs. We are not setting a ceiling on what local areas can deliver, and that approach will drive progress more than dictating an overly prescriptive national approach would. For those reasons, we do not think it is helpful or appropriate to define the contents of a neighbourhood health plan in legislation.

Moving to new clause 106, the Government recognise the important role that medicines reclassification can play in supporting self-care, improving access to treatment and helping patients manage their health more effectively, where it is safe for them to do so. There is already an established, evidence-based, proportionate framework for medicines reclassification in place, which is overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The UK is already a world leader in medicines reclassification, and the MHRA has reclassified more than 140 medicines over the last 30 years across varied therapeutic areas, including pain and inflammation, and continues to approve new reclassifications each year.

The Government have taken proactive steps to support further reclassification. The MHRA has worked closely with industry partners in recent years to streamline and improve the reclassification application process to ensure that it is as efficient as possible for applicants, while maintaining high clinical standards. Creating an additional statutory reporting requirement would not improve the assessment of individual applications, and nor would it accelerate access to medicines for patients. Instead, it risks duplicating activity undertaken in recent years and diverting resources from the effective operation of the current system. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has the reassurance she needs and will not press her new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Under the previous Conservative Government, the NHS constitution was updated with a commitment to guarantee that

“those in the armed forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area they reside.”

The previous Government also introduced the veterans’ strategy action plan, committing NHS England to providing millions of pounds for specialised support services. Ministers also introduced a single point for veterans to access mental health services and support. The previous Conservative Government also created an armed forces covenant duty. Today, we need to see the principles the covenant brought to life at all levels of Government.

Only last week, I received an email from a constituent who has moved around because of her husband’s service in the armed forces and who was struggling to access specialist services for her child’s health as a result. That is why we need new clause 112, which would require the Health Secretary to report on how they are meeting the duties under the covenant. Members will know that I am cautious about mandating any more paperwork, but veterans are being let down. We need some accountability. That report would hopefully achieve that, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

[Karin Smyth]

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but first I will address clauses 68 to 72, as well as amendment 77, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire.

Clause 68 will allow the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision that is consequential on this Bill. Amendment 77 would amend that provision. The Government recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the significant changes proposed in the Bill. While the Bill contains some new regulation-making powers, the majority are existing powers that have been amended in the light of the abolition of NHS England. They will therefore be uncontroversial and consequential, so we consider it proportionate for the same parliamentary scrutiny arrangements to continue to apply in respect of those powers.

However, where we are introducing new regulation-making powers, we have carefully considered what parliamentary scrutiny arrangements should apply. For example, any regulations that are made to facilitate the single patient record will be subject to the affirmative procedure, because we understand the importance of debating that issue in both Houses. Furthermore, any statutory instruments made under clause 68 that amend, repeal or revoke provisions made by primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will need to be debated and passed by both Houses. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire agrees that a blanket requirement for the affirmative procedure would be disproportionate. She said that she will not press amendment 77 to a vote, but I hope that what I have said provides her with the reassurance she was seeking.

Clause 69 is a standard clause that appears in Bills that provide for the expenditure of public money. It simply provides for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State as a result of changes made under the Act, once it has received Royal Assent, to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

Clause 70 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill. While most of its provisions extend only to England and Wales, some are UK-wide. The clauses in the Bill largely apply to England only, and in previous sittings we debated the consequences for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and any issues relating to devolution, as and when they have arisen. Amendments to other legislation made by this Bill will have the same territorial extent as the legislation that will have been amended.

Clause 71 sets out when provisions in the Bill will come into force once it has received Royal Assent. As is usual, the clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to commence the majority of the Bill’s clauses on a date to be set out in regulations. It may also be appropriate to bring different provisions in the Bill into force at different times, and the powers in clause 71 will allow for that. The powers will also enable the Secretary of State to make saving or transitional provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision, which will enable the commencement of the Bill to operate smoothly and efficiently.

Under clause 63, as the Committee has heard, the Care Quality Commission will be able to take action to bring proceedings against a health and social care provider for a serious breach of regulations. However, that provision will apply only to new offences. To ensure that we can act to prevent cases falling through the gaps, we are committed to bringing in the measure as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while respecting the routine two-month window, as is set out in the Bill.

Clause 72 is self-explanatory and provides that, once passed, the Bill may be cited as the Health Act 2026. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Before I conclude, I put on record my thanks to you, Ms Lewell, and to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), for guiding this Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also thank the Clerks for everything that they have done behind the scenes. This is the first Bill that I have taken through a Public Bill Committee, and the work really is quite legion. The Clerks’ expertise is second to none and a delight to see closely.

Equally, I thank the officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and the lawyers, some of whom have worked on several Committees over the years. Again, I have learned so much from them and their expertise. It is a dedicated team, and their hard work and expertise on Bills over many years is good to see. I thank them for their support in making this Bill go forward.

I thank the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham for their kind comments and good wishes. I also thank members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions over the past few weeks. Despite the heat, I, too, have enjoyed our discussions. I think that we have given the Bill a very good airing and there has been constructive engagement and scrutiny. They have given us lots of food for thought, which we have taken careful note of, regardless of whether we have taken up the amendments.

[Dr Johnson]

I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Clerks, House staff and others, as well as members of the Committee. Leaving aside the heat, I have also enjoyed our exchanges. I hope that the Minister has a good recess and that she does well in the upcoming reshuffle.

[Karin Smyth]

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Extent

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

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

This is consequential on NC92.

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Commencement

Amendments made: 81, in clause 71, page 48, line 25, leave out “Section 63” and insert “The following”.

This paves the way for Amendment 82.

Amendment 82, in clause 71, page 48, line 26, at end insert “—

(a) section 63 (Care Quality Commission: time limit for bringing proceedings);

(b) sections (Regulations: reference to agreements and standards), (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements), (Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations), (Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure), (Medical devices: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations).”.—(Karin Smyth.)

This provides for the new clauses listed to come into force 2 months after royal assent.

Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.

(3B) The conditions are that—

(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document"); and

(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the “workforce transition plan”).

(3C) The operating model document must include—

(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;

(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;

(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and

(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.

(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—

(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;

(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and

(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.

(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.

(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

As that was a speech and not an intervention, we will take the Minister before the hon. Member for Winchester responds.

[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 ---

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Single sex facilities

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

(a) changing rooms for NHS staff

(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff

(c) wards for NHS patients

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this discussion before the Committee. She is right that, following the For Women Scotland case at the Supreme Court in April 2025 and the recent laying of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice on 21 May, ensuring the provision of single-sex facilities for patients and staff is a prominent issue. The Government welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment. The EHRC code of practice sets out how service providers may lawfully apply sex-based distinctions following the Supreme Court judgment. That guidance is applicable to services, public functions and associations and includes, but is not limited to, the services provided in the NHS.

Following that, NHS England drafted the revised guidance, “Privacy, dignity and safety in hospital accommodation”, which will align with the legal position and the EHRC code of practice and replace existing guidance. I know that many colleagues are impatient to see the existing guidance replaced following the Supreme Court ruling. It was important to wait for the EHRC code of practice to be published so that it could be considered in any guidance. The code of practice was published on 21 May. Following the publication, NHS England reviewed the guidance to ensure that it was in line with the code. The code was subject to a 40-day laying period before Parliament, which ended on 9 July. The Government expect the code to come into force in early August. Guidance for the NHS will be published shortly afterwards.

NHS England is also developing guidance on staff facilities, including changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities that should be used by trusts and ICBs. The provision of physical single-sex facilities for NHS staff is for NHS organisations to individually manage in line with their legal obligations. There is already legislation covering this issue, particularly the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Organisations should already be conducting assessments of their own estates and the needs of their workforce to decide what changes they need to make to comply with all legislative requirements.

On mixed-sex accommodation and breaches, there is a long-standing policy of same-sex accommodation. Individuals should not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite sex unless appropriate. In practice, the proposed amendment does not allow scope for mixed-sex accommodation where clinically appropriate—for example, intensive care unit facilities or where it is necessary for patient safety. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Well, what was a disaster was the Tories’ management of the capital estate pre-1997 and post-2010, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham wants to talk about disasters on capital planning. I could talk about this for a very long time, but I know the Committee is keen to move forward, and I addressed some of these issues in debate on a previous amendment. I am very proud of, for example, Southmead hospital in Bristol, which is one of the finest examples of a hospital in the country and was built under a PFI scheme. I received treatment there a couple of years ago, in facilities that are good for staff to work and patients to be treated in. It replaced a hospital that was falling down and in shocking condition, despite the best efforts of staff. We can see similar examples across the country.

Under the Tories’ management, and for some of the early PFI schemes under the last Labour Government, contracts were poorly negotiated. They had issues with, for example, management of inflation. We have learned lessons from that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about some contracts, including one where, I think, her whiteboard was not working. We know what the lessons are to be learned from that, and we are doing exactly what a good Government do when they take charge—change it.

In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power, they could have started negotiating these contracts differently at any point, but they chose not to. They chose to let the estate atrophy and fall down. That is bad for patients and the public. That is why I was proud last week to launch the Government’s capital plan, building for the future, looking forward and giving nine years of certainty for estates across all our constituencies.

[Dr Prinsley]

I agree with everything that the Minister has to say—what a surprise—but particularly the fact that when the new Government came in, they did something about these 40 “new” hospitals that were not full hospitals. The people of Bury St Edmunds were delighted to learn that their RAAC-affected hospital, which is tumbling down, will be one of the first to be reconstructed. We look forward to that and are grateful for the decisions made by the Government.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Across the east of England, where we now have so many Labour MPs, everyone has been trying to rectify the mismanagement that local people have seen, particularly of the capital estate. I will not detain the Committee on the capital estate—one of my favourite subjects—for very long.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is aware that the decision on neighbourhood health centres was announced in the autumn. The decision-making process was supported by a business case to examine the feasibility of developing a new model, learning the lessons of the past on public-private partnerships specifically to build neighbourhood health centres as part of our 10-year plan. That informed the decision to proceed. The business case was a strategic outline case, the purpose of which was to scope and identify the preferred way forward for a new potential model, in line with the Treasury’s five case model. We are now working with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority to develop this further, and we expect a further round of market engagement in the autumn.

I recognise the interest in making the business case available to both Houses, but that must be balanced with the need to develop an effective policy. Publication while policy development is ongoing would limit full, candid and proper deliberation. Civil servants and subject experts need to be able to engage in frank discussion of policy options to expose their merits, demerits and possible implications. Their candour in doing so would be affected by their assessment of whether the content of such discussions would be disclosed.

We are committed to building neighbourhood health centres across the country. That is what patients and the public deserve. We will obviously be mindful of public money and subject to the usual processes of the House, including the Public Accounts Committee. We will learn those lessons. We are in full discussion with NISTA. For those reasons, we are committed to developing good estate across our country. That is what our constituents deserve. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

For the record, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and work as a consultant paediatrician at North West Anglia NHS foundation trust, which will have a new hospital. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

This new clause asks the Government to use private providers to help get waiting lists down. We are told that waiting lists are falling, but the Government’s own figures show that waiting lists are higher than they were last month, and if we look at the group of people who are waiting for admission for a procedure or operation, they are higher than they were last month, last year or indeed at the general election in 2024. There were 76,250 women waiting for gynaecological treatment at the end of July ’24, when this Labour Government took office; that rose by more than 6,000 patients to 82,623 as of May 2026. Private providers have capacity that may be able to help with that.

The deployment of private providers is about using all the resources and capacity on offer across the country to get waiting lists down. The NHS uses private providers to perform some surgeries and scans, mental health support, GPs and dentistry, but it is a sensible measure to ensure that all hands are on deck when it comes to treating patients. I look forward to hearing how the Minister can use private providers to get more patients seen more quickly as opposed to wiping them from waiting lists at record rates.

[Karin Smyth]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the NHS uses private provision to support access to treatment and reduce lists. I understand the point that she is making, but I assure her that this is an unnecessary new clause.

ICBs already can and do use private healthcare providers to offer patients treatment in their area and boost capacity to reduce lists. Our approach is pragmatic, not ideological: in the 10-year health plan, the Government committed to continuing to use private sector capacity where it is available; that is not because we favour the private sector but because we are committed to using capacity wherever it is available. Our priority is treating patients in a timely manner, not favouring one form of provider over another. Under existing legislation, patients must be offered a choice of provider for their first outpatient appointment, where the duty of choice applies. If a person’s needs are not met by local services or waiting times are high, they can use that choice to see an appropriately qualified provider.

However, we must resist the temptation to apply a one-size-fits-all approach here. ICBs are responsible for the financial sustainability, planning and strategic commissioning of services for their local populations, so they are best placed to decide how private premises should be used to meet a population’s needs. For example, high waiting times, which we obviously inherited from the Conservatives, for a particular specialty may result not from a lack of capacity but from increased demand from GP referrals. The ICB must have the flexibility to improve how advice and guidance—referral support, for instance—is working for GPs, rather than being required to wastefully spend NHS funds on increasing capacity with the private sector.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

If this is put on the statute book, will it not mean that the private sector can have more and more hospitals, when we should be using them only if the NHS does not have the capacity? The private sector should be the last resort rather than a first choice.

[Karin Smyth]

I am slightly confused, as I suspect other Committee members are, by the Opposition’s approach to the private sector, having had a discussion in relation to the previous new clause about not using the private sector and boosting work and employment opportunities in our country. They do have a slightly odd view with regard to this. As I said, our view is very pragmatic: it is to support the treatment of patients to get waiting lists down. That is what our constituents deserve. Where capacity can be used, we want to make sure that that choice is available.

[Dr Prinsley]

I am confused by the Opposition referring in their new clause to a requirement to “make regulations” in this respect, as the private sector is already widely used to reduce waiting lists where appropriate. However, we must also be aware of the problem we have with overuse of private facilities. That can have an effect on the provision of NHS services, because the number of available staff is limited. I think particularly of ophthalmology services, as we have created a situation in which the overprovision of private services has disabled the provision of ophthalmology services.

[Karin Smyth]

That is why I was clear in outlining that ICBs have a duty to make sure that they are financially sustainable and that their planning and strategic commissioning meets the needs of their local population. They need to balance those requirements.

Under the new clause, there is a risk that the Secretary of State, by setting blanket requirements, would contravene the level playing field provisions in clause 10 of the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

The previous use of private providers was to remove debt from the Government’s balance sheet. That is not the same as providing guidance and regulations on how to increase capacity and use the spare capacity of private providers to reduce waiting lists, which are currently rising. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the workforce plan is important. Despite that plan being “imminent” for several weeks now, it has not been published. I will press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 46 would require the Secretary of State to publish the number of staff in the Department of Health and Social Care and the number of people made redundant following the abolition of NHS England. New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy. Amendment 37 would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model. Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to publish and submit to independent scrutiny an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England containing quantified cost and benefit figures before making regulations to abolish it.

Amendment 39 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using the powers in the Bill for abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows, delayed hospital discharges and the workforce. The problem is essentially that Ministers marched off into a battle without a plan and continue to fight without one.

In this Committee, we have heard consistently about the number of times that things have not been thoroughly planned out and properly considered, particularly in relation to social care. I know that Members on all sides of the House are concerned about how social care will interact with the health service under the proposed new regime. In March 2025, Ministers and officials were going to work to determine what was needed, and in March 2026, they were still progressing to develop the design—12 months later, there was a change in tense but still no proper plan.

When putting the Bill before the House, the Government published an impact assessment, but where there should be numbers quantifying how much this is all going to cost us, there is simply “N/A”. How is that any way to conduct a reorganisation? That is why I tabled amendments 37, 38 and 39. They would apply the brakes until the operating model had been established by requiring the full publication of a proper impact assessment, a detailed plan of how the health service will work alongside social care, and the publication of redundancy figures. They would ensure that the Government have worked out what they are going to do before they get on and start doing it.

[Karin Smyth]

The Government of course recognise the importance of clarity and assurance as we undertake this significant transformation, including on how functions, governance and the workforce will operate in the future. That is essential for ensuring that our staff and other stakeholders understand the new role of the Department.

On new clause 46, we recognise the importance of transparency around departmental workforce numbers and the impact of abolishing NHS England. The Government remain committed to significantly reducing headcount across NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, but I put on record my thanks to all the staff and talented professionals working in both organisations; this is a difficult time for them. However, this new clause is not necessary. Workforce information is already published both monthly and through the Department’s annual report and accounts, alongside wider Government transparency publications. Placing a further reporting requirement in legislation would risk duplicating existing transparency data, so it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill.

On amendment 37, I reassure the Committee that we will consult on the proposed structure for the new Department of Health and Social Care, and that is also required under existing employment law. The structure will clearly explain what every part of the new Department will do and set out every post we think we need. The target operating model is an internal document that sets out the proposed purpose, role, governance and organisational structure of the future Department. It will be shared internally, following engagement with staff and stakeholders, including trade unions. The chair of NHS England, Dr Penny Dash, has committed to sharing it with the Health and Social Care Committee once it is finalised.

The target operating model will be used to guide detailed organisational design and will iterate over time. The proposed design of the new organisation will be subject to consultation. The target operating model does not implement changes that remain subject to parliamentary approval through this Bill.

On workforce transition, we will follow TUPE-like principles whether TUPE or any other transfer mechanism applies, in line with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector. That means that recognised trade unions will be formally consulted and engaged with on measures related to the transfer. No changes to contractual terms and conditions will be made without proper consultation and engagement.

We are committed to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with trade unions and staff throughout this period of change, and we are updating them as often as possible. Where appropriate, we are also committed to working with staff networks on the changes, particularly on how we can best support staff. Given those commitments, I hope that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham agrees that placing further requirements in the Bill would be disproportionate.

On amendment 38, we agree that it is important to be transparent about the costs and benefits of this programme. The Department has been open about the initial estimate of around £1 billion of savings per year, and we published an impact assessment alongside the Bill. The detailed timing and scale of costs and savings from the programme depend on factors such as the take-up of voluntary exit and redundancy schemes, which are under way. We will continue to refine our assessment of costs and savings as the programme progresses and as we move towards the abolition of NHS England. We will continue to be open about those figures.

The savings will support continued investment in frontline services. The timescales set out in the amendment would risk delaying the abolition of NHS England and, as a result, would delay the transfer of savings to frontline services and the stability and certainty we need for our staff.

On amendment 39, the Government are committed to supporting the integration of health and social care so that people experience more joined-up, person-centred care. Key planning frameworks, including for the better care fund and for neighbourhood health, already stress the critical importance of strong join-up and integration. We expect those frameworks to continue to guide the health and care system following the abolition of NHS England. Most importantly of all, we are committed to developing neighbourhood health approaches as an essential part of reforming the health and care system. That approach will deliver more integrated services across health, local government and wider partners, including the voluntary and community sector.

The Bill simplifies existing complex legal frameworks to make collaboration easier and emphasises the role of health and wellbeing boards as a focal point for that collaboration. However, partnership and collaboration take many forms depending on local circumstances, and they cannot simply be prescribed through a centrally developed plan. Instead, we should encourage areas to develop effective, productive relationships in the interests of the people they serve. We have discussed that in this Committee, and hon. Members from all parties have a key role to play there.

Turning to new clause 75, we absolutely recognise the need to ensure that critical functions, expertise and organisational capability are identified, retained and effectively transferred during this period of change. That is essential to maintaining continuity of services and supporting the delivery of key health programmes, including vital services such as cancer care.

I reassure the Committee that that work is already well under way. We are carefully mapping all areas of current activity across NHS England, assessing what capabilities we need to deliver them in future and putting processes in place to support the retention and transfer of expertise. This includes the phased approach we are taking to workforce changes, alongside a robust and consistently applied process for voluntary redundancies and voluntary exits, to minimise disruption and protect critical skills. We are also committed to ongoing monitoring and oversight through the transition, and as part of our programme of governance, there is ongoing consideration of skill retention, knowledge transfer and organisational capability, and we will take action where gaps are identified.

As drafted, the new clause would introduce a new statutory requirement to produce and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before the abolition of NHS England and the implementation of transfer schemes, alongside new ongoing reporting obligations. While well-intentioned, it would add another unnecessary step into what is already a complex and carefully sequenced programme. It would reduce the flexibility needed to adapt workforce organisational decisions as the transformation progresses. For those reasons, the Government believe that the objectives of the new clause are already being delivered through existing programme arrangements, without the need to place further requirements in the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I do not know where the Government have transparently published all these numbers and calculations. A lot of parliamentary questions have been asked on the detail of this transition, so I think it is important that the detail is published so we can see it, and that the detail is planned, before the abolition process takes place. I therefore want to press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister back from her son’s graduation —I hope it went well.

I rise to state my support for new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a clear roll-out plan for fracture liaison services across England and report annually to Parliament on progress towards universal coverage by 2030. It is not about creating a new target, because the target already exists: both this Government and the previous Government committed to achieving 100% fracture liaison service coverage by 2030. The question before us, as proposed by the shadow Minister, is simple: how will that promise be delivered, and how will Parliament know whether meaningful progress is being made?

Fracture liaison services are one of the most evidence-based interventions in osteoporosis care. They systematically identify people aged over 50 who suffer a fragility fracture; assess their bone health; initiate treatment where appropriate; and monitor patients to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. Given that around half of patients who sustain a hip fracture have previously broken another bone, those services represent a vital opportunity to intervene before a life-changing injury occurs. The human cost is considerable. Osteoporosis affects millions of people, particularly older women, and fragility fractures can result in a loss of independence, reduced mobility, social isolation and significant pressure on health and social care services. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that around 180,000 fractures each year in England and Wales are attributable to osteoporosis.

There is also a compelling economic case: the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that investing around £30 million in fracture liaison services could prevent approximately 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures, saving the NHS around £665 million and freeing up some 750,000 bed days. Few preventive interventions offer that combination of better patient outcomes and substantial savings for the NHS.

The Government frequently point to their commitment to universal coverage by 2030, but as the shadow Minister pointed out, progress has been achingly slow. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I questioned him on that issue directly. While he confirmed that the Department remains committed to meeting that 2030 target, which was first established by the previous Conservative Government, no plan—or indication of when a plan would come—was given. A commitment alone is not a delivery plan.

There are also growing concerns that the Government have overstated the progress that has already been made. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has confirmed that more than 97% of the fracture liaison services counted by the current Government were already in place before the change of Government. So, rather than that representing any significant expansion in national coverage, this Government have gone slow. I think it is therefore very reasonable—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket—for Parliament to be entitled to ask what additional progress has actually been made since the commitment was reaffirmed.

New clause 47 would also require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of access in every integrated care board area. It would also require annual milestones, because, at present, there is no publicly available timetable showing where the services will be established, or which areas will be prioritised or progressed between now and 2030.

Crucially, the new clause would require the Government to set out how integrated care boards will actually be supported. Ministers rightly point out that fracture liaison services are commissioned locally by integrated care boards, but if the responsibility for delivery rests locally while responsibility for national targets rests with central Government, there clearly needs to be a well-thought-through national framework explaining how those boards will be supported through funding, guidance, workforce planning and accountability.

This is, therefore, a straightforward request for transparency, accountability and, most importantly, delivery. If Ministers are committed to achieving this by 2030, they should have absolutely no objection to publishing a plan that shows how they intend to get there. For those reasons, I support the new clause.

[Karin Smyth]

I will partly agree with the Opposition to start off with: they are absolutely right that osteoporosis is a really important issue, particularly for older women. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined some of the economic case, but crucially, it is a strong health issue. I worked and campaigned on this issue in opposition myself, because it predominantly affects older women. It also very much fits into our 10-year health plan regarding prevention. That is why we have also, for example, increased access to DEXA—dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry—scanners.

It is rather disappointing, though, for a subject on which there is obviously so much agreement to be used as a political back-and-forth here today. Let me be clear. I think some of the comments show why some of this has got a bit confused, including for people who genuinely care about this rather than just wanting to make it a political issue. Again, it is entirely the Opposition’s job to oppose the Government, and I do not have any problem with that, but there is a serious issue here about how this is monitored.

We are absolutely committed to having coverage across the country by 2030, as the Secretary of State has recently said. That is why we are rolling out more DEXA scanners and so on, but with the clustering of ICBs, 92% of the country is now covered across those clusters.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Karin Smyth]

That is why it is important that we look at what is actually happening on the ground and how we are moving forward. We are committed to supporting this cohort, and particularly those patients for whom this condition is largely preventable. Care closer to home, based around our 10-year plan, is absolutely the right way to go about that.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I was going to outline the points, but I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants.

[Dr Johnson]

Can the Minister be clear on the point about ICBs? There is a concern that, where there are perhaps three ICBs, one of which has a service and two of which do not, and they merge together, the Government then say, “Aha! This ICB area now has coverage,” but that is for part of it, not all of it. What is important for a universal service is that it is available to all.

[Karin Smyth]

Again, the hon. Lady has intervened, but that is exactly my point. There is a danger here of the Conservative party focusing on a target or number and totally missing the point, which is to have good, locally available services accessible to this predominantly female and predominantly older population through our 10-year health plan. If one counts the new clustered ICBs in that target, 92% of areas are covered.

We want to get to the heart of this issue. Integrated care boards are the commissioners of local health services and remain best placed to make decisions according to local need. Commissioning these services at a local rather than national level—which is the entire thrust of our 10-year health plan, and indeed this Bill—means that ICBs are best placed to commission holistic, integrated care that wraps around the patient’s need, where the patient is.

We have been very clear in our 10-year health plan, and indeed in this Bill, that we are not expecting patients to fit in with models of care that have been devised over a period of time and in hospitals that are largely located far from their homes. We are looking at a close-to-home service and building models of care around peoples’ needs. A legislative requirement for a national implementation plan would cut across that responsibility, undermining local ability to tailor services to patient needs and causing confusion for delivery. That is why we do not think the new clause is necessary.

The renewed women’s health strategy sets an expectation that ICBs prioritise community-based models when commissioning new fracture prevention services. The Department will continue to work closely with NHS England and ICBs to explore a range of options that provide better quality, and better access to, important preventive services. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the motion.

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid I am not reassured at all. The Minister seems to be saying that the ICBs will do it—the same ICBs where she is cutting their budgets, making them change the board and making them merge with each other all at the same time. The target is behind schedule and it is important that we hold the Government to account on it. Therefore, I will press new clause 47 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

The 10-year cancer plan, which we absolutely welcome, included a commitment for 28 new radiotherapy machines. That is far from enough, particularly for a cost-effective and successful treatment. We would like to see the Government go further, particularly in those areas that have significant radiotherapy deserts.

[Karin Smyth]

This is an important debate, as many of them are today. I understand that waiting for a cancer diagnosis, as I have had to do myself, is very stressful. The national cancer plan sets out how the Government will change that experience for patients and their families. Crucially, the plan is driven by evidence and shaped by the voices of more than 11,000 patients, charities and professionals who responded to our call for evidence.

The plan covers the entirety of the pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care, as well as prevention and research and innovation, and tackles the key issues raised in the new clauses. Delivery of the plan will be monitored by the national cancer board, with an independent co-chair reporting to the Department.

On new clauses 48 and 65, let me be clear that improving access to high-quality radiotherapy services is a priority for the Government, and one that we are already delivering. In May last year we announced the roll-out of new linear accelerator machines, we have committed to meeting all cancer waiting time targets by the end of this Parliament, and timely access to radiotherapy is central to the 31-day and 62-day treatment standards. We will go further by reviewing the targets, once they have been met, to consider whether they should be strengthened. That will include considering what data is needed to support improved performance. A separate statutory framework would duplicate the established performance regime.

We are well aware that radiotherapy performance is below that of other treatment types, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire outlined. We are also aware of the serious variation between different parts of the country. We have at our disposal the Getting It Right First Time programme and national interventions to address those issues at a local level. The national cancer plan also tackles unwarranted variation through robust national data and oversight from the national cancer board, while ensuring that service configuration remains clinically led.

We have committed to improving the productivity of radiotherapy services, including by using artificial intelligence to streamline treatment. We will make a £70 million investment in state-of-the-art radiotherapy machines by 2027 through a managed national replacement programme. Imposing fixed legislative limits on the age profile of equipment would reduce the flexibility required to manage that programme effectively. Additionally, the NHS is already under a clear statutory duty to fund NICE-recommended interventions, supported by national commissioning guidance. Additional minimum standards would duplicate those safeguards without improving outcomes.

New clause 48 also suggests metrics to track radiotherapy performance. I assure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that high-quality and detailed data already helps us to understand emerging issues and to monitor performance. The National Disease Registration Service in NHS England collects diagnosis, treatment and outcome data on cancer patients in England. It routinely reports incidence, prevalence, survival, routes to diagnosis and treatment data on all cancers. NHS England also publishes monthly radiotherapy performance data.

On workforce capacity, we are already seeing increases in key roles, including clinical oncology doctors and radiologists, and the Getting It Right First Time review of radiotherapy services will report later this year. The new clauses risk duplicating efforts already in train to improve the oversight of radiotherapy services, workforce, data quality and coverage, and would create additional bureaucracy and divert resources away from patient care.

I turn to new clause 53. Improving performance against cancer waiting standards is a priority for this Government. We have made year-on-year progress with cancer waiting times, but we know that there is some way to go. Cancer incidence is about 15% higher than when the 62-day standard was last met, in late 2015. There are more than 200 distinct cancer types, and each is complex. The cancer waiting time targets, including the 62-day referral-to-treatment target, are not set at 100% for several reasons, including patient choice, clinical guidelines and the complexity of diagnosis and treatment planning. That means that not every patient can or should be treated within the waiting time standard. We therefore do not think the new clause is appropriate.

Change, including improvements to the cancer pathway and to tackle variation in performance, cannot be delivered overnight. The national cancer plan sets out the concrete actions that we are taking to get there. We have already demonstrated our commitment to transforming diagnostic services by investing £2.3 billion in diagnostic capacity. That will support us in achieving the 62-day standard through faster diagnosis. We recognise that the provision of cancer services, including treatment, varies across the country. The national cancer plan addresses how to tackle that variation.

To accelerate breakthroughs in cancer treatments, we will explore innovative procurement methods. That will aim to stimulate the development of new diagnostic tests, targeted therapies and more effective treatment for rare cancers, ensuring that the NHS remains at the forefront of medical innovation.

We believe that new clause 54, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, is unnecessary because the Department already has the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the national cancer plan underpinning its cancer research strategy. The Department invests about £1.8 billion each year on research through the NIHR. Cancer is a major area of its spending, at £141.6 million in 2024-25, reflecting the fact that it is a high priority. The NIHR does not usually ringfence funds for research in specific conditions; it welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including cancer. Research is funded through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals most likely to deliver real impact for patients are funded without imposing financial targets or limits.

The national cancer plan is the first plan to have a dedicated chapter on rare cancers, which is important to many hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, who has done great work. The plan includes a commitment to make progress on rare cancers as one of six key research priorities to tackle stubbornly low survival rates. Our aim is to be in the top quartile across 28 countries for survival of 14 rare and less common cancers. Through the NIHR, the Department is the largest funder of clinical academic training. The NIHR plays a key role in attracting training and supporting the best clinical academic researchers, providing comprehensive research career pathways for clinicians across all career stages, from undergraduate level through to professional appointments.

New clause 100 would require the Department to publish a report on the feasibility of using data in patient records to flag symptoms. I understand the concerns behind it. We fully support using the single patient record and other data to improve cancer care and diagnosis, but we have largely covered the issues raised by the new clause in the cancer plan. We understand that there are concerns in some areas. The Government have introduced Jess’s rule, which instructs GPs to rethink a diagnosis if a patient presents with the same symptoms. That followed a campaign on behalf of the family of Jessica Brady, who tragically died after symptoms of her cancer were not recognised. The single patient record will give clinicians timely access to a single trusted record, which is why it is such an important part of the Bill. We envisage that the Bill, together with the cancer plan, will enable more personalised insight into cancer risk, for example, through the NHS app. For those reasons, we do not think the new clause is necessary.

[Dr Johnson]

If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that the ICBs would provide NICE-approved treatment, which they have to do within 90 days at the moment. At an earlier sitting, we debated an amendment tabled by the Minister that would enable the Secretary of State to delay the provision of NICE-approved treatment, which was agreed to. I am not quite sure how that is congruous, but in either case we would like to press new clause 48 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing another important disease to the attention of the Committee. I agree that modern service frameworks are important tools for improving patient care. They sit at the heart of our 10-year health plan, enabling a step change in both service quality and delivery. That is why we are prioritising making rapid progress on them. The first two MSFs, on sepsis and cardiovascular disease, will be published shortly, and a further four are in development. Given the momentum, it is clear that primary legislation is not needed to drive the development of MSFs; instead, we have established a robust, expert-led process.

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

I should declare that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Clearly, a modern service framework is important, certainly for a constituency such as mine in the north-east that has a lot of respiratory health problems, but as the Minister said, we need action rather than legislative change.

[Karin Smyth]

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency of Bristol South has a large tobacco industry legacy, and it is crucial to address respiratory disease in a way that looks at the whole person.

[Dr Prinsley]

Does the Minister agree that the single most effective thing that we have done for public health since we were elected is to get the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 passed? The gradual abolition of cigarette smoking will save more lives than anything else we could conceivably do in politics.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go down the path that we went down in another Committee. I recognise that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill took a long time to come through Parliament, despite having been started by the Conservatives under the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). It faced a lot of opposition, but we are absolutely clear that that is the single most beneficial piece of work. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked me about the future, in terms of vape shops and so on, and I have corresponded back to her on that issue.

Instead of what is proposed in new clause 49, we have established a robust, expert-led process. The national quality board will assess all proposals for new MSFs against a clear set of criteria, ensuring that we prioritise those areas where an MSF will deliver the greatest impact for patients. Alongside developing the first wave of MSFs, we are further strengthening the process, including by setting out a clear and consistent approach for assessing future proposals. Embedding an MSF in respiratory health in primary legislation would risk limiting that flexibility, rather than strengthening our ability to improve care, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and Consett and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have outlined, by taking the action that is so necessary to help and support people with respiratory disease.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister talks about momentum, but as I understand it, there is a severe mental illness MSF, for which timelines are to be published in due course; a sepsis MSF that was expected in the spring but is now anticipated in the summer; a frailty and dementia MSF expected sometime this year; a palliative care MSF that was published in June as an interim update, but will not be complete until the autumn; and a cardiovascular MSF. I do not see very much momentum there, given that the Government have been in office for two years.

[Karin Smyth]

It is a lot faster than the 14 years in which it was not done under the Conservatives.

[Dr Johnson]

Actually, there were plans, changes and improvements in respiratory care. One of the more obvious ones for lung cancer was the start of the lung cancer screening programme. I do not think the Government have the momentum and vigour that is required. Of course, they have also paused the long-term conditions strategy, which was already written and would have delivered. This is important, and we will press new clause 49 to a vote.

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

NHS Pension Scheme: McCloud Remedy

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

On 21 May 2026 I issued a written statement to update the House on progress on delivering the McCloud remedy for affected members of the NHS pension scheme. The delivery of the remedy in the NHS pension scheme is a hugely complex undertaking across the public sector to address the age discrimination that the previous Government admitted in 2018.

In the NHS, over 1.1 million pension scheme members are affected by the McCloud ruling, around 450,000 of whom have already retired. The Department has asked the NHS Business Services Authority, as the scheme’s administrator, to prioritise, where possible, delivery of the McCloud remedy to around 49,000 retired members who are likely to receive higher benefits following their McCloud choice. By 24 June, statements to enable McCloud choices had been sent to 13,982 of these members. Work to calculate and send statements to the remaining members facing detriment is progressing, with a current forecast completion date of December 2027, as set out in my statement on 21 May 2026. Members who have not yet retired will all receive a personalised statement and choice, either when they retire or retrospectively.

I also confirmed in May that the NHSBSA had developed detailed delivery plans for providing remedy choices to all members, including those higher earning members whose pension tax position is affected by McCloud. The NHSBSA has already issued remedial pension saving statements—RPSSs—to 122,036 members and is continuing work to complete the particularly complex statements for 19,694 members whose RPSS remain outstanding. The current forecast for completion of this work is March 2027.

I noted in May that these forecasts and the plan overall were subject to several critical dependencies highlighted by the independent review of NHSBSA’s McCloud functions. These dependencies include procuring external suppliers to supplement the NHSBSA’s capacity to manually calculate remediable service statements, and the release of software to automate statement production wherever possible. In my previous statement I expressed expectations that those dependencies would have advanced sufficiently so that I could issue new statutory deadlines for the issuance of remediable service statements—RSSs —with confidence before summer recess.

The NHSBSA has made progress in maturing those dependencies, including launching an invitation to tender to bolster calculation capacity for RSS and progressing testing on new IT systems that are being developed to automate some elements of statement production. I am pleased to report a positive market response to the invitations to tender. The NHSBSA is consequently taking the time needed to fully scrutinise bids and engage with constructive feedback in relation to the design of the second contract. The automating software has now entered its testing phase and its timetable for delivery will be dependent on the outcome of this testing. I have therefore concluded that further time is required to reduce the uncertainty in the plan timings to a level at which I am comfortable in setting new statutory deadlines. When the current work is sufficiently progressed I will set new RSS deadlines that are realistic and achievable and that protect delivery of normal pension service operations, which continue to run in parallel to remedy activity. I will also publish the independent review’s report and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

Irrespective of when new deadlines are set, delivering the McCloud remedy remains a priority, particularly for those members who are likely to be facing financial detriment. The NHSBSA continues to issue remediable service statements and remedial pension saving statements to scheme members affected by McCloud, in line with the delivery schedule I set out in May. Data is now published monthly by the NHSBSA on the number of remediable service statements issued and remedy choices enacted. This is available at: https://opendata.nhsbsa.net/dataset/public-service-pensions-remedy-mccloud-remedy-remediable-service-statements-rss-delivery

[HCWS228]

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

New clause 56—Accident and Emergency: waiting times—

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

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

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

(4) The Scheme must consider—

(a) creating safety-net social care beds,

(b) increasing step-down care,

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

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

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

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

New clause 84—Publication of data on avoidable deaths—

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

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

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

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak first to new clause 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I reconfirm the Government’s focus on reducing long waits by improving patient flow, increasing productivity and delivering better emergency care for patients. Last night in the Chamber, we had a good discussion about corridor care in particular; all our comments are on the record, so I will not delay the Committee by repeating everything, but I will take some time to answer the questions raised in Committee this morning.

We are clear that the Government will end corridor care in this Parliament. It is completely unacceptable. Longer waits for emergency care can be associated with poorer patient outcomes. That is why, through the urgent and emergency care plan in 2025-26, we are investing more than £450 million to expand urgent and emergency care capacity, including new same-day emergency care services, urgent treatment centres, additional mental health crisis provision and nearly 1,000 replacement ambulances. Alongside that, we are implementing new clinical standards and improving patient flow across hospitals, all to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I was pleased to take part in the debate in the Chamber yesterday. I raised some examples from my local hospital, which is expanding its same-day emergency care because of the funding that we received from the Labour Government. We also have a safe haven for mental health patients who do not need to go into accident and emergency. Lots of work is happening in my local hospital area, which will make a big improvement to corridor care and wider emergency care pressures. Does the Minister agree that that is what we need to do, and that the Labour Government are doing it?

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. The Government are clearly committed to enabling people to live longer. It is one of the successes of recent years that, at the foundation of the health service, the average life expectancy was I think 60 or 62, while, now, it is in the early to mid-80s. That is a massive change in the last 80 years or so.

As well as improving the healthy life expectancy of the population, we are determined to address the stark inequalities that blight our nation’s health. We know that the most disadvantaged in society often face the biggest health challenges, and that the current model of care works least well for those who already experience disadvantage, who are also far more likely to have complex needs.

In fact, my own entry into working for the NHS, back in the 1990s, was on the back of the 1980 Black report, which some Members might remember well. The then Conservative Government sat on that for ages; it was such an awful reflection on the first 35 years of the health service, that health inequalities had not improved, that they sought not to publish it. That struck me as so shocking that it led me to want to pursue a life doing something about it.

I see that in my own constituency, where the legacy of the tobacco industry—which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned—has led to a very high prevalence of smoking-related disease. In some parts of my constituency, that is up to 34%.

[Liz Twist]

I would point to examples such as in the north-east of England, where the work on smoking has been incredibly effective and still continues, and makes that real shift and change. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is those practical examples that we need to see, and to support along the way?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point about prevalence in the north-east. Often, the prevalence of these diseases is also to do with post-industrial work, which many people had to do without concern or knowledge about the effects on their health.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East mentioned practical examples as well: the opening and building of things such as community diagnostic centres in places that are accessible and open to the public, and neighbourhood health. That is entirely the drive that we have: for services where people are, and where the greatest health need is, and not expecting people to travel.

In terms of smoking, one of the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government was of course the ban on indoor smoking. My mother was a barmaid for all her adult life; it is hard to imagine that people were just standing there at her place of work, blowing smoke at her while she was working. I tell my children, “Yes, we used to sit on aeroplanes with people smoking,” and that, unbelievably, some people smoked at the back of buses on the way back from school, and so on and so forth. It is really quite shocking.

The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which we have also talked about in this Committee, is also a real testament to the work of this House, but didn’t it take a long time, Ms Lewell? I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for pursuing that in the face of great adversity from his own party at the time. That was not, obviously, by the Members present, who all have a high concern about health, but perhaps by others on the Conservative Benches at the time, and then indeed in the Lords, who sought to thwart it—thwart is a strong word in this context; obviously, they made their points, but they sought to stop that Bill making progress at various stages.

Some of my colleagues were coming back at different times, saying that they were working on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and I said, “What, still? Really? Has it not come through yet?” That showed how hard it is, when something so well evidenced and so supported by public health experts, on something so detrimental to public health—particularly for people living in poorer communities, such as the one I represent in Bristol South—still takes such a time to get through.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is very, very aware of my views and opinions on the Tobacco and Vapes Act, particularly on vaping and stopping vaping among children. That Act, a bit like this Bill, left lots of opportunities for the Government to provide for regulations. Anyone who has been in a shop in the past few days will have seen vapes still behind the counter, still very visible, very colourful and in lots of different flavours and suchlike. Can the Minister update the Committee, and therefore the House, on when she expects the regulations provided for by the Tobacco and Vapes Act to come into force, so that we can actually apply the law, as opposed to just having it sat on the statute book?

[Karin Smyth]

Well, I thank the hon. Member for her support. As I said, I did not expect that people here present, who understand the impact of that work, were the ones who were thwarting that. I do not have off the top of my head exactly when the regulations under that Act will come forward, but I am sure we can furnish the hon. Member with details as soon as possible. We all want to see that happening—in particular, the work going on around high streets, such as prevention of fraud by shops for all sorts of things, not just vapes. Obviously, that is high on the agenda, as it is for some of my colleagues as well. Those places and people are blighting our high streets.

[Dr Prinsley]

I sit on the Home Affairs Committee, and we have lately been discussing the matter of serious organised crime, and vape shops in particular. It turns out that many of the vape shops are in fact not really shops; they are places for laundering money. Specifically, they launder money in relation to drug businesses and the drug trade, which is another huge public health matter that I am sure the Minister will agree needs to be dealt with. We were informed that about 10% of this country’s adult population are using illicit drugs, and that for the most part those are being delivered via the post office. Does the Minister agree that that is a massive public health issue that will also need to be urgently addressed?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise and that work on the Home Affairs Committee. Again, it shows the Committee the wide range of work that goes on. Of course, many hon. Members are campaigning and working hard. Those shops are blights on our communities, and as with most illicit drug dealing, they affect the most vulnerable in places where they can pick on the most vulnerable. They are in areas of high deprivation, and that is something we need to stop. I commend all the communities and community leaders that work so hard to stop that happening in their areas. We must address it.

Returning to new clause 14, while I fully recognise and share the ambition that sits behind the new clause, introducing a new statutory duty is not the right way to achieve it. A healthy life expectancy is a long-term outcome shaped by a wide range of factors across society and Government, many of which cannot be meaningfully addressed through a rigid statutory timetable. Requiring the Secretary of State to set a statutory target within six months, publish a refreshed cross-Government strategy every two years and make formal statements to Parliament risks creating a process-heavy framework that prioritises reporting over delivery.

What matters most is sustained practical action to improve prevention, tackle health inequalities, expand access to care and address those wider determinants of health. That is why the Government have already published our 10-year health plan to improve the nation’s health, of which healthy life expectancy is one measure. That is central to us in bringing forward the 10-year plan. Publishing a new strategy every two years would be duplicative and would not help to deliver the plan that we already have in place. Work is already underway, and I am sure the House will hold us to account for the progress we make, as it rightly should. I believe we share the same aim that the new clause seeks, but we differ on the best means to get there.

On new clause 79, I assure the Committee that the Government are already working across Departments to improve health and reduce inequalities, ensuring that action on health is embedded across Government. For example, through the warm homes plan and rented sector reform, we are supporting healthier homes and reducing health harms associated with poor housing. Through the “Keep Britain Working” review, we are addressing the links between work, health and wellbeing. Through the environment improvement plan, we are tackling the health harms of air pollution, and in lifting hundreds of children out of poverty, we will transform their health and life chances.

Those endeavours demonstrate that improving health outcomes is already embedded across Government activity and does not depend on the creation of a new statutory committee. While I have considerable sympathy with the aim of the new clause, and I am a strong supporter, as I hope I have assured the Committee, of supporting those wider determinants of health, I am not persuaded that placing detailed internal Government structures into primary legislation is either necessary or desirable. We heard well from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield about some of the unintended complications about the new clause.

As we have repeatedly said, in the Bill we are not seeking to be unduly prescriptive or create unnecessary bureaucracy that may risk slowing down delivery. Indeed, we are aiming to reduce that bureaucracy. Furthermore, the Government must retain the flexibility to organise in a way that best supports delivery as the context evolves. The Government already bring Departments together to advance shared goals and will continue to strengthen collaboration wherever it is needed.

On new clause 80, I am again not convinced that creating a new statutory duty on every Minister is either necessary or the most effective means of achieving the objective of the hon. Member for Winchester. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care already has a statutory duty to protect public health and powers to take the appropriate steps to improve the health of the people of England. We have already discussed clause 4, which reformulates the Secretary of State’s duty on health inequalities. Those provide a clear statutory framework for improving health and addressing inequalities.

Beyond that, the Government do not operate in departmental silos. Ministers consider the implications of decisions and work collectively in the public interest, including on health impacts where relevant, which is particularly important to this Government. The proof is in the action we have started to take across Government to improve health. Although I agree entirely that health should be considered across Government, imposing a broad new legal duty on every Minister would risk creating unnecessary bureaucracy without meaningfully improving outcomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield highlighted.

Creating new procedure and reporting requirements is not in the spirit of this Bill, which has flexibility and a focus on delivery at its heart. We also heard that from the shadow Minister. Our focus is and must remain on delivering improvements in health outcomes, supporting prevention and tackling the causes of ill health, rather than creating additional statutory red tape. The objective of new clause 80 can be achieved without placing a new statutory requirement on every Minister.

The shadow Minister asked me about plans for a modern service framework for MSK, and we currently do not have plans to develop one. The national quality board will assess all proposals for new MSFs against clear criteria, which we have highlighted before, ensuring that we prioritise the area where a framework will have the greatest impact for patients.

[Dr Johnson]

I understood that one of the Government’s greatest priorities was to reduce waiting lists, but one of the things that people are waiting for the most is musculoskeletal or orthopaedic treatment. Why is it not a priority for the Government?

[Karin Smyth]

There is a long priority list for MSFs that was left by the last Government for different reasons. There are lots of things will bring down MSK waiting lists, such as more diagnostic facilities. As the shadow Minister knows, 80% of people on the waiting list are waiting for diagnostics, which is why we are fast-tracking and pushing more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East said, community diagnostic centres in places such as Croydon East will get people through for the diagnostics they need. There are also some things that the shadow Minister’s party seems to continue to oppose, such as advice and guidance for GPs so that, if there are alternatives to deal with MSK, of which there is already a lot of evidence, they can refer people to a more appropriate or faster access route in the meantime. Those actions are being taken.

She is quite right that orthopaedics is a large part of the waiting list. However, diagnostics, access to faster treatment and using the independent sector where appropriate will particularly target orthopaedic waiting lists as part of our elective reform plan.

[Dr Johnson]

I am not opposed to the principle of GPs seeking advice or guidance; the issue is the compulsory nature of that and GPs not being able to refer.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I understand the intent of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and her commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as that of her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope that some of my points will address that.

New clause 15 duplicates existing processes and creates responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Health that would cut across our important procedures for scrutiny. No trade agreement can, by itself, change UK domestic law or require new public expenditure without the usual domestic processes being followed. Any changes to legislation necessary to implement a trade agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. It is right that the Government be held to account, to ensure that trade deals deliver for the country. However, those processes are already in place and are working.

[Joe Robertson]

To strip this back further, can the Minister confirm whether a deal has been done?

[Karin Smyth]

I am not party to the negotiations. That is above my pay grade, like the conversation yesterday that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. I will get back to him on any outstanding questions, as the Department will to the Select Committee with other details.

[Dave Robertson]

To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to

“supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.”

That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend clearly highlights the advantages for his constituents and the importance, particularly for that university and universities across the country, of such outward-facing arrangements, which benefit constituencies in many ways, not only through employment, but through the pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and so on, that help all our constituents.

New clause 76 specifically references the trade arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom. That landmark partnership with the United States Government on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs is in the best interest of UK patients, supporting the NHS and the economy. As a result of the changes to the UK’s medicines pricing, NHS patients will get improved access to lifesaving treatments. New medicines have already been recommended under the updated approach, including a brain cancer drug available to patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for a rare, aggressive stomach cancer—something that I think the entire House and the Committee would support.

[Liz Twist]

I want to emphasise a point that has already been made, which is the positive impact of the agreement for people with rare and undiagnosed conditions. As the Minister will know, I have worked with a number of those organisations, and this is certainly an opportunity for innovative treatments to be funded, as they might not have been before. I thank the Minister for that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. All Members are committed to ensuring that carers receive the care and support they need. The Government recognise that unpaid carers play a vital role in sustaining the health and wellbeing of millions of people across our country. I pay tribute to them, and recognise all the work they have contributed to. I also note the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford on the APPG with Members from across the House.

The hon. Member for Winchester highlighted the shocking impact on the physical and mental health of people who are caring, which we heard about in the evidence session. That is an important issue, and it is good that we can now talk more about the mental health of carers. As he rightly said, many of us are carers. It is not an easy thing to do.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his comments about the importance of wraparound care to people who do not want to leave the one they care for. I recognise that respite care is important.

I wish the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham good luck in her campaign in her constituency with the Reform council.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for her good wishes. The council has not just proposed closing Swallow Lodge; it has also recently closed the memory support service. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said about services for people with dementia, and this is another area where people will suffer because of the closure of vital services.

[Karin Smyth]

When the hon. Lady gets back to her constituency, I am sure she will be campaigning heavily on behalf of her constituents.

We acknowledge the need to support carers’ health and wellbeing, but we do not think new clause 16 is necessary, because the existing legal framework already requires the system to support them. The new clause duplicates existing duties and risks adding complexity, rather than improving support in practice. Carers are explicitly referenced in the NHS constitution, which establishes the principles and values of the NHS in England and sets out the aim of improving the health and wellbeing of the population. The Secretary of State for Health, all NHS bodies, private and voluntary sector providers supplying NHS services, and local authorities in the exercise of their public health functions are required by law to take account of the constitution in their decisions and actions. Local authorities and NHS bodies also have a duty of co-operation in respect of their functions relating to carers.

Finally, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will take on NHS England’s role in promoting the involvement of each patient in decisions relating to their illness, care or treatment. That duty includes the involvement of carers and representatives.

[Liz Twist]

As the Minister says, many people in this room have had experience of being a carer for a family member. She said that there is already a legal framework, but carers are clearly saying that they need a bit more. How will the Government ensure that we provide not just words and legal documents, but help on the ground?

[Karin Smyth]

I was just moving on to talk about some of the work beyond the legislative framework.

Beyond the legislative framework, our focus is on delivering practical improvements because, as my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely what people want. We are committed to ensuring that carers have the support they need. Through measures in the 10-year health plan, we are already equipping and supporting carers by making them more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and streamlining their care tasks by introducing a new My Carer section on the NHS app. We are also working with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education to consider how best to recognise and support unpaid carers. The Government are preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers, to be published this year.

[Dr Prinsley]

Will the Minister acknowledge that the uplift in the carer’s earnings allowance is a very significant measure that this Government did introduce?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is indeed one of the ways in which, working through the DWP and across Government, we have sought to bring in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett said, practical measures to make carers visible and to support them. That is exactly the sort of thing we wanted to do and have done, and it does start to recognise the work that people do.

Let me turn to new clause 17 and new clause 89, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett talked about and which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, whose expertise and commitment in this area are well known across the House. The new clauses look at the identification of, and provision of information to, unpaid carers. I agree on the importance of ensuring that carers are properly recorded and identified in the system and provided with relevant information and advice so that they can be better supported and involved in care decisions.

However, we do not believe that explicit requirements to identify and record particular patient and carer groups are appropriate for legislation. We have made clear commitments in the NHS 10-year health plan and are taking practical steps to improve identification, support carers and involve them in care planning. If we need to mandate compliance, that is best done by including requirements in national NHS contracts or in statutory guidance or directions, where we can provide more detail and directly address barriers.

Information about unpaid carers will be captured systematically to ensure that their responsibilities are recognised and supported, and developments such as the single patient record, which we have discussed in Committee, will make that easier in the future. That is a really important step forward.

We are also looking to support general practice in better identifying and recording which of their patients are unpaid carers, to help ensure that those carers can get the support they need in the community. NHS England recently published guidance to support that, and work is ongoing to ensure more consistent coding of unpaid carers by general practitioners.

We are also working to improve the quality of local authority data on unpaid carers. The Partners in Care and Health programme, launched with the Local Government Association, is working with local authorities to improve their data and address barriers to data sharing between local systems.

[Dr Prinsley]

Since I have been an MP, I have visited a number of schools in my constituency, and I have always been struck by the number of children who are carers. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think that is a very under-recognised group of people, whose lives are completely dominated by the fact that they are carers for their parents.

[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]

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who tabled new clause 25, asked me to speak to it, which I shall do briefly. This is a very serious issue. Critically ill children are infants, children and adolescents with life-threatening illness or injury, often requiring intensive, continuous care to survive conditions from leukaemia to meningococcal disease, traumatic brain injuries and major surgery such as spinal surgery. I should say that I am a consultant paediatrician, but I have worked in paediatric intensive care as a junior—now called a resident—doctor.

The new clause as drafted does not, I think, do what the hon. Member was aiming for. When I read it through, I think he is looking at cases such as the tragic one of little Charlie Gard, whom we all remember died of encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, known as MDDS. It is incredibly rare. That tragic case highlighted the potential for disputes between parents and doctors, which, thankfully, are unusual.

The new clause is headed, “Parents of critically ill children: communication and involvement in decision-making”. Of course parents should be involved in decision making about their children, but it is worth noting that the median time that children spend in ICU is two days and that, thankfully, most of them get better—very few do not. The new clause talks about teachers being involved, which in most cases is unnecessary and impractical; in many cases, a child may be admitted on a Friday and discharged from the ICU by the Monday. In the majority of cases, there is no practical reason for teachers to be involved.

I understand the desire for parents to be part of every meeting, but sometimes clinicians need to be able to talk frankly about cases. Sometimes they will have multidisciplinary meetings where they talk about a plethora of different cases, or they may compare one case with another in terms of what they have seen, the findings of scans and the like, so it is not possible to have parents in every single meeting, although it is of course desirable for them to be aware of the discussions.

Other parts of the new clause, including provision for parents to know about everything and to set out how communication and language needs may be met, seem reasonable. It mentions independent mediation where there is disagreement, which is a beneficial way to go about things, but we must not legislate so as to get in the way of urgent care, because most critically ill children in intensive care have urgent care needs that need dealing with now, not in a week’s time. Forming ethics committees to make decisions takes a long time, and that would get in the way of urgent care.

I think the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley is aiming for legislation that relates to chronically mechanically ventilated children with significant medical conditions, rather than children with an acute critical illness, but I said I would move the new clause and I have. I think he is trying to provide better care for some of the sickest children. That is a desirable aim and I know he cares deeply about it, but the new clause as drafted would not do what I think he aims for, and it could get in the way of paediatricians and others managing some of the sickest children in the country, so I will not press it to a vote.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley for tabling new clause 25, and grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her comments on it. It is a genuine pleasure to hear the expertise of clinicians such as her who work in the field of children’s health. She is obviously very passionate about that, and I thank her for bringing her expertise and commitment to looking after children, including critically ill children, to the Committee.

I recognise the profound impact that receiving a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition has on a child and their wider family. At such an overwhelming time in their lives, it is vital that families feel supported, informed and able to navigate the care and services available to them. We recognise that families can face huge variation in the support available and that they have to navigate complex systems at a particularly difficult time. I know that many hon. Members support many families in such circumstances in their constituencies. The Government are committed to ensuring that families have access to the support they need in the most straightforward way possible.

New clause 25 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards on communications with parents of critically ill children and on parents’ involvement in decision making in respect of the treatment or care of their child. We heard from the Opposition spokesperson about some of the operational issues with some of its provisions, but there are no issues with its intent: of course parents should be involved and have good decision making at such a time.

Decisions about the care of a critically ill child can of course be distressing. We need to ensure that we get the process right from the beginning. That starts with good communication, sensitive handling and ensuring best practice across the system. Healthcare professionals should always act in the best interests of their patients; the views of parents are of course very important, but the child’s best interests are paramount, and we should not do anything that undermines that crucial principle. It is important that families and medical professionals communicate and, where possible, reach agreement on the care and treatment that is in the best interests of the child.

To support that, there are already many excellent examples of guidance and best practice across the health system. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is currently updating its framework for clinical practice on navigating decisions to provide, limit or withdraw treatment towards the end of a child’s life. That framework will include communication principles, legal and ethical principles, and clinical and practical considerations, including the role of clinical ethics services. It will also include guidance on navigating disagreements for professionals, children, young people and their families. An e-learning platform is available to staff working at all levels in children’s healthcare. The training programme provides professionals with a suite of resources to enhance knowledge, skills and confidence. It supports healthcare providers to recognise, manage and de-escalate conflict between families and healthcare providers where it occurs, and to signpost to both professional resources and resources for families. The actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is setting out the important guidance that can be provided to clinicians managing the care of children who are seriously unwell. I want to add for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which is producing that guidance; I am grateful to her for setting out its importance. End-of-life-care decisions are very difficult. They need to be taken in conjunction with families but—the Minister is absolutely right—they must be made in the best interests of the child in all cases.

[Karin Smyth]

I am sure that the college will make best use of the hon. Member’s clinical expertise and her expertise as a legislator to get that guidance right. We work with royal colleges to ensure that we get the best clinical evidence into guidelines. I hope the actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice, training and guidance on shared decision making and dispute resolution, so that it is embedded across the system.

There are a number of other important measures in this group that have not been mentioned. Let me just say that, alongside some of the things I have outlined, we want to progress system-wide reforms to improve the way children and young people, and their families, are supported across many conditions. We are working to bring forward a modern service framework for children and young people that will set out how we will improve quality for children and young people’s services in the longer term, as part of our 10-year health plan.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a lot of merit in the new clause and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Obviously, this needs to be done in collaboration with the Department for Education, and it is right—the Select Committee acknowledged this—that other changes would also be needed to support it, including workforce increases and changes to commissioning, but that should not prevent us from seriously considering the new clause. I pay tribute to all the parents and carers in my constituency who are struggling with the EHCP process and doing their best for their children under really difficult circumstances.

[Karin Smyth]

May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon by paying tribute to the families in my constituency of Bristol South who are also struggling? The care of a child is obviously one of the most difficult and important things that a person can do. When that child is in distress and not supported by the system, it is a very hard place for a parent to be. As I think all hon. Members have said, that is an issue that arises a lot in our inboxes, our emails and our constituency surgeries, and it has been difficult to address. I commend the Education Secretary and her team of Ministers for bringing this work forward and starting to tackle the issue.

[Dr Prinsley]

My wife is an educational psychologist, so I have lived this, in a vicarious fashion, for the last 30 years or more. I understand how the system for special educational needs has evolved, particularly the role of the psychological services and how children are supported. As a result of a series of reforms, in particular during the years of austerity, the services provided by local authorities to schools—particularly the schools’ psychological services—became much more focused on psychologists providing reports to inform the distribution of resources, and much less focused on educational psychologists actually being in schools supporting children. I would like to see a change, such that educational psychologists and their expertise are back in schools, in classrooms, supporting teachers. Time and again when I visit schools, they say, “Let’s get educational psychology support back into schools.” I think that is something my wife would support.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I put on record my thanks—our thanks—to his wife for her work in this area and for making him so aware of the issues, because he is absolutely right. This is a long-in-gestation issue that some of us have watched sadly get worse in our constituencies over recent years. Children only get one chance to come through this system, which is why people feel so passionately about it.

[Sojan Joseph]

I pay tribute to all the parents and schoolteachers who engaged with me last summer, following the White Paper and the SEND consultation. It has been a huge problem in Kent. Kent county council has been under Conservative administration for the last 25 years. In recent years, it was in special measures because of its SEND provision. Parents really struggled. My inbox is filled with these issues. We know that 98% of SEND provision tribunals rule in the parents’ favour. There has been a long wait. Does the Minister agree that, whether we accept the new clause or not, we need to look into how the NHS and local authorities can work together to make it easier for children, families and schools to get proper provision in place?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his description of what has happened in Kent, which has been under Conservative administration for so long. He is absolutely right about the White Paper. The hard work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the ministerial team have done across the country, regardless of the local political administration, is exemplary. I will come on to talk about the tribunals.

The Government’s SEND reforms aim to transform outcomes for children and young people with SEND and their families, ensuring that the right support is available at the right time and preventing needs from escalating or reaching crisis in the first place. That is why the reforms aim to build a system that parents can trust with collective responsibility in local areas and strong partnership working across education, health and care. That is what parents expect us to be doing.

[Liz Twist]

I recently held consultation meetings on the proposed SEND reforms in Blaydon and Consett. The message from parents was clear in both places: they wanted greater integration of health into EHCPs. I welcome the Government’s commitment to asking ICBs to work more closely with local authorities to develop SEND reform plans and tackle this issue. Does the Minister agree that it is important for ICBs to take that on board?

[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.)

Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. I am sure that the purpose behind the new clause is to ensure that data is safe, but it removes democratic accountability from the process of developing the policy, which may reduce the public’s confidence in it. I agree with its underlying principles, but much of it is cumbersome and, as yet, undefined, so it is important that we get more detail and specificity.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for tabling this new clause. I am sympathetic to its intentions: the security of data, the transparency of use and even realising the value of data. Its principles are in the interests of the public and the NHS, but we do not consider it necessary to achieve our aims. It would impose onerous operational requirements and could have a damaging impact on the ability of the NHS to function.

There is also a significant overlap with the role of the independent national guardian and potentially that of the information commissioner. Once the functions of NHS England have transferred to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to respect and promote the privacy of recipients of health services and of adult social care in England, which is in addition to the requirements already set out in UK GDPR. The Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to the health and care sector relating to the processing of information to which NHS bodies must have regard. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to have regard to guidance given by the Health Research Authority on the disclosure of confidential information.

The proposed trust functions would also encroach significantly on the operational role intended for the health data research service, and would place cumbersome constraints on vital data collecting and sharing within the NHS. The new clause would mean that all health data collections and data-sharing initiatives would have to be preceded by public consultation. That would capture any of the essential collections that NHS England undertakes, and indeed any collection by NHS organisations, not to mention the use of that data. The burden would be considerable, with very real consequences for the ability of the NHS to use that data to improve outcomes for patients.

Likewise, I cannot see how requiring all health data to be held anonymously and accessed only through a trusted, secure research environment would be compatible with delivering direct care to a patient or using confidential patient information for planning and commissioning services or research. It seems that the new clause would prevent such uses. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

It is very important that we consider these new clauses and amendments carefully, not least because, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, the hon. Member for Worthing West, who tabled them, has considerable expertise, being a public health consultant herself. I have the pleasure of sitting with the hon. Member on the Health and Social Care Committee and she brings her expertise to every single sitting. I am sure that the Minister has welcomed her questioning when she has appeared before that Committee.

It is really clear that, if we are going to make a success of the Bill, public health in all its guises needs to be at the forefront of our thinking about how we achieve better patient outcomes, better health and, more specifically, the Government’s stated aims in the 10-year plan to, first, shift care closer to home and, secondly, focus more on prevention rather than treatment. I am sure that across the House we agree with that ambition and therefore I can totally understand why the hon. Member for Worthing West has tabled these new clauses.

I suspect that the new clauses are also a reaction to something that we have already discussed in this Committee, which is the dislocation and now the separation of local authorities from ICBs, with the removal of their statutory functions on those boards, to be given to strategic mayoral authorities. Some of those strategic mayoral authorities exist but, as we have discussed at some length in the Committee, many of them do not exist and might never exist. I can see why the hon. Member for Worthing West is trying to ensure that the vital work of directors of public health in local authorities for their population areas is somehow safeguarded and included in the Bill.

That being said, I have some reservations about how these new clauses are currently drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already outlined many of them. Although strengthening public health leadership is an essential objective, new clause 24 defines the statutory role and legal status of directors of public health in this context without providing sufficient clarity about accountability or governance, or about how these new powers would interact with existing NHS and local authority structures. Potentially, there is a risk of creating overlapping responsibilities, blurred lines of accountability and additional bureaucracy at a time when integrated working should be simplified rather than made more complex.

Obviously, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not here to answer my questions. I ask the Minister this: if these new clauses are not pressed to a vote, or if they are but are not accepted by this Committee, how can she reassure me and the hon. Member for Worthing West that public health will still be at the forefront of the Bill, and that the removal of local authorities from ICBs will not have the impact that I think the hon. Member, who tabled these new clauses, is concerned about?

[Karin Smyth]

Further to that point, I absolutely want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, who is not a member of this Committee, and indeed the members of this Committee that the Government fully appreciate the important role of public health professionals. They bring critical expertise in population health intelligence, epidemiology and community co-design, and those capabilities are integral to the role of ICBs as strategic commissioners.

On new clause 11, there is already a statutory duty on ICBs to seek advice, and a statutory duty on local authorities to provide public health advice to ICBs. However, that does not mean that ICBs should be required to employ a director of public health directly. Local authorities already employ a director of public health and we expect ICBs to work collaboratively with their local authority partners and not to duplicate their work.

NHS England recently published the strategic commissioning framework and guidance for ICBs on strengthening the public health advice, both of which are clear that ICBs should work with local public health teams and stakeholders to draw upon their expertise to ensure a strong evidence base for commissioning decisions.

As the responsibilities of ICBs for commissioning NHS public health services grow, we expect them to continue to draw on the skills and expertise of local authority directors of public health, as well as other specialist public health expertise, including screening and immunisation leads, and the UK Health Security Agency. I absolutely agree that public health expertise is essential for ICBs to commission effectively and we have set out how they will access that; the basis for all this is of course the joint strategic needs assessment. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to require an ICB to appoint a lead director for public health in order to have access to such advice.

On new clause 24, as the Committee is aware, local authority directors of public health are advocates for the health of their population. They have a professional leadership role across the three domains of public health: health improvement, health protection and healthcare public health. Their work spans organisational boundaries. Although they are employed by local authorities and appointed jointly with the Secretary of State, their role is designed to bridge local government and the NHS. They are also required to provide objective, evidence-based advice, without political interference, and they are expected to be suitably qualified and regulated public health specialists who take a population-wide perspective to health outcomes and health inequalities.

At the heart of their role is their statutory responsibility to prepare an annual report on the health of their local population. That crucial document underpins the plans of health and wellbeing boards and, through them, the ICBs. Directors of public health are also required to be members of health and wellbeing boards, which will be the central mechanism for partnership working between local authorities and ICBs in the new neighbourhood health system. As such, directors of public health will be well placed to help to shape ICB system-wide plans and strategies on public health issues going forward, something that we discussed earlier in the Committee.

There is a statutory duty on ICBs to obtain appropriate and expert public health advice, and a legal duty on local authorities in turn, carried out by the director of public health and their team, to provide public health advice to ICBs. Beyond those requirements, the NHS, including ICBs, is of course free to employ its own senior public health professionals.

The proposed new clause risks creating some significant ambiguity around accountability and risk, constraining rather than enhancing the independence of directors of public health, which I am sure is not the intention of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham or of the Committee. I hope I can offer reassurance to the hon. Member and indeed to the Committee that we are proud of our strong and coherent public health system, that this Bill does not alter its importance and that we will continue to champion the role of directors of public health and ensure clarity in the new architecture. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Corridor Care Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) patients,

(b) bereaved or affected families, and

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I will give way to the hon. Lady after I finish my sentence, if I may. The public want to know what the solutions are. I think we could look back through history at successive Governments since prehistory and say, “They got some things right, and they got some things wrong.” What the public want to know now is what the current Government will do. 

On the point about social care, I was not a member of the last Government, but I stood on an election manifesto commitment, as the Labour party certainly did and I think most political parties did, that essentially said that the Dilnot review had decided how we were going to deal with social care, and we were going to get on with it. It strikes me as very strange that the last Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), decided to have another review; he has said himself in interviews since he resigned that it looks like the stalling on social care means that we will not get any movement on it before another general election. I do not think the public should put up with that.

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Member was not here at the time, perhaps it eludes his memory, I remind him that it was a coalition Government agreement to move forward with Dilnot, which had cross-party support. As soon as the coalition finished in 2015 and the Conservative party had dumped their friends in the Liberal Democrats, almost immediately after that election, it also dumped all pretence around the Care Act 2014 provisions at the time. We are where we are. I just wanted to help his memory.

[The Chair]

Order. I think we are moving a little out of scope here. Could we bring it back to the contents of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I am always happy to encourage the hon. Gentleman; I hope that in the impending reshuffle, he is given the opportunity to put his experience into practice. I have one word for him: pandemic. The pandemic made a huge difference to the numbers on waiting lists, and there is no current pandemic. It is possible to make arguments about whether the Government at the time—I was not in the Government at the time—were too harsh in their policies around elective care, whether patients would have come into hospitals for elective operations during covid or whether they would have preferred not to, and whether the waiting lists grew more than they may have done in other circumstances, but to try to say that the pandemic had no effect is going a stretch too far.

[Karin Smyth]

To correct the shadow Minister, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said that; he said the waiting lists have gone up. To be clear, in case her memory eludes her again, they were at 4 million before the pandemic and the Conservative party—her party, whose manifesto she stood on—did not meet a single target since before 2015. That is important for people to remember: 4 million people were on waiting lists before the pandemic started. The NHS went into crisis under the Conservatives’ leadership. Even if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East thinks it is tedious to remind them of their record, no member of the public thinks it is tedious; they will never be forgiven for that record.

[Dr Johnson]

I think what members of the public want is the people who are in government now to do something to improve their lives. I am in danger of repeating myself, which could present an extra concern when so many people are questioning my memory, but there has been a 2.5% increase in the number of A&E attendances, but a 17.1% increase in the number of people waiting more than 12 hours after a decision to admit. That suggests that the Government are not going in the right direction. The public may enjoy a history lesson from time to time, but what they really want to know is what is happening now to make their lives better. I am sure the Minister will give us the answer to that in her summing up, but at the moment the Government are not bringing down the long waits in A&E.

Let me return to the new clauses. Corridor care needs a whole-pathway approach. In last night’s debate we talked about the importance of preventing admissions—I know that is one of the Government’s shifts—in order to increase hospital capacity. The hon. Gentleman for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about capacity and the number of beds having reduced over a long period—another history lesson—but when my mum had me, a good few years ago, it was common for women to stay in hospital for quite a long time after having their child, and it was quite common for people to stay in bed for many days after having an operation. We now know that it is better for people to be up and about, and people leave hospital more quickly. That is a good thing. The reason for bed numbers coming down over successive Governments of different parties is clinical as well as managerial. I think that is worth saying.

Will the Minister answer a question that I asked in last night’s debate but, unless I missed it, she did not answer in her summing up? Does the NHS have more beds now than it did when Labour came to power in July 2024, or fewer? I believe the answer is fewer.

Health and Social Care 10-year Capital Plan

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Today the Government are publishing the 10-year capital plan for health and social care. Long-term capital under-investment has left the healthcare system starved of resources to function at its fullest, with large parts of the NHS and wider healthcare estate operating in outdated, inefficient and occasionally unsafe infrastructure. This was made clear in Lord Darzi’s report, which estimated a £37 billion shortfall of investment since 2010 compared with international peers.

The 10-year health plan set out the long-term vision for healthcare provision with the three shifts of hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention as the core components of a new care model based on the NHS’s founding principles. This capital plan will bring together our commitments into a single coherent framework that is aligned with the 10-year health plan, and ensure infrastructure is the enabler for transforming the NHS over the decade ahead.

The Government are fully embracing this challenge and have already taken steps to address the root causes affecting healthcare delivery. At spending review 2025, the Chancellor provided the largest ever health capital budget, as well as multi-year allocations to 2030 for capital funding streams overall and extended certainty on NHS maintenance budgets to 2035. The priority is now to get on and deliver our priorities within this—making the most of both the budget and the certainty that enables the most strategic investment choices.

We will enable the first shift from hospital to community by reconfiguring the estate so that patients see the appropriate staff in the right place, and we have already invested £102 million in the primary care utilisation and modernisation fund, with a further £200 million over four years to 2030. In addition, we will support the development of neighbourhood health centres, as well as ensuring the secondary care estate can deliver the highest-quality healthcare for the most complex and specialist cases. Maintenance of the estate will extend beyond the current spending review via an investment of £6.75 billion over nine years to target the most critical building repairs through the estates safety fund.

The second shift from analogue to digital will be enabled through over £4.4 billion of capital investment over this spending review period, alongside over £6 billion of revenue funding into technological and digital programmes. This will enable seamless navigation between primary and secondary care such as through the NHS app and single patient record as part of an ambition to make the most digitally accessible healthcare system in the world.

The third shift from sickness to prevention will be achieved through continued investment into research and development as part of DHSC’s non-NHS capital allocation over the course of spending review 2025. This will enable earlier identification of illnesses, allowing for earlier intervention and strengthening system resilience to future threats. This is backed by notable investments including a new state-of-the-art health security campus in Harlow, Essex, that will create 1,600 extra jobs, and up to £1 billion for pandemic preparedness to replenish and expand stockpiles, in line with lessons learned from covid-19. We are also continuing our investment into genomics, pledging more than £650 million over the next five years.

This plan also supports the Government’s wider missions set out in the plan for change of driving economic growth and productivity, supporting the housing agenda, creating new healthy spaces to live and progressing towards net zero and clean energy. We will continue to commit to the NHS’s existing net zero targets and increase its climate resilience through continued setting of standards, showing climate leadership, and working across the system to break down barriers to financing and delivering net zero investments.

The increases in funding will be supported by our capital reforms, to reduce the layers of approval and reduce the time from initial proposal to get spades in the ground. We have already set the additional freedoms and flexibilities through devolving more control over capital budgets to the NHS frontline. Through this plan, we are also placing much greater focus on the outcomes of spend, and on taking steps to continually strengthen our approach to evidence, evaluation and benefits realisation.

The 10-year capital plan provides the clarity needed to do things differently and allow capital to become a true enabler of healthcare reform.

[HCWS202]

NHS Corridor Care

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and I are deep in the Health Bill Committee, and I have not seen them all day, so it is nice to have the opportunity to get back into the swing of our discussions. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this important debate. Her commitment, and her pride in St George’s hospital and all the staff who work there, is always so clear to see. She did a great job for them and the rest of the country again today. She has given us an opportunity to discuss something that matters so much to patients, their families, NHS staff, Members from across the House, and the staff who work here.

I recognise the important contribution of frontline clinicians, professional bodies and organisations such as the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the Corridor Care Coalition. Their experience and expertise have helped shape our work to establish a consistent national definition of “corridor care” and strengthen national guidance. We share the same objective: to ensure that every patient receives safe, dignified care in an appropriate clinical setting. We will continue to work with these experts across NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care.

Let me be absolutely clear: corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care, and it must not become normalised or, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) said, a habit. Wherever possible, patients should be assessed and treated in an appropriate clinical environment with dignity, privacy and the highest possible standards of care. Equally, NHS staff deserve to work in an environment that allows them to provide the compassionate care that they are trained to deliver. That is why tackling corridor care is a priority for this Government.

If we are to solve this problem, we have to be honest about why it occurs, and we have heard some of the reasons today. Corridor care is one of the clearest symptoms of pressure across the entire urgent and emergency care pathway—it is not simply an emergency department issue. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), it also responds differently in different places, such as rural cities or coastal areas.

Historically, care in non-designated clinical areas was an exceptional escalation measure during periods of peak demand, but over time sustained increases in demand alongside capacity constraints across hospitals, community services and social care mean that what was once exceptional has become more routine in some places, and that is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham might not remember exactly how and when that happened, but I know that when I worked in urgent and emergency care in Bristol, under the previous Labour Government, we eradicated such pressures in A&E, and they somehow crept back—not by magic, but by neglect—under the Conservatives’ stewardship.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) about her mother’s experience, and I do hope people are witnessing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about her father’s experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) had a terrible experience of her own. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph)—again, he is on the Public Bill Committee and doing great work—went to observe his emergency department, as I know many hon. Members do. So we have direct experience of this in the House and have seen it for ourselves, and I have of course visited my local systems in Bristol.

Pressure in one part of the system affects other parts, and when patients who are medically fit cannot be discharged because appropriate support is unavailable, beds remain occupied, reducing hospitals’ ability to admit new patients from emergency departments, and the result is overcrowding, delayed patient flow and an increased risk of patients being cared for in temporary environments. We heard about that in detail from my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and that is why we are tackling it.

The first step was bringing in consistency and transparency about how corridor care is measured. For too long there has been no single national definition, making it really difficult to understand where the pressures were greatest or to compare performance across the NHS. We cannot improve what we do not measure, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan). NHS England introduced a clear national definition of corridor care and began daily reporting in March 2026, and since June that data has been published, providing greater transparency and enabling targeted support for those organisations experiencing the greatest pressure.

Let me make it clear to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, that part of getting the definition and the data right did mean that did not come out immediately. It is difficult to get this right, and we continue to work on doing so. I also make it really clear that, in overseeing this, I am not hiding the experience of things such as ambulance waits. We are absolutely monitoring those things as part of my overseeing of the wider system.

Alongside improved reporting, NHS England has strengthened the national guidance for trusts where temporary care environments cannot immediately be avoided. The guidance is clear that patients must continue to receive the same clinical standards of care wherever they are treated. They must be prioritised according to clinical urgency, supported by senior clinical oversight, named nursing responsibility and ongoing monitoring, with clear escalation arrangements, where required. I know that Members are rightly concerned by patient safety, and of course no patient should receive a lower standard of care because they are being treated in a temporary clinical environment, but the safest care is in the right clinical setting, and that is what we are aiming to do.

We have also ensured that, following the spending review, the Government allocated up to £1.9 billion of capital funding over the next four years to support improvements in urgent and emergency care to help restore the constitutional standards talked about by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The Conservatives did not hit any constitutional standards for over 10 years, and we are determined to right that wrong.

Along with that investment, NHS England has published its model emergency department guidance, supporting faster clinical decision making, improved streaming of patients and stronger whole-system responsibility for performance. While there is much more to do, these reforms are already contributing to improvements, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, including the shortest waiting times for four years and the fastest ambulance response times for about five years, despite continued and increasing high demand.

Targeted support is where we need to do the most work, and early national data shows that much corridor care is concentrated in some key places. The specialist “Getting it right first time” teams are therefore working directly with those trusts to help improve patient flows, strengthen the discharge process, make better use of data and share learning from organisations that have already made progress.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), who highlighted the improvements at West Suffolk hospital, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for the great work happening at Blackburn and the work he is doing with other east Lancs MPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) talked about the improvements happening there. We heard about North Herefordshire and I am going to hold them to the autumn deadline raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). There is nothing like putting it on the record for them, is there? Great work. As colleagues have said, we want to take the best to the rest and some people are doing amazing work in difficult circumstances.

Ultimately, as Members have said, eliminating corridor care means improving flow across the whole system. That requires: faster discharge; stronger community and neighbourhood services, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh); improved social care; and more people receiving care closer to home, so that hospitals can focus on those who need in-patient care. That ambition sits at the heart of our urgent and emergency care plan and our 10-year health plan, which of course includes more prevention, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. The shift from hospital to community care will improve patient experience, reduce avoidable hospital attendance and create the capacity needed to restore urgent emergency care standards. This is about lasting reform, not a temporary response to seasonal pressures, whether they be the current heat or winter.

Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary professionalism of NHS staff: doctors, nurses, paramedics, health care assistants, porters, pharmacists and so many other people who continue to provide outstanding care under immense pressure. No member of staff comes to work expecting to treat patients in corridors, and many have spoken openly, rightly, about the moral distress it causes. They deserve not only our gratitude, but practical action to improve the conditions under which they work. Part of what we are doing—introducing the national definition, being transparent about the data, strengthening patient safety guidance, investing additional urgent care capacity, providing targeted support to the most challenged trusts and addressing the wider pressures that drive corridor care—is the start of doing just that.

Every patient deserves care delivered with dignity, compassion and respect. Every member of staff deserves a system that enables them to provide that care safely. Corridor care is not inevitable. It is the consequence of pressures that have built up across the health and care system, and it is a challenge that this Government are determined to overcome. By improving patient flow, increasing capacity, supporting frontline services and delivering long-term reform, we will restore urgent emergency care standards and end the routine use of corridor care before the end of this Parliament. That is our commitment to patients, NHS staff and this House.

New Hospital Programme Annual Report

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Today the Department has published the first “New Hospital Programme annual report”, covering the 2025 to 2026 financial year.

This report marks the first full year of delivery following the programme reset and the publication of a costed, phased delivery plan through the NHP plan for implementation in January 2025. It represents an important transition from recovery and stabilisation to sustained delivery under a clearer and more realistic framework.

The report sets out the progress made by the NHP during the last financial year, at both programmatic and scheme level. Over the reporting period, the programme has strengthened its governance and assurance in response to scrutiny from the National Audit Office and Parliament.

It has made progress across hospital schemes in multiple waves, and new delivery approaches have been implemented such as the Hospital 2.0 standardised design model and the Hospital 2.0 Alliance commercial framework, aimed at improving efficiency, increasing market capacity, and enabling faster delivery at scale.

Each scheme within the NHP presents its own complex challenges. Market capacity at all tiers continues to pose potential delivery constraints. The launch of the Hospital 2.0 Alliance is an important step in creating a commercial environment that protects the supply chain and enables concurrent delivery of several large hospital schemes.

Looking ahead to the 2026-27 financial year, the NHP will continue to progress schemes in line with the plan for implementation. For wave 1 schemes, focus will remain on business case development and preparing sites for main construction. The seven RAAC replacement schemes, while having been deemed safe to remain open beyond 2030 with appropriate mitigations in place, remain a priority and will continue to be a key focus for the programme in the financial year 2026-27.

Wave 2 schemes will focus on early works to support scheme readiness and de-risk future delivery, and for schemes in wave 3 there is focus on early pre-construction work to de-risk the delivery of schemes where it is necessary to do so at this stage.

A copy of the report has been placed in the House of Commons Library and is available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS201]

Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

The question is what will make patients more safe. Does incorporating the department that looks at safety into the organisation that inspects the services help? It might. Safety is not an add-on; safety must be at the heart of absolutely everything that we do. Safety is not a separate matter; it depends on those who work in our NHS and all of us all the time. That must be the culture. Let us not rely so much on inspections and litigations. At a time when we are unable to find jobs for newly qualified midwives, we spend more on obstetric litigation and compensation than we spend on obstetrics. I applaud what our Government are trying to do and their intention to improve things.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This morning, we had really good and detailed exchanges about patient safety and learning the role of HSSIB.

Often politics is confrontational and divisive, but I want to be clear that I take at face value that every single Member who has spoken and who I have met with, including people who do not want to see this change, have the best of intentions. They want to understand patient safety—in the long term we can talk about safety and quality of service, but let us focus on the safety aspects here—and they are trying to navigate something. They are seeing a change, which is always difficult, and we need to ensure we get that right. It is absolutely right that we do that in Committee, on Report and in the House of Lords. We will continue to take note of all the points made and seek to address them. I fortunately had the lunch break to reflect and do that a bit more carefully.

For people here and those reading our deliberations, what is difficult about the Bill—we understand this as legislators—is that we are abolishing an organisation and moving functions. That stands within a wider framework of changes to the safety and quality landscape that the Government are seeking. When one focuses on things that are being abolished, it is very binary. I will try and locate some of that without veering too far from the matter in front of us.

Among all the discussions, there are a couple of key questions that I want to address, including why I do this. Through the passage of the Bill, many people in the wider landscape have said to me, “Why are you bothering having a row about this?” I find that quite shocking as a riposte, because the answer is simple in the context. It is too important to not attempt to get this right and make changes to something that clearly is not working. I do not think I have heard anybody say that the current system is working.

As the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston noted, I said during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022 that the functions of HSSIB are really important and must be built to the highest standard. I absolutely stand by that. It is not working; that is why we are changing it, but also why we are preserving the function within a new system, which we will seek to improve.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to try to go through these points because I have listened carefully to everybody’s contributions. If there is something outstanding, I will be happy to come back to it.

To answer some of the direct questions that were put to me about the Dash review, I do not recall anybody particularly disagreeing with its findings when it was published or when we put it forward in our 10-year plan last year. I do not expect everyone to agree with every single recommendation or point made in that review. To an earlier point that was made by the Opposition, it was informed by a broad range of evidence and perspectives from across the health and social care system, including engagement with commissioners, providers, patients, families, and people harmed by poor-quality care, as well as charities, academics and national organisations. It looked really closely at what has not worked and why. I encourage hon. Members to go back to the work that Penny Dash was asked to do and the wider report.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston asked why the review covered only six organisations. The then Secretary of State authorised the Dash review to look at six organisations in this space that were directly overseen by the Department. Many other organisations in this space are not directly overseen by the Department, so they were not in scope of that review as they had their own regulatory landscape ecologies and so on. That is why those six organisations, which we oversee, were looked at.

Last night at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), made it clear that the rationale for this change is not based on cost. It is not based on the recommendations being too expensive. Rather, as I am sure colleagues will agree, we have seen far too many recommendations regarding patient safety but too little action. Inaction is not helping to improve the patient landscape.

Opposition Members referenced the view from the longest-serving Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), that the NHS will not change or adopt the recommendations. That is a profoundly depressing prospect. We cannot predicate our laws and the health landscape on the basis that the culture in the NHS cannot and will not change. This is not a party-political point, but because of what has happened in the last decade, we must move from a defensive culture into a culture of learning while keeping a safe space in which people can speak up. We have heard a lot about “perception” today. I accept that there is a perception of negativity that is damaging to patient safety and people speaking up, but that is what our wider reforms are seeking to address.

[Dr Prinsley]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about a change of culture. A change of culture can certainly happen. In the surgical world, we used to bring patients into the operating theatre, check that the patient was on the operating table and do the operation. Sometimes, we operated on the wrong patient and on the wrong part of the body. We then introduced the World Health Organisation checklist, which checked absolutely everything before we started. It was a complete change of culture in the operating department. We made sure that we had the right prosthesis, the right patient and that we were operating on the right part of the patient. Now, the WHO checklist is a universally adopted process. I am absolutely sure that the culture in the health service can change.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. He and others on both sides of the House with clinical experience, including the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, have shared live examples that can shock the layperson. It is important that those practices are changed clinically, and it is up to Government to make sure that the overarching legislative framework enables that.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I want to make some points first. I will pick up any outstanding points I do not cover.

The abolition of HSSIB and the transfer of its functions to CQC is being done to strengthen the link between patient safety investigations and the action being taken on the frontline to simplify the patient safety landscape. We want to align the recommendations with action.

Hon. Members quoted evidence that Dr Dash gave to the Committee. Let me remind the Committee of something else she told us, about how HSSIB’s functions can be better aligned as part of the CQC. She said:

“by bringing HSSIB into the CQC, you can align the work of the two.

For example, if the CQC is going round the country and spotting a particular problem with the way in which anaesthesia is being given or with managing patients post-surgery, the CQC could then say to HSSIB—that team of people with specific expertise—‘Can you go in and take a look at this? Can you do a detailed focus review of this particular area of care that we are spotting through our visits and which seem to be a particular challenge?’ It is that bit about enabling the CQC to identify a problem and then asking HSSIB to review it in detail, and HSSIB bringing its expertise in investigations into the CQC to enable the CQC to go deeper and then come back to the NHS”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 7, Q8.]

to enable best action. These organisations can learn better from each other.

Transferring investigation powers to the Care Quality Commission is an opportunity to strengthen the CQC. We have to move away from a defensive culture to a culture of shared learning if we are to improve patient care. The CQC can learn and improve from HSSIB best practice and take a more holistic approach to patient safety. Those executing the regulatory and investigatory functions can learn from each other and exchange skills, which would strengthen the links between learning, oversight and improvement, leading to real and sustained change across the system, driven by the CQC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

On that point, will the Minister briefly give way?

[Karin Smyth]

No.

There will be no barrier to investigating whether CQC inspections are causing unintended harm. If they are, and the investigator feels that a recommendation for change should be made, they will make it. The insight gained from investigations will continue to inform recommendations concerning the CQC’s regulatory functions, and the Bill allows for the investigation function to make recommendations to the CQC in its report. The CQC would be legally required to respond to such recommendations. There will be no need for litigation through the courts. That is an important point. Again, I am addressing the points made by Opposition Members. We will continue to set this out more clearly for Members. I am happy to find different ways to do that.

I now turn to the wider point about whether both an investigatory and a regulatory function can reside in the same body. Many organisations have different functions and responsibilities that they have to discharge simultaneously; we have also heard a lot about the safety body, which of course is part of the Department for Transport. It happens across a lot of bodies. I totally accept that it would be helpful for the debate if we were clearer on what some of those bodies are, and we will come forward with more information on that.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to persist on some of these arguments. I think I have addressed all the points made by the Opposition. It is the job of effective leadership to manage those interests and responsibilities, and that is what we expect of the CQC’s leadership.

I will now turn to the amendments on this topic, which I thank the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for North Shropshire for tabling. Amendment 55 would make provision for the Secretary of State to disapply investigation powers in certain circumstances. I recognise the importance of ensuring that investigatory powers are not exercised in relation to sensitive Crown or Government premises where there is a national security interest. I want to be clear: the Bill already provides for that.

The Bill already amends section 96 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 so that it applies to the new CQC investigatory function. Section 96 makes provision for the application of CQC legislation to the Crown, which means that the mechanism that the amendment is seeking to introduce is already in place within the existing legislative framework. Additionally, the Bill already provides for a power which enables the Secretary of State to disapply these investigatory powers in relation to Crown premises when it is in the interest of national security. The amendment would therefore duplicate an existing provision and would add unnecessary complexity to the legislation without delivering any additional benefit.

Amendment 56 would allow the Care Quality Commission to recover charges that are higher than the actual costs it incurs when providing assistance to anyone other than an NHS body or the Secretary of State. I understand the intention behind the amendment—to give the commission greater financial flexibility—but the Government do not think that it is necessary. The charging framework in the Bill is based on the clear principle of cost recovery. Removing subsection (9) of proposed new section 51R of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 would mean that the commission could charge more than it actually costs to provide a service, shifting away from recovering costs and towards allowing the commission to make a surplus through its charging powers.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding is that, in the past, HSSIB has provided services to not only British health services but overseas health services, which were, in some cases, charged for that service, as it is a world-leading organisation. Why would the Minister not want that to continue?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to get back to the hon. Lady on that specific point, if that is the case. The charging framework is about recovering costs, not making a surplus, which is what the amendment would result in. If that is not the case, I will make sure that she receives a proper correction.

The Government do not think that there is a good case for the amendment, because, as I have said, the aim of the provision is to provide for fair and transparent cost recovery, not to raise extra income beyond cost. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is suggesting that it might be good for the commission to create additional funding, but if that is not clear, I am happy to get back to her on it. The provision makes the recovery of costs more predictable and consistent for those who have to pay them. That is usual for public bodies.

New clause 42 relates to funding provisions for the CQC’s new investigation function. The Department already provides grant in aid to the CQC to provide adequate funding for investigations and special reviews; similarly, HSSIB’s budget is provided through grant in aid and is set each year. When the CQC takes on HSSIB’s functions, the funding streams will remain distinct, and the CQC will have to assure the Department that the amount allocated to the new investigation function is being used for that purpose.

Funding decisions for the investigation function will continue to be captured in wider departmental budget-planning processes and considered centrally. That provides assurance that business and strategic priorities for the investigation functions can be met. Robust financial oversight will require the CQC to demonstrate that grant in aid is used appropriately, and solely to support the investigation function, without the need to prescribe funding arrangements in legislation.

As there is already an operational mechanism for the Secretary of State to provide adequate funding and resources for investigations, the new clause is not needed. It would also be inappropriate to prescribe the form or level of funding in legislation. The new clause would reduce the Department’s ability to manage funding through the established spending review and estimates process; introduce unnecessary rigidity as the merged function evolves; and risk creating binding funding expectations that may not align with future fiscal constraints. A non-legislative approach ensures flexibility, scale and adaptive function while maintaining robust oversight.

I agree with the intention behind amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, which is, as I understand it, to ensure that the Health Services Safety Investigations Body functions that are transferred to the CQC retain a high level of operational independence and continue to command the confidence—the Committee heard that word a lot this morning; I completely agree on its importance—of patients and their families, healthcare professionals and the wider public. Similarly, I understand that the objective of the amendment is to maximise the perception—again, that is a word I am coming back to; I tried to address the issue earlier—of independence in the CQC.

The Government have protected safe spaces in legislation, and we agree that operational independence of the investigation function is required, but our plans support and enable that. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment, which would impose a highly prescriptive governance structure on the CQC by requiring the creation of a separate statutory committee and setting out in primary legislation detailed requirements for its purpose, membership appointments and operational arrangements. While the Government fully agree that effective safety investigations must be conducted independently and objectively, we do not consider it necessary to put such detailed organisational arrangements in the Bill.

The Bill already provides a clear legislative framework for the transfer of those functions and enables the CQC to discharge them appropriately, within its broader statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, the CQC already operates within a robust statutory framework and is capable of establishing governance arrangements that support the effective delivery of its functions, including appropriate safeguards to protect investigative independence and the handling of safe-space material.

The amendment would reduce organisational flexibility by mandating a specific committee structure, and would constrain the CQC’s ability to adapt its governance arrangements over time in response to operational experience, changes in circumstances or future improvements in best practice. Under the amendment, governance arrangements would be fixed in statute, rather than having the capability to evolve as the organisation learns and develops.

Those additional administrative and governance requirements would increase bureaucracy and complexity, which the Government are looking to reduce. I re-emphasise that, in addition, a statutory committee would weaken the important links between learning and the action that the transfer of this organisation is intended to support. One of the key benefits of bringing these functions into the CQC is the opportunity to strengthen strategic oversight and ensure that learning from investigations can more readily inform improvement activity across the system.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister seems to be saying that her reasoning for moving HSSIB into the CQC is to ensure that actions take place in response to the recommendations. But if HSSIB outwith the CQC makes recommendations that are delivered by the provider organisations, commissioned by the ICBs and overseen by Ministers, and then the CQC checks that as part of the regulation, why does HSSIB need to be within the CQC for that to happen?

[Karin Smyth]

We are probably not going to agree on this point. I have made the point several times—and we made it in the Dash review—about bringing these organisations together. As I said again in my opening comments, it is about the opportunity to get this right and share that learning and experience. It is not about the cost but about aligning the recommendations and the actions that follow through from them. That learning, and the opportunity to push that through, is something we should grasp.

Coming back to amendment 5, creating a separate statutory committee risks introducing additional layers of separation that could slow the flow of intelligence and impede timely action in response to emerging patient safety concerns. We believe the integration of investigatory functions can be secured through clear statutory functions and appropriate safeguards, rather than through organisational structures set out in primary legislation that are too rigid. Establishing detailed governance requirements in statute may also make future improvements more difficult to implement without legislative change.

I understand and respect the concerns that underpin the amendment, but the Government believe that the Bill already provides the necessary framework for the safe and effective delivery of health services’ safety investigations following their transfer to the CQC. We will of course work closely with both the CQC and HSSIB on their transition arrangements through a transition board, whether on the issues of ensuring operation independence of the investigation function and the ways in which that learning is shared, or, further to the Opposition spokesperson’s point, how we make sure that learning is shared and creates an impact, and where that is felt most clearly. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, and I commend clauses 59, 60 and 61 to the Committee.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 62 underscores the importance that we place on special reviews and investigations, and it will maintain the Care Quality Commission’s ability to conduct them by ensuring that the CQC’s investigatory role remains properly aligned with its original statutory purpose. The CQC is the independent regulator of health and care providers, and in the case of commissioners, it has the powers to undertake a special review or investigation when requested to by the Secretary of State.

On 30 January 2024, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), commissioned a section 48 review into mental health services in Nottinghamshire following the tragic events of June 2023. As we know, that revealed serious and systemic failings and led to strengthened oversight and a clear improvement plan. With NHS England being abolished and its functions being transferred to the Department and across the wider system, this clause will remove NHSE from the scope of section 48 and allow Ministers to set out, through regulations, the future scope of section 48.

NHS England’s commissioning functions will mostly transfer to the integrated care boards but, as we discussed previously, NHSE’s most specialised commissioning functions will transfer to the Secretary of State. In future, regulations will set out the specific commissioning functions that the Secretary of State will be responsible for and that the CQC may review or investigate. The scope of the special reviews and investigations will continue to apply only to commissioning functions under the National Health Service Act 2006 or section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which is the CQC’s existing remit.

This approach will ensure that the CQC’s investigatory powers will not be automatically extended to departmental functions, which would fundamentally change the relationship between an arm’s length body and a Government Department and would not align with the original intention of section 48 reviews. For that reason, the Bill will provide for scrutiny through secondary legislation. That will set out a transparent and accountable way to specify which commissioning functions are in scope, enabling parliamentary scrutiny and CQC oversight where it is genuinely relevant to patient safety and care quality.

This approach will also provide important flexibility: as commissioning arrangements change, the right function can be brought into scope without unnecessary delays. Taken together, this clause will protect the CQC’s independence, maintain accountability and provide a sensible framework for scrutiny where it adds real value for patient safety and care quality. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

I have just a couple of questions. Clause 62 will update the CQC’s power to conduct special reviews of NHS commissioning to cover ICBs and the Secretary of State’s commissioning functions, and the requirement for ministerial approval before the CQC can investigate will be retained. How will that apply when HSSIB is moved into the CQC? Is it the Minister’s intention that HSSIB will need the Secretary of State’s approval to complete investigations?

[Karin Smyth]

My understanding is that the clause will not change that particular power, but I will get back to the hon. Lady if I am wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Time limit for bringing proceedings

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

[Karin Smyth]

The 10-year health plan reaffirms the Government’s commitment to families affected by bereavement or serious harm, ensuring that lessons are learned from their experience and that more cases are fully reviewed and acted on. Families seek closure following serious harm to or the death of a loved one by wanting to understand what went wrong and what could be done to stop other families experiencing similar trauma, and by wanting to hold someone to account. Families often turn to the Care Quality Commission for help.

Clause 63 will extend the CQC’s power to bring proceedings against a health and social care provider for a serious breach of regulations from the existing limitation of three years from the date of the offence to five years. Let me be clear: extending the three-year limitation from the time of the offence will not alter the first requirement that the CQC should act within 12 months of sufficient evidence of a serious breach of regulations becoming available. That 12-month window for action once the regulator is aware of the offence will remain unchanged. Extending the limitation period to five years from the date of the offence will mean that fewer events that should be considered by the regulator will effectively time out and go beyond the reach of the regulator’s action.

The CQC is not the only body with an interest in investigating serious breaches of regulations that result in unnatural death; there are other investigatory bodies, such as the police, with equal interest and powers to investigate deaths for the purpose of pursuing criminal prosecution. The coronial process serves a different purpose. A coroner’s role is to establish facts surrounding an unnatural death rather than to find fault. In a complex case, a police investigation or a coroner’s inquest—sometimes both—can take time to conclude. Those independent processes are a useful source of information for the CQC to form a full picture of a breach of regulation.

A culture of learning from investigations, inquiries, errors and poor care should be the norm in the NHS. It is therefore expected that a service provider may also commission its own internal investigation to learn from an unnatural death. Furthermore, there are cases where the CQC is approached late with information after an offence may have been committed. For example, the CQC may only receive information about an offence two and half years after it was committed, leaving little time in the remaining six-month period to investigate. Extending the period to five years would help mitigate such circumstances, and that is why we are extending the statutory limitation period. This will ensure that the CQC has the ability in far more cases to address the serious regulatory failings that it should and must address, without risking falling foul of a time limitation. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister said, clause 63 amends section 90(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to extend the limit on proceedings relating to the registration of offences under part 1 from three to five years. The impact assessment talks a little about the time it takes to investigate these cases, but as the Minister said, the time to investigate is 12 months from the CQC being given enough evidence to consider whether the case is prosecutable. Why has she chosen not to change that too? Does she think people will have enough time to investigate? She is looking puzzled.

[Karin Smyth]

Apologies—I missed the exact question as to what needed to be changed. Could the hon. Lady repeat that?

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister talked about changing the time period in which proceedings can be effected from three to five years, but once the CQC is aware that an investigation could be brought and there is evidence that needs to be looked at, it will still get only 12 months. That has not been changed. I wonder what the rationale is for that. I am not criticising it; I am just asking the question.

The other issue is that clause 63 is prospective, so if an offence were committed immediately after the Act was passed, for the first three years things would effectively be as they are now; the change from three years to five would be relevant only after three years. Clause 71(2) on commencement provides that clause 63 will not come into force until two months after the Act is passed. I just wonder in practical terms why, given that it will take three years to come into effect in any case, it will not come into force on the day the Act receives Royal Assent.

The impact assessment talks about the CQC prosecuting two or three additional cases a year, and a cost of £4.3 million over 10 years with fines of £2.7 million over 10 years. Will the regulator keep the fines, or will they go back into the Treasury? Can the Minister guarantee that the additional funds that are estimated to be required for the additional cases under this new regulation will be provided so that the CQC can do the investigations that she is giving it the opportunity to do?

[Karin Smyth]

Put simply, the answer to the hon. Lady’s questions is that we are not seeking to change other aspects. The CQC wants to get to points as soon as possible, so the 12-month period has not been changed. The function of clause 63 is merely to recognise the issues around the three years and to change that to five years. We are not seeking to alter anything else in that regard. On her point about the commencement date, that is merely recognising what is considered to be parliamentary convention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Abolition of Healthwatch England

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 9.

New Clause 74—Report on the abolition of Healthwatch England—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the impact of the abolition of Healthwatch England and transfer of Healthwatch England's functions to ICBs.

(2) The report must consider—

(a) the effectiveness of escalation routes for complaints,

(b) the ability to receive responses to complaints from the relevant ICB officer,

(c) accountability of ICB CEOs for delivering new functions arising from the abolition of Healthwatch;

(d) independence in the delivery of patient surveys, and

(e) ability to investigate organisations from which the ICB commissions services.

(3) The report must make recommendations about how any issues identified under subsection (2) may be mitigated.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months of the passage of this Act on the impact of the abolition of Healthwatch England and transfer of Healthwatch England's functions to ICBs.

New clause 78—Healthwatch funding—

“(1) The Secretary of State, must within 12 months of the passing of this act, enact a scheme to fund Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations for the 2027/2028 financial year to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care in 2013/14.

(2) The Secretary of State must consider uprating this funding with inflation for 2026/2027.”

This new clause 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.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

[Karin Smyth]

This is a popular clause, Ms Lewell—and rightly so. I recognise that this provision has elicited a lot of interest among our constituents and the wider public. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. This is another example of the Government seeking to abolish an independent voice and merge its functions into an organisation that, frankly, will probably benefit to some extent from not having that independent scrutiny, but it is not for the betterment of patients or indeed the system. Healthwatch England is effective specifically because it is an independent voice for patients. We have not heard any compelling arguments for why, just because the system is not perfect, this change is better than leaving it alone.

The argument has been advanced that this brings patient voice closer to decision making, but I would hope that the directly elected Ministers who represent people are what bring the voice of the people closer to decision making in the Department of Health. They should be the ones bringing patient voice to the heart of decision making—I am sure that they do, of course—and there are other means by which the Department formulates policies and decisions; it does not need to remove an independent patient voice through Healthwatch England, which serves a different purpose, to enhance that.

That different purpose is this: some of the things that Healthwatch England advocates for and shines a light on are uncomfortable truths for decision makers and the Department of Health. It looks far too cosy to now bring that function into the decision-making process. Some of these issues need the light shedding on them that comes with an independent organisation providing patient voice. We have heard how the Select Committee and MPs, in their free-ranging Back-Bench function, benefit from hearing that voice through an independent organisation such as Healthwatch England, because it allows them to fulfil their scrutiny function. This is not just about decision making; it is also about scrutiny of decisions once they have been made. What will the Select Committee, MPs and journalists do when they no longer have the light shed by that independent voice?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has pointed out, representatives who are employees in the Department of Health and Social Care rightly have other overriding primary duties to the employer—the Department itself. Let us ensure that patient voice is articulated by those who do not have a primary obligation to their employer, but have an obligation to an independent organisation with functions that serve solely to amplify and project the voice of patients.

There are a number of issues with the abolition of local healthwatches, but I will save that for the next discussion. I want to make the wider point that there is a centralisation issue here too. Whether the Government like it or not, this measure will centralise powers into the Department; it will take outside powers from Healthwatch England and bring them in-house. That is nothing short of a centralising measure. The Minister needs to address the justification for that, because the more negatives there are to this decision, the more we need to understand the positives. So far, they are light indeed, or she has failed to articulate them. I think that there is a reason she has failed to articulate the positives: they simply do not exist.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I urge her to take some more interventions, because the arguments she has given to the Committee in her speeches at the end of each discussion have tended to raise more questions than they have answered. We can only deal with that by intervening on what she says.

[Karin Smyth]

I think that the record will show that I have taken several interventions in recent days, and I will continue to do so. I have been very clear that we have some fundamental disagreements on philosophy and approach. I will desperately try not to veer into the next groups, but it may be tricky. I am sure that you will steer me through, Ms Lewell.

I want to pick up on some good, helpful points that have been made. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for the comments he made. I appreciate that certain areas, particularly Mid Staffs, have elicited a lot of debate and concern. I commend him for following that through on behalf of his constituency. I know that other Members in Staffordshire want to understand how the Government’s future plans will address their very real concerns. That is also true of other areas that have experienced shocking scandals, as we call them. I take that very seriously.

I will pick up on the question of independence that we veered into before, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. She highlighted her concerns and the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, and I heard what she said. Independence was also raised by the hon. Member for Winchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. We therefore return to that point about independence and, as my hon. Friend said, about being in the room, making those decisions and changing the entire culture of the organisation to do something different.

The question is then whether bringing the functions of Healthwatch to the national level is the right method. Again, I commend work on that and the individuals involved in it. Hon. Members mentioned Jacob Lant of National Voices and the King’s Fund, which have worked with us very well to challenge us and try to make this legislation better. I really appreciate their work, and we will continue to talk with them.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon mentioned GIRFT. I cannot help but respond to his point, because he suggested that being inside NHS England has somehow made it less effective, and I could not disagree with him more. It is not because he has left and is here; his presence is obviously missed at GIRFT and welcomed here. To be serious, every meeting I have with NHS England and everything we are attempting to do in reforming outcomes for patients on the ground involves GIRFT. It is now at the very heart of what NHS England does. By coming inside the organisation, it has done exactly some of the things we want to do: drive cultural difference and change inside the organisation, rather than being outside of it. As I said before, this is a slightly philosophical argument and political argument. I appreciate that there are views on either side, but that is absolutely our intention.

On the patient experience directorate, we recognise that public trust will be crucial. We need to ensure that there is system learning across the piece. The patient experience directorate has to earn the trust of the public and parliamentarians, so we will design it to operate transparently and sit at the centre of decision making rather than at its margins. Ministers will be accountable for and answerable to Parliament on the work of the patient experience directorate. It has to focus on the voices that are too often overlooked. The central priority of the directorate will be to reach under-represented and seldom heard groups and to ensure that engagement is accessible, inclusive and proactive, so that the experiences of vulnerable people help inform and shape the decisions that affect their lives.

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

I was flattered to hear my comments on Second Reading quoted by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I think she has misunderstood me. My question to the Minister was and still is about how we maintain within the new arrangements the ability to speak up on behalf of others. Could the Minister comment on that?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the intention of her comments clear to the Committee. It is right that we need to build trust in patient voice and experience. We will pick up on that in our debate on local healthwatch branches, because that is perhaps where Members of Parliament are particularly important.

At a national level, there are many voices and organisations continuing to review the issue and challenge the Government, including through reports, meetings with Ministers and in Parliament, highlighting the good work that they do and numerous Committees. Health Ministers appear before the Public Accounts Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and Lords Committees; I have appeared before the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. That is an important way of ensuring that the Department and the new experience directorate will be accountable.

I recognise the important contribution that Healthwatch has made in capturing patient insight and informing the design and delivery of services, but we do not believe that new clause 78 is necessary. It is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. I am aware of the views of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but the Government’s policy is to abolish Healthwatch and ensure that patient and public voice is more directly connected to decision making. It would therefore not be appropriate or consistent to legislate for a specific funding level for organisations that would no longer exist, or to constrain how funding is deployed to support the new arrangements.

[Helen Morgan]

For the record, I tabled amendments to delete those clauses, so there was consistency of intention.

[Karin Smyth]

I am just computing that in my brain. Can I seek clarification on that?

[Helen Morgan]

I tabled amendments to delete the clauses that will remove Healthwatch, but they have not been chosen for debate, because we can just vote against those clauses standing part. New clause 78, which would ensure that Healthwatch is funded properly, was tabled alongside amendments to ensure that Healthwatch is retained.

[Karin Smyth]

I understand. I am grateful to the hon. Member for that clarification, but her new clause represents an incomplete picture of Government funding for Healthwatch. A £14.15 million grant has been provided to local authorities for local healthwatches, and that is only part of the overall funding; a larger proportion is rolled into the wider local government financial settlement, and because that is not visible as a distinct line, headline figures often understate the total funding available. All of this funding is not ringfenced.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 10.

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 65 and schedule 10 will abolish the current local healthwatch arrangements and place responsibility for gathering the views of local people firmly with the bodies with the clearest levers to act: integrated care boards and local authorities.

At present, many organisations are gathering views, running engagement exercises and raising issues, often with the best of intentions, but the result can be duplication, variable coverage and uncertainty about who is accountable for responding. We can end up with lots of feedback but too little clarity on the action that follows. By placing those duties on integrated care boards and local authorities, we are ensuring that insight from patients, service users and communities feeds directly into where commissioning and service planning decisions are made for both health and care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, the people are in the room. It makes it easier to connect lived experience to priorities, quality improvement and the tackling of inequalities, rather than leaving intelligence at arm’s length from decision makers.

This is about strengthening impact, not silencing criticism. Integrated care boards and local authorities will have a statutory duty to demonstrate how they have engaged with all people in their area, including seldom heard groups, and will be expected to have clear routes for people to raise concerns. We expect transparency about what people have told the system, what the system has done in response and how learning is shared across partners.

As I said in my evidence, many constituents in my Bristol South constituency are said to be hard to reach. They are not hard to reach, in my view. We know exactly where they live, who they are, how old they are and what sex they are. We know largely what diseases they have. We know their level of income. We know their levels of education and attainment, and how they impact their health outcomes. They are not hard to reach; the system is not set up to listen to them. That is what we are determined to change.

Dr Penny Dash’s review of patient safety described a cluttered landscape, with overlaps in how user experience and advocacy are organised. It described the burden that that can place on the frontline, producing multiple, poorly co-ordinated asks with limited impact. Bringing the patient and community voice closer to the organisations responsible for improvement—it is actually their job as commissioners—will help to make feedback more actionable, reduce confusion and support better services. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As I understand it, the objectives of the Bill are to replace the local healthwatch with a less independent, internalised gatherer of patient experience feedback. The objectives appear to be featuring feedback more centrally in strategic decision making, getting people into the room and simplifying the patient landscape.

There are things that I do not understand about that. If the problem is that those who commission or deliver the services are not listening adequately to the people who gather the patient experience information, why not invite the independent individual who has gathered that information into the room? Why ask someone in the room to gather the information and risk the independence? Why not compel more listening?

The Minister talked about who is accountable for action. My understanding is that it is the healthwatches’ job to gather the patient experience and present it to Healthwatch England and the decision makers. It is not their job, as I understand it, to make decisions on how care is delivered or to deliver that care differently. Does the Minister intend that to change?

The Minister also talked about strengthening the impact of Healthwatch, but I do not understand how this change will do that. We have heard how its independence allows Healthwatch to go on telly, talk to Members of Parliament, Select Committees, radio stations and others, and publicise its findings. If it is within the Department, will it be able to do so as freely? I suggest that it will not.

The other thing that I do not really understand—perhaps the Minister can help us with this—is the organisation. At the moment, it is done in local authority areas. It will now become the job of the local authority and the ICB to commission feedback, but we have already heard how the 50% cuts to ICB budgets have led to ICBs merging into larger conglomerates. Those do not necessarily overlap with the strategic mayoral authorities in the way the Minister eventually wants. What geography does the Minister want the feedback to be gathered over? How does she see that working? Will it require further restructuring? The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about the importance of localism and how different areas of his constituency have different health needs. How does the Minister think that that will work under her new plans?

The Minister said that one benefit of the new process is reaching vulnerable individuals, but what is to stop Healthwatch doing that? Ultimately, if we have Healthwatch doing things now that are independent and respected across the House—I am sure your local healthwatch is also excellent, Ms Lewell; Lincolnshire’s certainly is—why not strengthen that voice? Why not say to those who are providing that service, “We’re going to give you more resources,” or “We’re going to ask you to deliver it in a slightly different way,” or “We’re going to ask you to focus on particular populations,” or even, “We’re going to invite you into the room with the ICBs so that they can hear you and listen carefully”?

Why not compel those making the decisions and delivering the services to listen to Healthwatch, rather than replacing it? It was not Healthwatch’s job to listen to them, but to gather the information and present it, and that is what it has done. Can the Minister explain how removing its independence is going to help? I simply do not understand it.

--- Later in debate ---

I am using my own patch as an example, and it is fairly unique, but there are many areas across the country, particularly coastal and rural ones, with their own unique challenges. At the moment, those are well-represented through small, independent local healthwatches. That uniqueness will be lost, not only because of the lack of independence of the patient voice that will result from merging healthwatches with ICBs, but because the patient voice will be merged with others, since ICBs cover far wider areas. Given the values that Labour says it stands by and gets elected on—patient choice, patient voice, improving healthcare outcomes—it surprises me that a Labour Government want to abolish that independent patient voice. No matter how much they want to make space for that voice within an ICB, they cannot argue that that voice is independent once it becomes part and parcel of the ICB.

[Karin Smyth]

Again, we have had an important discussion, particularly around the issue of independence; I accept that it is difficult and that there are arguments on both sides. We have heard a lot about Professor Croisdale-Appleby’s evidence on behalf of Healthwatch. I made this argument on Second Reading: we have had this arrangement for 52 years, and I think we can all agree that the situation is not good. It has not worked. As I said earlier, 20,000 reports add a lot of work. There is a lot of work in this landscape—well-intentioned work by good people. We can argue about whether Healthwatch was set up appropriately to do the job it has been asked to do.

I was pleased to hear the three examples from the Lib Dems and other individual examples of where light has been shone upon a closure, for example. It is good that that has been valued by local Members of Parliament. I would argue that nobody should be closing services without fully engaging with the local population and setting out clearly why that is being done. That is a failure of those local organisations, and we need to address the cause of that failure.

I am struck by the oral evidence to the Committee on those 20,000 reports in 52 years. It was suggested that it takes six months, as I think the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said when quoting the evidence, for somebody to “go out”—that is the phrase that is used: “Let’s go out and talk to people in these far-flung communities. What do they think? What is their experience? Who are they?” It constantly surprises me, as it did when I worked inside the system. These are not remote people. We know who they are and what is wrong with them. We know how remote they are from the system. That goes to the heart of why the taxpayer is so alienated in this country from public services and their poor functioning. That is what the Government want to change.

It is not a matter of ICBs adding a new function; the Opposition have fundamentally misunderstood that. It is about rewiring these organisations to do something very different. Their function as strategic commissioners is to understand and to use all the data and evidence, including direct voice. We can argue about how that direct voice is taken in, but that is fundamentally what a commissioner is—I say that, having been a commissioner. It is not being done well, and that is why we are changing the legislation. Under previous legislation, ICBs had multiple functions. We are changing that to force them to be commissioners, but it is not an add-on; it is fundamental to the commissioning process. It is a complete rewiring of the organisation to listen to patient voice, patient experience and the reality of health inequalities.

In my constituency, I am afraid have not seen examples of the independent voice really speaking on behalf of the people I serve—some of whom have the worst health inequalities in the country, largely as a result of the tobacco industry and its legacy—whereas their experiences and their health outcomes are very well known and should drive the necessary changes. That is why we are driving all the changes in the 10-year health plan: to meet the needs of communities. We will continue to have this debate, but I wanted to make that absolutely clear.

We assume that the independent voice is always clear, but it is not. We have heard that it is variable and fragmented. That is not the fault of anyone trying to provide it, but that is where it is. The system is supposed to listen and improve services, and it does not. Things need to be changed in order to achieve that, and that is what we intend to do. The changes will be supported by scrutiny, transparency and oversight arrangements. The alternative, which is maintaining a separate structure with limited levers to drive change, has not delivered, and it cannot continue to try.

We are not removing patient and user voice; we are embedding it at the heart of the new system. ICBs will be expected to carry out proactive, inclusive engagement, particularly with so-called seldom-heard groups, including carers, those who do not have access to digital platforms, those less proficient with technology and people for whom English is a second language. Crucially, ICBs will be accountable for demonstrating reach and impact, not simply how many reports or engagement exercises they have done. Impact is what we will be looking at.

As I have said, this is about moving from a model where voices can be collected but overlooked to one where they must be heard and acted upon. The new patient experience director in the Department will work closely with local systems to identify national themes and significant concerns, ensuring that patient experience informs policy and improvement at the national level. To answer a previous question, the Secretary of State will have the power to issue directions to ICBs and local authorities if they are failing to exercise that function.

As I have said in debates on previous groups, I understand that it is difficult when we are debating the abolition of something outwith the wider framework of the 10-year health plan, the Dash review, the patient experience directorate in the Department and changes to the national quality board. It is incumbent on the Government to make that architecture clear and to build confidence and trust. That is what we intend to do, and that is how this body will be taken forward.

All comments have been noted. There is a fundamental difference of approach. We are making those bodies fundamentally different and rewiring them to do something different. I understand the bumpy road—I have been part of that, with community health councils and links to Healthwatch, and it has been a long one. I think we will keep returning to this theme. Those organisations have not been changed to do what they are supposed to do, and that is the ambition of this Government.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Karin Smyth]

As the UK resilience action plan sets out, we are living through a period of profound change. Ensuring that our institutions are clear in what they must do to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies is essential. With that mind, the clause is necessary. It clarifies the existing duties on NHS trusts under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—the legislation that sets out how the UK prepares for, co-ordinates and responds to serious emergencies. Since the Civil Contingencies Act came into force, NHS trusts have been included as category 1 responders. That means that they have had specific legal duties to assess risks, plan for emergencies, maintain business continuity, warn and inform the public, and work together to co-ordinate an effective local response.

Due to changing policies by the previous Government, references to NHS trusts were removed from the Civil Contingencies Act, yet under transitionary powers in other legislation, they remain category 1 responders. This has meant that their role has seemed unclear for some other responders and the public. I want to be clear that the clause does not change the position of NHS trusts, nor their duties or functions under the Civil Contingencies Act; instead, it simply clarifies the legislation, making their place and role clear. That is vital so that NHS trusts and other responders know exactly what is required of them during and after an emergency. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Minor and consequential amendments

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 20 to 24 and 83.

Schedule 11.

[Karin Smyth]

These are minor and technical amendments. Government amendments 20 to 22 make changes to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to remove references to NHS England, reflecting that NHS England will be abolished. Those amendments are consequential to the Armed Forces Bill 2026. Government amendment 83 makes changes to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to remove reference to NHS England and update a reference to NHS trusts to take account of the new conversion procedure created by clause 35 of the Bill. Government amendments 23 and 24 both amend the NHS Act 2006 by removing unnecessary consequential amendments to that Act.

Clause 67 inserts schedule 11, which makes minor and consequential amendments that are required as a consequence of the provision made in other clauses of the Bill. They mostly result from the abolition of NHS England, the conferral of NHS England’s functions on others—primarily the Secretary of State and integrated care boards—and the changes made to the NHS provider landscape. Those minor and consequential changes are made to a large number of enactments, but notably a significant number of such consequential changes are made to: the Mental Health Act 1983, the NHS Act 2006, the Health and Social Care Act 2008, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. The changes are necessary to ensure the proper operation of the statute book and reflect the substantive changes being made elsewhere in the Bill. I commend clause 67 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 20, in schedule 11, page 140, line 16, at end insert—

“91A The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.”

This amendment and amendments 21 and 22 remove a reference to NHS England from section 343AZB of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (to be inserted by the Armed Forces Bill).

Amendment 21, in schedule 11, page 140, line 17, leave out

“of the Armed Forces Act 2006”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 20.

Amendment 22, in schedule 11, page 140, line 18, at end insert—

“92A In section 343AZB (inserted by the Armed Forces Act 2026), in subsection (5)(a) omit sub-paragraph (i).”

See explanatory statement for amendment 20.

Amendment 23, in schedule 11, page 144, line 5, leave out paragraph 118.

This removes an unnecessary consequential amendment to section 12E of the NHS Act 2006 (that section is replaced in its entirety by clause 10 of the Bill).

Amendment 24, in schedule 11, page 148, line 9, leave out paragraph 139.

This removes an unnecessary consequential amendment to a heading that is replaced by clause 11.

Amendment 83, in schedule 11, page 191, line 35, at end insert—

“Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026

400 In Schedule 1 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (relevant authorities)—

(a) omit paragraph 9;

(b) in paragraph 12, omit ‘section 25 of’.”—(Karin Smyth.)

This is a consequential amendment to Schedule 1 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which would remove a reference to NHS England and update a reference to NHS trusts to take account of the new conversion procedure created by clause 35 of the Bill.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause 20

Arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities

“(1) Section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6), for the words from ‘consultation’ to the end substitute ‘the making of arrangements by virtue of this section’.

(3) Omit subsections (7A) to (7L).

(4) In subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert—

‘“local authority” includes—

(a) a combined authority,

(b) a combined county authority, and

(c) the Greater London Authority;’.”—(Karin Smyth.)

This enables combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority to enter into arrangements with NHS bodies under section 75 of the NHS Act 2006 in relation to any of their functions, replacing the current different and more limited provision about combined authorities and combined county authorities.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Dispensing medical practitioners etc

“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 132 (persons authorised to provide pharmaceutical services)—

(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) Except as may be provided for by or under regulations, no arrangements may be made by an integrated care board with a person providing primary medical services under Part 4 to provide pharmaceutical services.’;

(b) in subsection (3), for ‘medical practitioners’ substitute ‘persons providing primary medical services under Part 4’;

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) for paragraph (a) substitute—

‘(a) as to grounds on which an integrated care board may, or must, refuse to grant an application for inclusion in a list referred to in subsection (3),’;

(ii) in paragraph (aa) omit ‘of medical practitioners’;

(iii) in paragraph (b), for ‘NHS England by a medical practitioner’ substitute ‘an integrated care board by a person’;

(iv) omit paragraph (c).

(3) In section 134 (pilot schemes), in subsection (8) omit ‘by a medical practitioner or dental practitioner to a patient of his’.

(4) In Schedule 12 (LPS schemes), in paragraph 1(8) omit ‘by a medical practitioner or dental practitioner to a patient of his’.”—(Karin Smyth.)

This updates the legislation about the provision of pharmaceutical services by medical practitioners to conform with current law and practice whereby commissioning arrangements are generally made with the practice rather than individual doctors. It also removes a reference to dental practitioners that is not needed.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services

“(1) Section 133 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a situation or event has caused or is likely to cause a disruption resulting in the inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services in England or in an area within England.’

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) after ‘Secretary of State’ insert ‘may by direction’;

(b) for paragraph (a) (but not the ‘and’ at the end) substitute—

‘(a) require an integrated care board to make other arrangements,’;

(c) in paragraph (b) omit ‘may’.

(4) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) A direction under subsection (2) must specify the period for which it has effect.

(4) The period must not be more than 6 months.

(5) But the Secretary of State may by further direction extend the period for which a direction under subsection (2) has effect by up to 6 months at a time.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish any directions under this section.’”—(Karin Smyth.)

The amendments made by this clause (among other things) relax the legal test for making alternative provision to address the inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services owing to a disruption of services.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Pharmaceutical services: appeals etc

“Schedule (Pharmaceutical services: appeals etc) makes provision about the destination of appeals, and jurisdiction to determine certain matters, currently governed by Part 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (pharmaceutical services and local pharmaceutical services).”—(Karin Smyth.)

The clause introduces a Schedule which amends provisions about certain appeals etc to the First-tier Tribunal. Those appeals will be transferred to an NHS body determined by regulations. It is expected that initially this will be NHS Resolution.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 91

Regulations: reference to agreements and standards

“(1) The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2 (power to make regulations about human medicines), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) making provision in reliance on section 3, 4, 5 or 7 may refer to international agreements or standards relating to human medicines, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time.’

(3) In section 16 (manufacture, marketing and supply), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Provision made in reliance on subsection (1)(a) may refer to United Kingdom standards that—

(a) relate to the marketing, putting into service or other supply of medical devices, and

(b) are specified in a list published by the Secretary of State from time to time.

(4) Regulations made under section 15(1) that contain provision made in reliance on subsection (1)(a) about relevant requirements (or exceptions from them) may include provision in relation to a medical device where—

(a) the device complies with regulatory requirements applicable somewhere outside the United Kingdom which is specified in regulations, and

(b) a description of the device and the regulatory requirements applicable to it are contained in a list published by the Secretary of State from time to time.

(5) In this section “United Kingdom standard” means a standard that is—

(a) set by the British Standards Institution, or

(b) primarily developed for use in the United Kingdom, or part of the United Kingdom.’”—(Karin Smyth.)

This new clause would amend the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to (a) enable regulations to refer to both international agreements and standards and standards developed in the United Kingdom and (b) enable the Secretary of State to dispense with requirements placed on devices which meet regulatory requirements applicable outside the United Kingdom.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Karin Smyth]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 92—Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements.

Government new clause 93—Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations.

Government new clause 94—Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure.

Government new clause 95—Medical devices etc: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations.

Government amendments 80 to 82.

New clause 67—Secretary of State directions relating to early access to medicines—

“(1) The Secretary of State may give directions to any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) about the implementation of a scheme providing early access to medicines to people with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions.

(2) The bodies are—

(a) integrated care board,

(b) NHS Trusts,

(c) NHS Foundation Trusts,

(d) NHS Advanced Foundation Trusts, and

(e) other health and social care bodies.”

This new clause would give the Secretary of State power to direct integrated care boards, NHS Trusts, NHS Foundation Trusts, and NHS Advanced Foundation Trusts to implement a scheme to provide early access to medicines to people with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions.

New clause 68—Review of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the regime for early and accelerated access to medicines in England and Wales.

(2) The review conducted under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the effectiveness of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS) and Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP),

(b) the effectiveness of the early access outside of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS) and Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), and

(c) equality of access across England and Wales, with the aim of reducing geographical inequalities between different NHS trusts.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report and recommendations of the review before both House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of regime for early and accelerated access to medicines.

[Karin Smyth]

I will begin with Government new clauses 91 to 95. Many hon. Members will know that the current regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices is seen as overly complicated and difficult to navigate. It is also slow and burdensome to amend, limiting our ability to ensure that it keeps pace with developments. Maintaining the safeguards to public health is central to every decision we make. However, the regulatory framework currently slows down innovation and delays patient access to healthcare products. From a market growth perspective, it also places barriers to the UK market, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

These new clauses will deliver a more streamlined regime for making and updating secondary legislation. The ability to make faster and more responsive updates to secondary legislation will enable the Department and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to address the current barriers that I have highlighted in the regulation more quickly.

New clauses 91 and 92 provide for changes with regard to powers to make “ambulatory references”, which are references in legislation to external documents such as technical standards and lists, which can be updated from time to time. These changes will ensure that the legislation continues to capture updated versions of those documents without the need for further regulations. International and domestic standards are crucial in the highly technical areas targeted by the change. It is important that the regulatory regime remains aligned with the technical, scientific and international framework that is designed to evolve over time.

Currently, there are limited powers for medical devices regulations to refer to external international agreements or standards that change over time, and there are no such powers at all for medicines. Without the ability to make ambulatory references to those documents, legislation is needed each time the standards are updated. That is disproportionate and risks unintentional regulatory divergence that creates uncertainty for industry.

The new clauses introduce a power for human medicines regulations to refer to external international agreements or standards that are updated over time. For medical devices, the provisions also extend the current ambulatory reference power to make reference to lists of countries subject to mutual recognition agreements, lists of devices or categories of device that are eligible for an international reliance pathway, and lists of British technical standards. Amendment 80 sets out that the extent of new clause 92 will cover England, Scotland and Wales.

The provisions of new clause 93 enable a more flexible approach to consultations on regulatory changes related to medicines and medical devices, rather than the current one-size-fits-all requirement. Under the amended powers, the MHRA and the Department will still retain a legal duty to consult relevant stakeholders, and significant regulatory changes will continue to be subject to public consultation. The measure is designed to enable consultations that are proportionate to the scale of the change in hand. That will ensure that regulations can be updated more efficiently and in line with the needs of the health service.

New clause 94 will enable certain technical updates to medicines and medical devices regulations to be made using the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. Specifically, it relates to changes that routinely arise as clinical practice evolves—for example, updating detailed lists of medicines or making limited adjustments to the professional groups who may prescribe, supply, sell or administer particular medicines. At present, even minor or time-sensitive changes of this sort can require a debate under the affirmative procedure, which is not always the best use of parliamentary time.

New clause 95 is the final measure in the regulatory framework package for the MHRA. It is designed to streamline the process for routine fee updates made using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by allowing the use of the negative parliamentary procedure for routine fee uplifts. That will bring the powers in line with those relating to fees in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, where uplifts to existing fees can be made with the negative procedure. That will also reduce delays in making and communicating such adjustments, while maintaining appropriate safeguards, including the requirement to set out the cost basis for any new uplifts with any legislation—whether it is made under the negative or affirmative procedure. The draft affirmative procedure will be retained for any substantive changes, such as the introduction of a new chargeable function.

Finally, there are a number of consequential provisions related to those I have just discussed. Government amendments 80 to 82 primarily relate to the commencement period in which they come into force.

In conclusion, the amendments will enable a faster and more responsible reform of the existing legislative framework, while preserving proportionate safeguards and necessary scrutiny. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 91 would amend the Medicines and Medical Devices Act to enable regulations

“to refer to both international agreements and standards and standards developed in the United Kingdom”

and enable the Secretary of State

“to dispense with requirements placed on devices which meet regulatory requirements applicable outside the United Kingdom.”

New clause 92 would amend the definition of “mutual recognition agreement” so that

“agreements are defined by a list published by the Secretary of State, rather than a Schedule to the regulations.”

New clause 93

“amends the duty to consult in relation to regulations about human medicines and medical devices.”

That means that instead of a public consultation, it

“gives the option of consulting such persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate”.

I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether that could be nobody, or whether it has to at least be somebody.

New clause 94

“changes the parliamentary procedure for certain regulations from the draft affirmative procedure to the negative procedure.”

That relates to regulations about medicines and medical devices. I want to ask about scrutiny, because we have had a number of statutory instruments over the last few years that, under the new regulations, would now be put under the negative procedure. When we have looked at them, there have been questions and potential changes.

Why does the Minister want a lower level of scrutiny? In general, scrutiny is a good thing. I understand that this could smooth out procedure and make it a bit quicker in some cases, but we had an example where a Minister brought forward fee increases. I then raised the issue of national insurance and that Minister was not aware of whether it was paid at that time. The civil service pay estimate was significantly lower than expected and lower than what was given. Therefore, six months later we were back in Committee with a different Minister asking for more money. There is a scrutiny issue with new clause 94. That also relates to the fees and terms in new clause 95, which was one of the examples I gave.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. The purpose of the new clauses is to support our life sciences and medicine sector, in order to make that more streamlined. She will be aware of the proposals about the negative and affirmative procedure. If there were particular issues of scrutiny, normal parliamentary rules and processes would apply if Members wanted to raise any particular issue.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 91 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 92

Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements

“(1) The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618) are amended as follows.

(2) For regulation 1A (Schedules) substitute—

‘1A Schedule

Schedule 2A has effect.’

(3) In regulation 2 (interpretation), in paragraph (1)—

(a) in the definition of ‘mutual recognition agreement’, in paragraph (a), for ‘country listed in Schedule 2’ substitute ‘country specified in a list published by the Secretary of State from time to time’;

(b) in the definition of ‘third country conformity assessment body’, for ‘established in a country which is listed in Schedule 2 and designated in accordance with a relevant’ substitute ‘designated in accordance with a’.

(4) Omit Schedule 2 (mutual recognition agreements).”—(Karin Smyth.)

This new clause would amend the definition of “mutual recognition agreement” in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (as it has effect in England and Wales, and Scotland) so that agreements are defined by a list published by the Secretary of State, rather than a Schedule to the regulations.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 93

Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations

‘(1) Section 45 of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (consultation) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “a provision of Part 1, 2, 3 or 4” substitute “Part 1 or 3”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1ZA) Before making regulations under Part 2 or 4 the relevant authority must—

(a) carry out a public consultation, or

(b) consult such persons as it considers appropriate.”

(4) In subsection (3), at the beginning insert “Where a public consultation is carried out”.

(5) In subsection (4), in the words before paragraph (a), for “subsection (1)” substitute “subsection (1ZA)”.’—(Karin Smyth.)

This amends the duty to consult in relation to regulations about human medicines and medical devices. It gives the option of consulting such persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate instead of a public consultation.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 94

Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure

‘In section 47 of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (regulations: procedure), for subsection (3) substitute—

“(3) Regulations under Part 1 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

(3A) Regulations under Part 2—

(a) are subject to the negative procedure if they contain only provision of one or more of the following descriptions—

(i) provision made in reliance on section 6(1)(a) (fees);

(ii) provision amending the meaning of ‘appropriate practitioner’ or ‘approved country health professional’ for the purposes of Part 12 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (see regulation 214 of those regulations);

(iii) provision amending any of the following provisions of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012—

• regulations 217C(3) or 217CA(3) (original pack dispensing for products containing relevant substances: definition of ‘relevant substance’),

• Schedule 13 (prescription only medicines for which community practitioner nurse prescribers are appropriate practitioners),

• Schedule 15 (requirements for specific products subject to general sale),

• Schedule 16 (patient group directions and vaccine group directions),

• Schedule 17 (exemption for sale, supply or administration by certain persons),

• Schedule 18 (substances that may not be sold or supplied by a pharmacist without a prescription in reliance on emergency provisions),

• Schedule 19 (medicinal products for parenteral administration in an emergency), or

• Schedule 21 (medicinal products at high dilutions);

(iv) provision amending regulation 250 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (restrictions on persons to be supplied with medicinal products: exceptions) for the purpose of changing the products to which any exception from time to time provided for by that regulation applies;

(v) provision that is consequential on provision of a description mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (ii) to (iv);

(b) are subject to the made affirmative procedure if they—

(i) contain only provision that is made in reliance on section 7 (emergencies),

(ii) contain a declaration that the person making them considers that they need to be made urgently to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health, and

(iii) are not within paragraph (a);

(c) are subject to the draft affirmative procedure if they are not within sub-paragraphs (a) or (b).

(3B) Regulations under Part 3—

(a) are subject to the negative procedure if they contain only provision made in reliance on section 12(1)(a) (fees), and

(b) are subject to the draft affirmative procedure if they are not within paragraph (a).

(3C) Regulations under Part 4—

(a) are subject to the negative procedure if they contain only provision of one or more of the following descriptions—

(i) provision made in reliance on—

• section 17(1)(a) (fees), or

• paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 (supplementary provision about civil sanctions);

(ii) provision amending or revoking regulation 1ZA of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (expiry of certain provisions) or consequential on such provision;

(b) are subject to the made affirmative procedure if they—

(i) contain only provision made in reliance on section 18 (emergencies), and

(ii) contain a declaration that the person making them considers that they need to be made urgently to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health;

(c) are subject to the draft affirmative procedure if they are not within paragraph (a) or (b).”’—(Karin Smyth.)

This changes the parliamentary procedure for certain regulations from the draft affirmative procedure to the negative procedure. The changes all relate to regulations about medicines and medical devices (although the procedural provisions relating to certain other matters are restated in the amendment).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 95

Medical devices etc: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations

‘In Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (regulations), in paragraph 12—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for “relate to altering the amount of a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money” substitute “fall within sub-paragraph (1A)”.

(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) Provision falls within this sub-paragraph if it relates to—

(a) altering the amount of a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money,

(b) altering the amount of a fee or charge to be charged in connection with the exercise of a function which a public authority has by virtue of provision made under section 8C in connection with the EU medical devices Regulations, or

(c) altering the amount of a fee or charge to be charged under the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/50).

(1B) In sub-paragraph (1A)(b) ‘the EU medical devices Regulations’ means—

(a) Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC, or

(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU,

as they have effect from time to time by virtue of Article 5(4) of the Windsor Framework.”’—(Karin Smyth.)

This allows regulations altering certain fees in relation to medical devices etc to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. At the moment those regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

National Maternity Commissioner

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, appoint a National Maternity Commissioner, situated within the Department of Health and Social Care.

(2) The functions of the National Maternity Commissioner are to—

(a) oversee NHS maternity services;

(b) act as an independent voice for women and families;

(c) ensure lessons are learned from identified failures and that the recommendations of maternity reviews are acted upon;

(d) promote consistency, safety and accountability across NHS maternity services; and

(e) advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the safety, quality and provision of maternity services in England.

(3) The person appointed as Commissioner must—

(a) be a person with knowledge, expertise and experience relevant to the discharge of functions of the role;

(b) have first-hand experience of working in maternity services, so far as reasonably possible; and

(c) not be a sitting Member of Parliament.”—(Helen Morgan.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to appoint a maternity commissioner within the Department of Health and Social Care to oversee national maternity services. This person should be someone with experience and expertise of maternity services, and not a political appointment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Morgan]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

As the hon. Lady said, new clause 1 seems somewhat redundant, because the Government appear to have decided to appoint a maternity commissioner.

New clause 13 asks for a report. Before I go any further, I should say that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and have attended the delivery of many babies as a paediatrician at different levels of seniority. I should also say that I am a member of the British Medical Association, that I continue to work as an NHS consultant paediatrician and that I worked at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust in late 2012 and 2013.

I have great sympathy with the reasoning behind what the hon. Member for North Shropshire is proposing. We have all been shocked by the many reports we have read, the circumstances we have heard about, the tragedies that have occurred over many years and the challenges that are faced by maternity care. I am not sure that writing more reports is going to help; I think we need more action rather than words.

The hon. Lady mentioned the taskforce. I was disappointed that it took the Government so many months to establish it, that it took so long for it to meet and that it has met only a few times. As we have talked about things such as Healthwatch and the HSSIB, the Minister has shown her enthusiasm to get on with things and ensure that the recommendations made in the varying reports are implemented. I would therefore be interested to understand how that will occur in maternity.

My understanding is that the Government are going to produce a plan on how to deliver the recommendations in the recent report, and that is going to be available by Christmas. However, that means that we will then be in a situation where the Government came into power in mid-2024 and then spent a year writing a plan—the 10-year “Fit for the Future” plan. Around the time that they published that, they decided that they needed an urgent maternity report; that was going to take a few months, but it ended up taking another year in of itself. Now we are going to take another six or seven months writing another plan on how to implement the plan we have written, based on the plan we wrote before, based on the plan we did not have at the general election.

I am interested to understand how the Government are going to convert the good intentions I am sure they have into action. In particular, their manifesto promised that thousands more additional midwives would be trained. I would be interested to know what progress they have made on that.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for bringing this discussion before the Committee. I put on record our thanks for the work she has done in this area and for her engagement with me, and indeed with officials at the Department, to help us understand it more clearly, particularly in the light of the new clause.

Hon. Members across the Committee are committed, as are the Government, to ensuring that women, families and babies receive the care and support they need. We know that the vast majority of births are safe and that there are outstanding examples of care in the NHS. However, where things do go wrong, it can have a devastating impact on women and their families.

That is why the Government launched the national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care, chaired by the noble Lady Baroness Amos. Baroness Amos brought the findings from past reviews, local rapid reviews and new evidence from families and staff together into one clear national set of recommendations, which as we heard was published last week. The Government also launched the maternity and neonatal taskforce, chaired personally by the Secretary of State, which will translate Baroness Amos’s recommendations into action.

As we heard, Baroness Amos recommended the appointment of a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner. We have accepted that recommendation, and I know there is support for it across the House. To be clear, the Secretary of State stated last week that we are committed to putting the role on a “statutory basis” as soon as possible.

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member for North Shropshire a more detailed timetable at the moment, because we are currently looking at options to legislate at pace, including potentially through this Bill, subject to discussions through the usual channels, while also—this is crucial—giving the taskforce the opportunity to shape the scope of the role. That was one of Baroness Amos’s urgent actions, and we accept it as a crucial first step in overseeing systemic improvements to care and outcomes and earning back the trust of women and families.

The maternity and neonatal commissioner will champion the voices of families and drive forward that necessary change. The Secretary of State will remain accountable to Parliament for maternity services. The role will be discussed urgently with the taskforce and will have a relentless focus on driving those improvements, which will include co-chairing the taskforce.

As the Committee knows, these are complex matters. The Government, having accepted the Baroness Amos’s recommendation, intend to legislate as soon as practicable. Our immediate priority is to work quickly through the taskforce to define the scope and responsibilities of the role. I know that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will not press the new clause, but I commit to keeping in touch with her and other hon. Members as this work progresses.

[Dr Johnson]

We talked about clause 1—on the abolition of NHS England—at the beginning of the Bill. The Minister was keen at that time to take unelected individuals out of the picture and create accountability by returning things to democratic control through the abolition of NHS England and putting them back in the Secretary of State’s hands. However, this proposal essentially does the reverse with maternity care, taking it out of the hands of Ministers and the Secretary of State and putting it into the hands of a commissioner. Could the Minister explain that?

[Karin Smyth]

I am sorry, but I did not get the end of that sentence. However, I think the hon. Lady was saying that the Bill essentially abolishes NHS England. Again, as I have said repeatedly, nobody is opposing that. As is well known, the recommendations on the maternity commissioner have come through a separate process. Given the need for public assurance and to earn back the trust of women and families, as well as—I think the hon. Lady said this herself—the shocking revelations that have come through some of this work, Baroness Amos recommended a maternity and neonatal commissioner to drive through these changes and give confidence to the system. That is why we are going to accept her recommendation. Accountability for maternity services obviously remains with the Secretary of State, who will be co-chairing the taskforce. I hope that addresses the comments the hon. Lady made.

On new clause 13, we know that the vast majority of births are safe, but the devastating trauma experienced by many through failures in care must be brought to an end. The CQC has an important role in assessing whether patients are receiving safe, effective and high-quality care, and it is essential that it can do that objectively and independent of Government. It is therefore not appropriate to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure particular ratings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My questions will be very brief. I am conscious that, given that these are mostly Liberal Democrat new clauses, for once I will be asking the hon. Member for Winchester for a response, not the Minister.

New clause 4 would require that contracts be laid before Parliament. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee how many such contracts he thinks would end up being laid before the House in any given year, based on historical data, and therefore how much parliamentary time that would take up. Does he envisage that being handled by an affirmative or negative statutory instrument? What will the process be?

I can see what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I have a certain wariness, along the lines of that expressed by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. Although it is important that we have appropriate protections and scrutiny, when we are procuring services and technology for the NHS we should be looking for the most effective and best tools that have those safeguards but can do the job that eminent surgeons and clinicians need them to do in order to do their work for patients.

[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)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. That is a matter of record. Any other takers? No.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Transfer of HSSIB’s functions to CQC

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“(2A) After paragraph 6(8) insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schedule 8.

Clauses 60 and 61 stand part.

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

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

[Karin Smyth]

Clause 59 provides for the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body and the transfer of its functions to the Care Quality Commission.

Under the new arrangements, the Care Quality Commission will assume responsibility for carrying out investigations into incidents that have or may have implications for patient safety. It is really important to stress that the core purpose of that function remains unchanged: to identify systemic risks, support learning and drive improvements in the safety of health services, rather than determine blame or liability. It is a central measure in strengthening the framework for patient safety investigations and ensuring a more coherent and effective system for learning from incidents across health services.

With more than 70 types of channels or organisations through which patients or users can share feedback, the current landscape has led to fragmentation between investigation, regulation and improvement activity, thereby diluting the impact that insights from investigations might otherwise achieve. HSSIB has been isolated, undermining its efficacy. We will bring HSSIB into the mainstream as a core but distinct part of the CQC. That will enable HSSIB to use its functions more strategically, working in partnership with the national quality board. Clause 59 achieves that by conferring responsibility for those investigatory functions on to the Care Quality Commission through the provisions set out in schedule 8. In doing so, it embeds a comprehensive investigatory framework with an established statutory regulator.

The CQC will be one organisation with separate functions—a regulatory function and an investigative function—to preserve the integrity of each. Within the CQC, HSSIB will continue to operate as a discrete unit and retain its independence from providers, allowing it to identify learnings and take a no-blame approach.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Minister will recall that in evidence, Dr Rosie Benneyworth, interim chief executive officer of HSSIB, spoke about the vital work of the organisation, especially with regard to investigations where vulnerable staff and workers do not feel confident about coming forward for fear of reprisal. HSSIB did great work in that area, and I am wondering whether the CQC will carry it on and take on board that learning.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I have met HSSIB and others on this issue, and it is a concern that staff are fearful of speaking up. That is obviously unacceptable, but we understand that it happens. That is absolutely the culture that we need to drive out, and we need to ensure that HSSIB’s learning about making sure there is a safe space to speak out, which I will come on to, is a core part of future work.

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

What we are talking about is not so much the safety of staff when they come forward, but the safety of patients, and whether we genuinely believe that the proposed modification to the arrangement will improve patient safety. That is the underlying point. Although the safety of staff is important, it is the safety of patients that we must bear in mind.

[Karin Smyth]

Of course, patient safety is what we need to get right. I will come on to that point, but there is a lot to get through with this clause. We can see its importance from the number of organisations and channels that exist. I have said that before, and I am sure we have all struggled as constituency MPs to support our constituents—either patients or staff—through the system and to understand the best route forward on patient safety. We all have the same aim, and we should be clear that the issue is how best to achieve that aim. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The test is about impact, learning and making the system and the culture change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East asked me about confidence, and the fear that staff sometimes have about speaking up, which is obviously an important part of that landscape. We want to make sure that we take forward the learning on both those points into the new body.

The new framework ensures that the essential characteristics of safety investigations are preserved. The commission will have a flexible power to investigate qualifying incidents that have or may have implications for patient safety, with a clear statutory purpose of identifying risks and improving systems and practices. We are maintaining the principle of safe space and introducing strong safeguards in the process, so that staff and the public can trust that they can speak of their experiences openly, without fear or favour, to provide learnings for the system.

We have included protections for safe space materials and restrictions on disclosure, including within the regulatory functions of the CQC, and limits on the use of reports in legal proceedings. That is designed to support openness and candour, and to provide confidence in the impartiality and independence of patient safety investigations. There are clear mechanisms for transparency and accountability, including the publication of reports, requirements to respond to recommendations, and oversight through a statutory review of the commission’s investigatory functions.

Clause 59 also provides the commission with the necessary powers to carry out investigations effectively, including powers to require information, enter premises and co-ordinate with other bodies while maintaining appropriate protections such as legal privilege and safeguards against self-incrimination. Although the commission will decide which incidents to investigate, the clause preserves a power for the Secretary of State to direct it to investigate a specific qualifying incident or category of incidents. That ensures that where issues of significant public concern arise, or where urgent scrutiny is needed or there is particular risk, there is a clear mechanism to ensure that issues are investigated.

The struggles of the Care Quality Commission have been well documented. We will only commence these provisions when we are satisfied that the CQC has improved. The CQC has been supported and held to account to recover its effectiveness, and we will continue to support it and work closely with the newly appointed chair on its journey to rebuild. We will work closely with the CQC to ensure its readiness to receive the investigations functions from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Maintaining a centre of excellence for investigations will be integral to the CQC’s culture. Without the clause, the opportunity to deliver the ambitions of the 10-year health plan would not be realised, nor would the broader patient safety landscape, as set out in the Dash review, be fully addressed. It is therefore a necessary and integral reform.

Clause 60 makes provision for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body to the Care Quality Commission in connection with the abolition of the former and the assumption of its functions by the latter. It is a key technical provision to ensure an orderly and legally complete transition between the two bodies. Where functions are transferred between public bodies, it is essential that all associated assets, obligations and legal arrangements are also transferred in a way that ensures continuity and legal certainty. The clause provides the statutory mechanism to achieve that.

The clause provides a flexible framework to enable the continuation of HSSIB’s actions and ongoing matters, including legal proceedings, and ensures that references to HSSIB in existing documents are treated as references to the Care Quality Commission to avoid legal uncertainty. The clause provides for staff protections equivalent to TUPE and allows for shared ownership or use of property where needed, supporting a smooth and effective transition.

The overall effect of the clause is to enable a smooth, comprehensive and legally robust transfer of HSSIB’s property rights and liabilities to the Care Quality Commission, ensuring continuity of function and avoiding disruption to ongoing operations. Without the provision, there would be risk of legal uncertainty and operational disruption during the transfer process.

Clause 61 is a necessary and practical provision. At its core, it provides a power through regulations for His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that transfers made from HSSIB to the CQC are delivered smoothly and on a tax-neutral basis. Like the equivalent provision for the NHS England transfer in clause 3, it allows the Treasury, by regulations, to vary the way in which relevant tax legislation applies in relation to anything transferred under a transfer scheme or anything done in connection with such a transfer. That will ensure that the tax consequences of the transfer can be properly aligned with the policy intention of a smooth and orderly transition.

Importantly, the scope of the clause is limited to specified “relevant taxes”, including income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax. As with clause 3, without this power there is a risk that the transfers could trigger unintended tax liabilities that would divert public money away from frontline services and undermine the policy intent of the legislation. Clause 61 therefore protects value for money and ensures that organisational change does not come with avoidable fiscal cost.

Clauses 59 to 61 and schedule 8 are necessary to strengthen the framework for patient safety investigations and ensure a more coherent and, crucially, effective system for learning from incidents across health services to make all our constituents and patients safer. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

These clauses are about patient safety. As has been pointed out this morning, patient safety is the absolute key here: that is well recognised across the House, among the public and across the national health service. Before going any further, I declare an interest as a patient of the NHS, a member of the British Medical Association, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a consultant paediatrician.

When I was interviewed in 2012 for my current consultant role, I was asked to deliver a presentation about how I could demonstrate to the trust board that the paediatric services in the hospital were safe. The first question I posed—Members will be pleased to know that I will not go through the whole presentation—was: “What is safe?” Are football stadiums safe? Is the London underground safe? Are aeroplanes safe? Broadly, yes, I think we would say they are safe, but they have not been without incident or safety issues.

Healthcare is similar. It involves millions of people, clinical judgment, human decision making and huge variability in the way that patients can present with different symptoms for different problems at different times. Is healthcare safe? Yes, it is safe. Again, however, we know from the many reports we have read that there is a long way to go to make it better and we need to prepare for that. We need to make sure that we design out room for error—that we design processes that limit the opportunities for error—use technology to limit the risk of error, and train people in a way that reduces the risk of error.

One of the key factors in that work is accepting that where there is human decision making, mistakes can happen, and that we need to identify and learn from those mistakes. One of the main ways of doing that is striking a balance between accountability and blame. If there is insufficient accountability, there can be an unclear escalation process, such that people do not know who to go to when they identify a problem. There can be a careless culture, which can develop in places where there is not enough accountability. However, if there is too much focus on fault and determining whose fault something is, we can get a blame culture. That can lead to a failure for people to come forward and therefore to a failure to learn from mistakes. It can lead to a culture of cover-up, whereby people try to avoid getting either themselves or their colleagues into trouble.

That is where HSSIB comes in because, like the air accidents investigation branch and the similar bodies for rail and shipping, it provides a safe space. That safe space is important in ensuring that people can speak up freely without fear, and know that we can get to the bottom of a problem and understand why and how something went wrong, because that is how we fix it.

At the time that HSSIB was established, there was consensus about it. The General Medical Council said:

“We support the creation of a ‘safe space’ approach to investigation. This is consistent with our guidance to doctors about their responsibilities to learn from mistakes and reflect on their practice, and their duty to take part in systems of quality assurance and quality improvement to promote patient safety.”

The British Medical Association told Parliament:

“We welcome the establishment of the HSSIB…Doctors must feel able to report errors and reflect on their own mistakes openly, without the fear of these reflections being used against them at a later stage. Only then can true improvements to patient safety be made.”

Similarly, NHS Providers told Parliament:

“NHS Providers welcomes the creation of the HSSIB as an opportunity to develop a just culture in the NHS and a focus on learning…For the HSSIB to succeed in contributing to improved patient safety, any investigations associated with it must be carried out independently and without conflict of interest, and be perceived as such.”

Indeed, the Minister for Secondary Care herself is on the record as having said:

“HSSIB is a really important new body…It must absolutely be built on the highest standards of trust when it comes to the wider system and the general public.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 564-565.]

I think that I have demonstrated that the creation of HSSIB was a matter of consensus and it was confirmed that it was the right thing to do.

In order to work, HSSIB needed to be independent and without conflict of interest. NHS staff backed it, the providers backed it, the patients backed it and even the Minister backed it. That is what makes the Government’s plans for HSSIB so perplexing. I am not aware of a single royal college or union that supports folding it into the CQC.

Essentially, Ministers have said that this is being done because of the Dash review. “The Dash review says so,” they argue, “so that’s what we’re going to do.” I have huge respect for people who say, “I’ve asked for some experts’ advice, and they have given it, and therefore I should follow it.” However, Ministers also commissioned the report by Lord Darzi, which said that

“a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and integrated care boards is neither necessary nor desirable”,

and yet here we are, doing exactly that. It is perfectly possible for Ministers to take one report as gospel and another as guidance. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.

The other reason given for this measure is that it will declutter the landscape, yet few people outside Government seem to think that HSSIB is responsible for cluttering the landscape. For example, the Health Foundation wrote in its submission that

“the government needs to do more to explain how the abolition of HSSIB and transfer of its functions to CQC will meet its aim of reducing complexity and, most importantly, maintain the essential focus on improving patient safety.”