Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
House of Commons · Public Bill Committees · 16 Jul 2026 · 247 speeches · Official Report
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: Sir Roger Gale, † Dr Rupa Huq, Emma Lewell, Sir Jeremy Wright
† Argar, Edward (Melton and Syston) (Con)
† Brackenridge, Sureena (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
† Chambers, Dr Danny (Winchester) (LD)
Daby, Janet (Lewisham East) (Lab)
† Foody, Emma (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
† Irons, Natasha (Croydon East) (Lab)
† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
† Joseph, Sojan (Ashford) (Lab)
† Kyrke-Smith, Laura (Aylesbury) (Lab)
† Morgan, Helen (North Shropshire) (LD)
† Prinsley, Dr Peter (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
† Robertson, Dave (Lichfield) (Lab)
† Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
† Smyth, Karin (Minister for Secondary Care)
† Stafford, Gregory (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
† Twist, Liz (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
White, Jo (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Sanjana Balakrishnan, Rob Cope, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Thursday 16 July 2026
(Morning)
[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair ]
Health Bill
The Chair
We resume line-by-line consideration of the Health Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Proceedings must, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion by 5 pm. Once again, I am happy to give a blanket dispensation for the removal of jackets. New Clause 31 ECG screenings “Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.”- (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age. Brought up, and read the First time .
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Twelve young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. One of those was Clarissa Nicholls, who died just before her 21st birthday, while on a year abroad in France. Her mother and friends have campaigned tirelessly not only to provide electrocardiograms to young people, but to raise awareness about early detection of heart conditions. Finding a heart condition does not mean that exercise must stop or that life goes on hold; it just means that appropriate alterations can be made to keep a person safe, active and healthy. Such a scheme has been rolled out in Italy and has been hugely successful. The new clause would push the Government to look seriously at having ECGs for young people as an early identifier for potentially fatal conditions, so that we do not lose up to 12 young people a week due just to a lack of testing.
I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.
The Chair
As that was a speech and not an intervention, we will take the Minister before the hon. Member for Winchester responds.
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...
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 .
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...
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.
I thank the Minister for her comments. We understand that the Government take this matter very seriously, but we are working on estimated numbers of deaths for something that will eventually be killing more people than covid. We really need some tangible figures, so I will press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 36
Duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice
“(1) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice within the trust to-
(a) the Care Quality Commission,
(b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(2) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to-
(a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and
(b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice.
(3) In this section, “systemic medical malpractice” means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust.”- (Helen Morgan.)
This new clause would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS and Foundation Trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB. It also imposes a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns regarding malpractice.
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37- Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings - “(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care. (2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a ‘duty to whistleblow’) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting. (3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing- (a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area, (b) the Care Quality Commission, (c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and (d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify- (a) the information to be included in a referral, (b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and (c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed. (5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996...
New clause 36 would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS trust and NHS foundation trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It would also impose a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns about malpractice. New clause 37 would require the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to formally refer suspected health system failings, including systemic issues, directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care and HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It would provide legal protection for those making such referrals. The new clauses were tabled in the light of the Ockenden review into failings at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust, which came out a couple of weeks ago, and other reviews, including the review of Mid Staffordshire some time ago, which showed that hospital management failed to spot, and more importantly deal with, systemic issues. Staff were dismissed, failures were hidden from regulators, and patients and their families were not listened to. In the case of Nottingham, the board commissioned a number of independent reports into maternity services, and when it did not see an answer it liked, it just commissioned another one. We feel strongly that those issues...
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...
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 .
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...
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....
New Clause 40
Public private partnerships
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report explaining the business case for the use of public private partnership for Neighbourhood Health Centres.”
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the business case for the use of Public Private Partnership for Neighbourhood Health Centres.
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the business case for the use of public-private partnerships for neighbourhood health centres. This goes back to the use of the private finance initiative in the past, particularly during the last Labour Government when Ministers were attracted by the prospect of off-balance sheet financing. Although the idea looked good on paper, it proved a disaster in practice. Before the 2008 financial crisis, private finance initiative interest rates were 2.5% to 4.4% higher than public sector borrowing rates. After the crisis, PFI projects increased their rates by 20% to 30%. In the interests of time, I will not rehash the story I told earlier in Committee about the problems with simple things such as putting a whiteboard up, but PFI did create operational problems, too. The previous Government rightly called time on PFI and announced in the 2018 Budget that it would not be used for future projects, which is why this Government’s plans are so peculiar. Labour Ministers have taken a trip to the graveyard of bad ideas, resurrected PFI and adorned it in new clothes: it is now PPP. The Government have tried to reassure the public that it is not a rehash of PFI, but the facts suggest otherwise. The funding of neighbourhood health centres is to be 80% through PPP. The Minister told the BBC we will be working with the private sector, particularly around...
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...
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.
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,...
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.
New Clause 41
Use of private providers
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the use of private providers to improve NHS treatment access and reduce NHS treatment waiting times.”- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time .
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 44
Medical training places
“The Secretary of State must double the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32.” -(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to double the number of medical school training places.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 45
Data collection: clinically trained staff
“(1) The Secretary of State must collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of NHS staff are qualified to deliver nursing and clinical care who delivering nursing care, or clinical care of any kind, and those who are not.
(2) Information under subsection (1) must be collected according to HCAS pay scales.
(3) Information under subsection (1) must include numbers of nursing and midwifery staff.
(4) Information under subsection (1) must be published quarterly.
(5) The NHS and ICBs are under a duty to comply with any requests from the Secretary of State for data for this purpose.
(6) Information under subsection (1) must include the proportion of time spent delivering clinical care as a proportion of the individual’s total working hours.”- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of clinically qualified staff who are delivering clinical care, broken down by HCAS pay band.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 46
Redundancies
“The Secretary of State must publish, within 12, 24, and 48 months of the passage of this Act, the number of persons-
(a) employed by the Department for Health and Social Care; and
(b) made redundant following the abolishment of NHS England under subsection (1) of this Act.” -(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish of the number of staff in the Department for Health and Social Care and the number of people made redundant following the abolishment of NHS England .
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 75- Transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England - “(1) The Secretary of State must, before the abolition of NHS England takes effect, prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out a transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England (the ‘strategy’). (2) The strategy must- (a) identify and map critical functions and areas of expertise currently exercised by NHS England, including clinical, operational, analytical and patient engagement capabilities; (b) assess the risk of loss of knowledge, skills and organisational capacity arising from the abolition of NHS England; (c) set out the steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to ensure the retention and effective transfer of such functions, expertise, knowledge and skills; and (d) assess the likely impact of the transition on the delivery of key health programmes and services, including cancer services. (3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of not more than 12 months, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the transition strategy. (4) A report under subsection (3) must include- (a) progress on workforce retention; (b) arrangements for the transfer of knowledge, expertise and institutional capability; and (c) any identified gaps in capability and the steps being taken to address them.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before...
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,...
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...
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.
New Clause 47
Fracture liaison services: rollout plan
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a plan for securing the provision of fracture liaison services across England.
(2) A plan under subsection (1) must include-
(a) an assessment of current access to fracture liaison services in each integrated care board area;
(b) annual milestones for achieving universal access to fracture liaison services by 2030;
(c) the steps the Secretary of State intends to take to support integrated care boards to commission fracture liaison services;
(d) any proposed use of directions, guidance, financial assistance, incentives or other mechanisms to secure delivery;
(e) workforce, diagnostic, digital and data requirements for implementation; and
(f) arrangements for monitoring, publishing and reporting progress.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a plan made under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of publishing a plan under subsection (1), and every 12 months thereafter until 2030, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the milestones in the plan.
(5) In this section-
‘fracture liaison service’ means a service for the systematic identification, assessment, treatment and monitoring of people who have sustained a fragility fracture, for the purpose of reducing their risk of further fractures.”9- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to plan to roll out fracture liaison services across England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for securing the provision of universal fracture liaison services across England. As we get older, our bone density naturally decreases, increasing the risk of bone fractures and possibly osteoporosis, which affects 3.5 million people across the UK. Fracture liaison services identify people aged 50 or over who have broken a bone, and they provide treatment to reduce the risk of further debilitating fractures. Of those over 50, one in two women and one in five men will break a bone because of osteoporosis. Heartbreakingly, 2,000 people die each year from preventable fractures. When the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), claimed that delivering universal fracture liaison services would be one of his first priorities if elected to Government, many people hoped to see this happen, but it has not. The previous Conservative Government began rolling out fracture liaison services, and it is an indicator of just how little progress the current Government have made that 97% of today’s fracture liaison services were delivered by the Conservatives. What have the Labour Government been doing? What is more, one in two NHS trusts, following freedom of information requests, tell me that they have no fracture liaison service at all, which is quite literally an accident waiting to happen. I am very grateful to the Royal...
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member, who is a medical colleague of mine, has to say. Although I think that a fracture liaison service is an excellent idea, there are many, many aspects of medical care that require careful attention, such as the management of people with hearing loss-my own field-or the assessment of people with chronic renal failure. Does the shadow Minister believe that all aspects of each individual disease category require some sort of primary legislation?
Not necessarily, no, but this one does, because the Government clearly made a promise before the election. The former Secretary of State was clear that it would be one of his first acts-that is what he said-and it has not happened, so in this case we need to hold the Government to account. It is our job to hold them to account on their promises, and I am afraid that they are failing on this one. To sum up, the Government need to get their act together, because otherwise more and more vulnerable people will come to unnecessary and potentially fatal harm. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to accelerate the delivery of the Government’s promise-and fast.
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...
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.
rose-
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.
Will the Minister give way?
I was going to outline the points, but I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants.
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.
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...
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.
New Clause 48
Radiotherapy cancer treatment services
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must include nationally agreed metrics against which integrated care boards must measure and report their investment in, and delivery of, radiotherapy services.
(3) The metrics must include provisions relating to-
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy, including time to definitive treatment;
(b) patient travel times to radiotherapy services, including defining an appropriate recommended travel time;
(c) the number of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and the quality of such radiotherapy;
(d) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment, including the proportion of linear accelerators that are more than 10 years old or otherwise beyond the recommended replacement age;
(e) access to modern radiotherapy techniques and technologies;
(f) radiotherapy capacity against population need and the projected increase in number of cancer patients;
(g) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas;
(h) provision of sustainable, flexible workforce that is equipped to harness advances in radiotherapy for patient benefit; and
(i) investment in radiotherapy services and the extent to which such investment reflects clinical need.
(4) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the metrics in the framework.
(5) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework.” -(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 53- Cancer treatment: waiting times - “(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral. (2) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to support NHS hospital trusts in meeting the requirement under subsection (1). (3) As part of the scheme, the Secretary of State must expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. (4) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to Parliament on progress on meeting the requirement under subsection (1). (5) Any statement made under subsection (4) should be made as close as reasonably practicable to 4 February.” This new clause gives patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and requires the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver this. It also requires the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on/around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54- Cancer Survival Research- “(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Cancer Survival Research Programme. (2) Regulations under this section must- (a) require government co-ordination and funding for research into cancers with a five-year survival rate below 20%, and (b) establish a...
New clause 48 would require the Secretary of State to “publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.” One in four people can expect to need radiotherapy in their lives. That is a lot of people who will need consultation, assessment, pre-treatment planning and treatment delivery. Data published a few years ago showed that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more linear accelerator machines per million people than in England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? Last year, Radiotherapy UK had research indicating that more than 60,000 cancer patients are not getting the radiotherapy they need and I know particular areas of the country are struggling. Can the Minister provide an update on the roll-out of the new LINAC machines at 28 hospitals, which she spoke about in May 2025? We were also told that by March 2027, up to 27,500 additional treatments will be delivered. Can the Minister share some information on how that will be achieved? The Labour Government have now been in power for two years. They have raised taxes by more than £60 billion and they do not have much to show for it. They have not produced a workforce plan. They have said that one will be imminent; can the Minister confirm whether it will be published today before we break for the recess? Is the intention to publish it during the recess or will we have to wait until the autumn? There is a 31% shortfall in clinical radiologists. New...
I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and new clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). New clause 53 would give patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver that. It would also require the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the Government to co-ordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
I will be very brief, as we have discussed these topics at length in a number of Westminster Hall debates. New clause 53 returns to the point about the inconsistency in the NHS constitution between rights to treatment and pledges for waiting times. Some of those areas require consistent treatment. We have a right to elective care within 18 weeks, but we only have pledges on other types of waiting times. That seems very odd to me, because a person will probably not come to too much harm waiting for a knee replacement for longer than 18 weeks, but they will come to a lot of harm if they do not start their cancer treatment within 62 days.
While I appreciate that the Government might prefer a different legal mechanism to achieve this change, I would be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State would be willing to consider it, because research shows that every four-week delay reduces patient survival by an average of 10%. We should be aiming to achieve consistency in this area. We know that there has been a real problem across the country with hitting the target over the last year or so, particularly in 2025, when a freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrats found that one patient waited 673 days for treatment and nearly 92% of trusts who responded recorded patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment. I had some shocking and heartbreaking instances in my constituency of North Shropshire, although I am pleased to report that Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust is one of the most improved trusts in this regard, proving that it can be done with the right focus. That is why I would like the Secretary of State to consider these issues.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) have campaigned extensively on rare cancers and less survivable cancers. There have been a number of Westminster Hall debates and I will not repeat the pleas that they have made there. I hope that the Government have a way of considering how we might orchestrate further investigation.
New clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, would require the Secretary of State to publish a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is needed by half of all cancer patients and is incredibly cost-effective. England has fewer radiotherapy machines than comparable European countries and thousands of people are having to travel over 45 minutes for their treatment.
The Darzi review noted that radiotherapy services are on their knees. They have some of the longest waiting times for treatment, and vast parts of the country are classed as radiotherapy deserts, due to the lack of accessibility. Radiotherapy currently has the worst 62-day performance of all the main cancer treatments. If we are serious about ensuring that all cancer targets are met by 2029, as the Government maintain, we need the infrastructure, people and equipment to deliver.
Cancer cases are expected to rise by 30% by 2040, meaning radiotherapy centres must be able to keep pace. Importantly, they can be used at an earlier stage in treatment, thus saving lives, saving money and meeting important waiting time targets. We ought to be leading the way and keeping pace with our European counterparts so that no one is left without the treatment they so desperately need.
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.
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...
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.
New Clause 49
Modern Service Framework for Respiratory Disease
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the date on which this Act is passed, publish a Modern Service Framework for Respiratory Disease (a ‘respiratory MSF’).
(2) The respiratory MSF must set out-
(a) an evidence-based description of high-quality, respiratory care across the health service in England over the period of ten years following publication;
(b) the interventions and service models to be implemented to improve outcomes for people with respiratory disease, including in particular-
(i) pulmonary rehabilitation;
(ii) supported self-management;
(iii) spirometry and diagnostic services;
(iv) early detection and lung cancer screening; and
(v) access to medicines, including biologics and antifibrotic treatments;
(c) the steps to be taken to reduce unwarranted variation in the quality of and access to respiratory care across integrated care board areas;
(d) the steps to be taken to reduce emergency hospital admissions attributable to respiratory disease;
(e) the workforce requirements for delivering high-quality respiratory care and the actions to be taken to meet those requirements;
(f) measurable outcomes and milestones against which progress in implementing the respiratory MSF will be assessed; and
(g) arrangements for monitoring and reporting on progress against those outcomes and milestones.
(3) In preparing the respiratory MSF the Secretary of State must consult-
(a) clinicians with expertise in respiratory medicine;
(b) patients and organisations representing the interests of people with respiratory disease;
(c) integrated care boards;
(d) NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts providing respiratory services; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the respiratory MSF before Parliament on the day on which it is published.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish an updated respiratory MSF, or a report on progress against it, at intervals of not more than three years following the initial publication under subsection (1).
(6) In this section-
‘Modern Service Framework’ means a framework setting out the evidence-based interventions, service models and outcomes for the provision of health services in relation to a particular condition or group of conditions, developed in partnership with clinicians, people with lived experience and system partners, consistent with the approach described in the NHS Medium Term Planning Framework or any successor document;
‘respiratory disease’ includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary hypertension, lung cancer, obstructive sleep apnoea and other conditions principally affecting the respiratory system.” -(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a Modern Service Framework for Respiratory Disease within 18 months of Royal Assent, and to lay it before Parliament. It also requires updated frameworks or progress reports to be published at least every three years thereafter.
Brought up, and read the First time .
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I will be brief, because we have a lot to get through. The new clause would require the Government to produce a modern service framework for respiratory disease within 18 months and, in essence, to make a plan for providing and improving treatment for those with respiratory disease. The previous Government had a major conditions strategy, which looked at the six major causes of ill health, one of which was respiratory disease. This Government paused that when they came into office to consider their own plans, but have not responded with a plan for respiratory disease in any detail. The new clause would require them to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is a lot faster than the 14 years in which it was not done under the Conservatives.
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.
New Clause 50
Delivery plans for transformative technology commitments
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the date on which this Act is passed, publish a delivery plan for each of the transformative technology commitments set out in subsection (2).
(2) The transformative technology commitments referred to in subsection (1) are the commitments made in the document entitled ‘Fit for the Future: the 10 Year Health Plan for England’ published in July 2025 (or any successor document) in respect of-
(a) data quality and interoperability, including-
(i) the development of the Health Data Research Service and,
(ii) the use of NHS data for research and innovation;
(b) artificial intelligence, including-
(i) the deployment of AI tools across NHS clinical and administrative functions,
(ii) the development of an AI strategic roadmap, and
(iii) the establishment of a regulatory framework for AI as a medical device.
(c) genomics and predictive analytics, including-
(i) the expansion of genomic testing, and
(ii) the use of predictive analytics for earlier diagnosis and personalised treatment;
(d) wearable technologies, including the commitment that wearables will become standard in preventative, chronic and post-acute NHS treatment;
(e) robotics, including-
(i) the expanded use of robotics in surgery,
(ii) continuous monitoring,
(iii) rehabilitation, and
(iv) prosthetics.
(3) Each delivery plan published under subsection (1) must include-
(a) a description of the specific commitments being delivered, with reference to the relevant passages of the 10 Year Health Plan;
(b) a timetable with milestones for delivery of each commitment;
(c) the funding allocated or to be allocated to support delivery, including the source of that funding;
(d) the NHS bodies, government departments and other organisations responsible for delivery of each element of the plan, and the accountability arrangements in place;
(e) the regulatory steps required to enable delivery, including any changes to the regulatory framework for medical devices, AI or data, and the proposed timetable for those steps;
(f) the workforce implications of delivery, including any training or upskilling requirements;
(g) the steps to be taken to ensure deployment of each technology across different regions and patient groups; and
(h) the metrics against which progress will be assessed and reported.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each delivery plan before Parliament on the day on which it is published.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, an annual progress report on implementation of each delivery plan, including-
(a) progress against the milestones set out in the plan;
(b) any revisions to the timetable or funding and the reasons for those revisions;
(c) an assessment of equity of access to the technologies covered by the plan; and
(d) any new barriers to delivery identified and the steps being taken to address them.”- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a delivery plan for the transformative technological commitments set out in the 10 Year Health Plan.
Brought up, and read the First time .
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a delivery plan for the transformative technology commitments in the 10-year plan. The 10-year plan took a lot of people a year to write, and there is plenty of ambition in it, but so far the delivery is rather suspect. The Government are right to say that technology can be game-changing, but it is one thing to ask civil servants and special advisers to draw up a grand plan and a nice brochure, and another to actually deliver on those ambitions. The Labour party came into government without a plan, and we are about to have a new Prime Minister but we do not know what his plan is, or even if he has one, either. We have seen IT outages take down health systems, hospitals fail to communicate critical information after patients are discharged, and warm weather take down MRI scanners and radiotherapy machines. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a delivery plan for the transformative technology commitments in the 10-year health plan, and would provide a clear road map for data quality and interoperability, artificial intelligence, genomics and predictive analytics, wearables, and robotics. Let us be clear: the Opposition support introducing new technology to make the NHS more efficient and improve patient care, but we need clarity from the Government on how they will do that. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. -(Emma Foody.)
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.