Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

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 2 July 2026

(Morning)

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Health Bill

Clause 43

Integrated care boards’ funding and financial responsibilities

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 43, page 30, line 35, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on Primary Care services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for his explanation of amendments 60 and 61. Like my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I entirely understand what he is seeking to achieve, and also how important general practice is. Access to appointments with a general practitioner or at a practice is one of the most significant issues in Melton Mowbray. Despite the fantastic work that doctors are doing to try to manage that, the pressure continues to be intense, which on occasion is causing real anxiety for patients. Equally, I can see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) are trying to achieve by kick starting a shift away from acute settings and towards front loading—for want of a better way of putting it—people’s treatment in the NHS. As he said, Governments of many different complexions have tried to achieve that shift; what he is trying to do is give it a bit of oomph.

I can entirely see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do have some concerns, one of which was articulated well by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which is that the amendments are very much focused on inputs rather than outcomes. With the Health and Care Act 2022, we sought to shift the focus more towards outcomes, and I think the Minister is also seeking to move it towards outcomes rather than purely inputs—she will correct me if I am wrong—so I do worry about that.

Like my hon. Friend, I also have a slight concern about the effect of amendment 60 on the flexibility to address local circumstances and—for want of a better way of putting it—the discretion available to ICBs in determining the local health priorities. The Bill moves us away from the conception of ICBs in the 2022 Act, under which they were essentially mapped on to an upper tier local authority geography, so that those delivering social care mapped directly on to the same geography and better integrated with it. With the removal of local authority reps and their potential replacement with representatives of a mayoral authority, and with ICBs covering much larger areas, we see a fracturing of the link with social care provision, and also perhaps a lot of local mapping and a local focus from the ICBs. None the less, my concern is that taking a prescriptive approach in primary legislation could further reduce ICBs’ ability to flex in order to address local needs. I can entirely see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and we all want to see primary care—general practice and dentistry—getting the funding it needs to address needs, but I am not convinced that the amendment will not have potential unintended consequences.

On amendment 61, I can again see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell are trying to do: give the shift teeth and make sure that ICBs look at it. The risk is that if they fail to achieve it, they will face financial penalties, which risks compounding the financial challenges they face and potentially reducing the available funds for primary care, mental health and a range of other healthcare services in the vicinity. I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I share the objective, but I have concerns about how it would work in practice and whether it would be overly prescriptive.

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have covered a lot of the points I wanted to make, so I will keep this relatively brief. Like them, I entirely sympathise with what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to achieve with the two amendments. I think we would all want to see more investment in primary care. As my right hon. Friend—a former Health Minister—knows all too well, we need to see growth in primary care. The fact that there is not a single dentist’s practice in my constituency taking new NHS patients is a real concern, as are the waiting times for GPs in my constituency.

However, I do have some concerns. The first is that the standard, as the hon. Member for Winchester puts it, would be mandatorily enforced with a potential financial penalty. That takes away from what I think the Government are trying to achieve, which is local flexibility. As far as I can tell from the amendment, it makes no distinction between revenue spending and capital spending. I am still hopeful that my ICB is going to build a brand new GP surgery and health hub in my constituency—it has been promising that for eight years and it is not here yet, so this may be hope over experience—and that would be a significant capital investment. Would the ICB be able to include that as spending on primary care services and get around the potential financial penalty?

I also worry about pitting one part of health spending against another. The hon. Member for Winchester said that the proposed standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard, but I believe that the Government—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—have relatively recently changed the mental health standard to be in line with inflation rather than overall total spending. Therefore, if the amendment were to pass, primary care budgets would increase in line with total overall spending, whereas mental health budgets would increase in line with inflation. If those two things were out of sync, there would be a problem.

I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve. We all want to see more spent on primary care. The Government’s stated intention is to bring healthcare closer to home, and that can only be delivered, in my view, through primary care services. But there are some unintended consequences of the two amendments, which at least need more exploration before I could vote for them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. As has been said, we all know how important investment in primary care is, particularly as this Government shift to neighbourhood health, and that is why we have invested so heavily.

Although we are absolutely interested in the outcomes, the inputs merit some attention too. We have provided an additional £601 million for general practice to reinforce the front door of the NHS, bringing the total spend on the GP contract to £14 billion in this year. That builds on last year’s £1.1 billion of investment, which was the biggest increase to GP contract funding in over a decade. In community pharmacy, we have increased funding by £340 million, bringing the total spend to £3.636 billion. That represents a 10.3% uplift on the back of an uplift of more than 19% across 2024-25 and 2025-26, which again was the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS at the time.

In 2024-25, we invested around £3.7 billion in primary care dentistry, and we reduced the underspend from £392 million in 2023-24 to just £36 million in 2024-25, maximising the treatment provided across all our constituencies from taxpayers’ money. We are investing £20 million to support digital integration between primary care optometry and secondary care, supporting more eye care in the community.

The Bill gives ICBs more freedom as strategic commissioners over how they use their funding to serve their populations. A ringfence, in the form of the investment standard that the amendment calls for, would stifle that. We heard about flexibility from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. Primary care is a core priority for ICBs as we develop neighbourhood partnerships, and we expect that overall increases to budgets would be reflected in increased spending on primary care services. There is no evidence that stipulating a proportional increase to primary care spending in primary legislation would improve outcomes, and an investment standard could inadvertently normalise a ceiling on funding for primary care.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 43, page 30, line 36, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 10, in clause 43, page 30, line 39, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on mental health services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding. New clause 27—Duty of integrated care boards to meet Mental Health Investment Standard— “In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 223GC insert— ‘223GC A Duty of integrated care boards to meet Mental Health Investment Standard (1) An integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to ensuring that expenditure incurred by the board in a financial year in relation to mental health complies with the Mental Health Investment Standard.

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

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

This new clause puts the Mental Health Investment Standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure. New clause 33—Review on mental health treatment delays across rural and urban areas— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment.

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

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas. New clause 34—Duty to promote mental health wellbeing— “(1) It is a duty of the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State and/or any relevant body must have regard for— (a) the prevention of mental illness, (b) the promotion of positive mental health, (c) the reduction of stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, and (d) the provision of accessible and appropriate support services to individuals experiencing mental health challenges.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty under subsection (1), including an assessment of— (a) progress in improving mental health wellbeing amongst the people of England, and (b) any barriers to promoting mental health wellbeing for such persons and proposed actions to address them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to “conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 34 would create a duty for the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to “promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.”

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

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

I will start by addressing Liberal Democrat amendments 9 and 10; once again, I see the impetus and reason behind tabling them. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, new clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, has a similar but subtly different—in my view, usefully different—impetus and emphasis.

I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we published a report into community mental health in December last year, which laid bare the shocking state of mental health services in this country, especially community mental health services. Mental health accounts for over 20% of the demand for health services in this country, but in the period 2025-26, it is forecast to receive only 8.7% of NHS expenditure.

The spend in that period is expected to be higher than in the previous year, 2024-25, but it will actually be a smaller proportion of total NHS spending, decreasing from 8.78% to 8.71%. That reduction also means that 2025-26 will be the first year since 2016-17 in which mental health spending will not rise as a proportion of total health spending, which is in contravention of the mental health investment standard that has been introduced. In fact, on 17 November last year, NHS England confirmed that the proportional increases will not take place over the next two years to 2028-29, and that there will instead be “flat real funding growth”.

Overall, although I accept that the Government have increased spending on mental health, the fact that it is going down as a proportion of the total bill is one of the many reasons why we on the Health and Social Care Committee were very concerned about the future of mental health funding. It is also why we supported our Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, in tabling new clause 27.

The differences between new clause 27 and amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, relate to the financial penalty. If we want people to spend more on mental health, it would seem perverse to punish them by taking money away from them, because there might be reasons why they could not meet this requirement. I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve, because as he said, Claire Murdoch, the national director for mental health, resigned in September over the fact that she did not feel that the Government were spending the right amount on mental health.

New clause 27 would put the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health, and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure. It also differs from amendments 9 and 10, in that rather than increasing the amounts as a total of expenditure—an approach for which I have sympathy—it has the more realistic requirement that it must only go up every year. Over some years, I would like the amount to increase as a total proportion from the current figure of 8% or 9% to 20%, which is the real cost or burden of mental health care in this country. I think new clause 27 is a much more fair and appropriate way of achieving that.

I accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about a potential loss of local flexibility, but I think the new clause is written in a way that gives ICBs at least some flexibility to decide how they spend that money. Also, unlike amendments 9 and 10, there is not a financial penalty if for some reason they do not manage to do so it.

In principle, I see merit in new clause 33. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I represent a semi rural seat, so I know that understanding delays in accessing mental health treatment is essential if we are to have services that meet patient needs and ensure greater transparency on waiting times. All this can help identify inequalities and inform better policymaking. The requirement to examine the disparities between rural and urban areas is particularly welcome given the challenges that rural communities can face in accessing specialist mental health services. However, it should be noted that the new clause would primarily deliver a reporting mechanism rather than a solution to the problem. Although annual reviews might improve our understanding of treatment delays, they do not in themselves guarantee improvements in access, workforce capacity or service provision. There is also a question as to whether the health service already collects much of this information in other ways, and whether a new statutory review would add significant value beyond the existing reporting arrangements.

Better evidence about the scale and geographic distribution of mental health treatment delays could support more targeted interventions and help to ensure that patients are not disadvantaged simply because of where they live. The challenge will be ensuring that the findings of any review actually lead to meaningful action, rather than just becoming another reporting exercise or inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that reporting between urban and rural, which runs through these amendments, is particularly useful? Many of the solutions put forward throughout this Bill involve mayoral areas or authorities, which of course do not currently exist in many rural areas, and in some may never exist.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have talked about this issue while debating numerous clauses of the Bill. If someone were being ungenerous, they might say that there is an urban bias to this Bill. I think that it is less that than the fact that the Government have decided to use, as my hon. Friend rightly says, these mayoral structures to base health services on, when in fact, in so many areas, they either do not exist yet or, as far as we can tell, will never exist. Maybe Manchesterism will change that; we do not know. The Minister is smiling, so maybe she knows.

Regarding new clause 34 and the promotion of positive mental health, the prevention of mental illness and the reduction of stigma are obviously vital and important goals. I welcome the intention of the new clause to ensure that mental wellbeing is taken seriously across the health service. However, I have a few concerns about placing such a broad duty on a statutory footing, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked: is that not the job of the Secretary of State anyway?

As far as I can tell, new clause 34 essentially duplicates many of the responsibilities that already exist. The Secretary of State and NHS England—as currently exists—along with integrated care boards and other public bodies, are already subject to duties relating to improving health, reducing inequalities, promoting public health and improving the quality of services. Many of the objectives listed in the new clause are already capable of being pursued under those existing powers and obligations. The question therefore arises as to what additional legal effect the new duty would have.

Secondly, the concept of “mental health wellbeing”, while perhaps being a term we kind of understand, is inherently broad and rather difficult to define when we are talking about writing it into law. Unlike things such as waiting times, staffing levels, or access standards, “wellbeing” is not really a measurable outcome. I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who said in evidence that he wanted to see fewer targets, because they often have unintended consequences and skew the system towards the targets rather than what is actually required.

Mental health wellbeing could encompass life satisfaction, emotional resilience, social connections, employment, housing security and many other factors. As a result, I do not think it is clear what compliance with the duty in this new clause would look like in practice, how the success would be measured or how public bodies could demonstrate that they had fulfilled the obligations.

Finally, although the requirement for an annual report may improve visibility, as with the provision in new clause 33, there is a risk that new clause 34 could create an additional reporting obligation without necessarily improving services or outcomes. Before Parliament imposes a new statutory duty, it should be satisfied that there is a clear objective, a measurable standard against which performance can be assessed and a distinct purpose that is not already served by existing legislation or rules. I am afraid that, unless the hon. Member for Winchester comes back with a devastating argument in his wind up, I am not yet convinced that new clause 34 amendment meets that test.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. I will turn to amendments 9 and 10 along with new clause 27, which address similar points. These amendments would require integrated care boards to increase their spending on mental health services at least in line with their growth in their total programme funding. Amendment 10 would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties for non compliance, and new clause 27 would also place the mental health investment standard, or MHIS, on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an annual increase in the proportion of mental health expenditure for each integrated care board and require integrated care boards to meet that level of expenditure.

I want to be really clear with the Committee: mental health remains a priority for this Government, and the Government are already making record investments in mental health services. Spending on mental health continues to increase in real terms and is forecast to reach a record £16.1 billion in 2026-27. That represents a real terms increase of around £140 million, compared with 2025-26 and around £900 million of real terms growth since 2023-24.

The Minister has pointed to some improvements. She will know there is real concern about parity of esteem between mental and physical health, including the ways that we measure them. The Government have already done a great deal, but would the Minister say how we can ensure that parity of esteem between mental and physical health is achieved using the powers in clause 43?

I thank my hon. Friend for that and for her work on this issue. She is absolutely right: parity of esteem is critical, and we are committed to a spending increase to deliver it. I will come on to some of the points that she quite rightly made.

Although I do not think he was speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon took us through some of the concerns of his Select Committee. The Government have put a formal standard and a financial safeguard in place through the mental health investment standard, and as set out in NHS England’s medium term planning framework, we expect all integrated care boards to meet the standard over the next three years, and all are currently forecast to do so. For this period—2026-27 to 2028-29—the standard has been set on real funding growth, meaning that funding is expected at least to keep pace with inflation.

Meeting the mental health investment standard remains essential to delivering the Government’s ambitions on mental health, including achieving full national coverage of mental health support teams in schools and colleges by 2029, and expanding access to NHS talking therapies. The Government’s approach is to maintain strong protections for mental health investment, while giving local systems the flexibility to focus on outcomes and deliver services that meet the needs of their communities, which, as we have heard this morning, are very different. However, workforce increases and funding alone will not deliver the improvements the public and patients rightly expect in mental health care and support.

Demand for mental health support has risen rapidly, as we all know from our constituencies, with long waits and too many people unable to access the right support when they need it. We need a new approach that reduces waiting times, improves care quality and promotes early intervention and prevention in mental health. That is why we are developing a new cross Government mental health strategy for England that will transform mental health care into a system that responds and intervenes earlier, reduces waiting times for support and ultimately supports people to participate fully in education, work and community life.

I wonder whether, as part of that strategy, the Government will look at waiting times for mental health services, as we have heard of the considerable delays. That issue is important to everyone, but especially young people. Will the Government look at that issue and get waiting lists down?

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, the rising demand and the ways that waiting lists are managed and supported locally will have to be a critical part of any strategy. Also, as we have said in our elective reform plan, giving people information so that they can understand what is happening in their local systems is part of the wider patient experience work that we are going to do.

The Government are committed to prioritising the delivery of mental health services. That is why we have a standard already ensuring that mental health spending keeps pace in real terms, while allowing systems discretion to make additional investment in the way that best meets local needs. The amendments would place an inflexible financial requirement in statute. A more effective and overarching approach will be delivered through our cross Government strategy. For those reasons, a further statutory duty is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the amendment.

I turn to new clause 33, which is unnecessary. We already publish detailed data on the number of people accessing mental health services and the length of waiting times through the NHS mental health services monthly statistics. Those are robust official statistics, covering all NHS funded mental health services in England. They enable analysis of delays in access to care. Importantly, data are available across multiple geographic levels, including national, regional, integrated care board and provider level, allowing the variation between different parts of the country to be understood.

We are also improving access to mental health care in rural areas. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester. He could speak for a very long time on this area and we all value his experience as a vet. Anyone can self refer to NHS talking therapies via the NHS app and we are rolling out community based mental health centres, making support easier to access closer to home. As a Government, we are committed to reducing delays for mental health treatments, although I am not convinced that requirements to undertake an annual review will support us in delivering on that commitment. Indeed, it would risk distracting from delivering those changes. For those reasons, I again ask the hon. Member not to press the new clause.

We are talking about investing in mental health services, and we should consider more widely the causes of the mental health disorders that we are having to approach. If we are spending public money, we may be better off spending it on dealing with the causes of mental health problems rather than the consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

13|0|1|7|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 44 stand part.

These clauses will make a series of vital changes to the NHS financial framework following the abolition of NHS England, strengthening funding arrangements and financial accountability. First, clause 43 will enable funding to flow to integrated care boards following the abolition of NHS England while simplifying the powers to direct how resources are used. The first change in new section 223G will transfer the responsibility to fund integrated care boards from NHS England to the Secretary of State, maintaining continuity of allocations and allowing in year adjustments where needed.

We will also simplify the existing power in new section 223GA to direct integrated care boards in how resources are used, making it clearer and easier to use. That will ensure that safeguards can be applied consistently, such as the ability to recover funding where there is a failure to comply with a direction. Transparency will be maintained through the requirement to publish directions.

The clause will also introduce new section 223GB, setting how the direction powers in new section 223GA can be used in relation to expenditure on service integration across health and social care. At present, service integration funding must be placed in a pooled budget with local authorities, even if that is not the most effective approach. The current legislation allows for only one model, even where that may introduce unnecessary bureaucracy or delay. The clause will remove that mandatory requirement, giving the Secretary of State discretion each year on whether integration funding should be pooled.

That will not remove pooled budgets; they will remain the default where they deliver better outcomes, and local areas will still be able to enter section 75 agreements voluntarily. This clause will introduce proportionate flexibility and enable the Secretary of State to decide, transparently and through published directions, whether funding should be pooled in particular circumstances. That will ensure that we can act quickly when needed, for example in responding to urgent pressures, so that the Secretary of State is not constrained by a blanket legal requirement that does not always add value.

Clause 43 will also make necessary consequential changes following the transfer of functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State. That will include replacing “NHS England” with “The Secretary of State” in section 223GC, which concerns the power to give directions about integrated care board expenditure limits, and repealing section 223K on quality payments, as the Secretary of State can use other powers to deliver payments for quality improvement purposes.

Having set out a clearer and more streamlined framework for allocating and directing NHS resources, we now turn to how integrated care boards and providers will be held accountable for managing those resources. Clause 44 will omit sections 223M and 223N from the National Health Service Act 2006, which require each integrated care board and its partner NHS trust and foundation trust to balance their finances collectively. By removing sections 223M and 223N, we will ensure that one organisation’s deficit can no longer be obscured by another’s surplus, while preserving the Secretary of State’s ability to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner trusts where system wide alignment is needed.

If we are to achieve the ambitious aim set out in the 10-year health plan, of getting most providers to achieve a surplus by 2029-30, we must place the onus back on individual organisations. Each NHS organisation should be unambiguously accountable for managing its own finances, rather than relying on collective system balances to absorb overspends.

Importantly, that does not mean abandoning collaboration. Clause 44 amends section 223L of the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts, where local system wide alignment is genuinely required.

This approach supports the wider policy direction for ICBs to operate as strategic commissioners. With clearer organisation and financial accountability, ICBs can focus on population health outcomes, prioritising prevention, reducing health inequalities, shaping services around need, and driving better value for money through more effective commissioning.

These clauses make a clearer, more disciplined framework, where individual accountability is strengthened, ambiguity is reduced and national oversight is more coherent, while retaining targeted tools to support collaboration where it adds value. I therefore commend clauses 43 and 44 to the Committee.

Clause 43 is particularly long: it runs to almost two pages of text. Essentially, clause 43 transfers the responsibility for funding ICBs, and deciding how they use the resources, from NHS England to the Secretary of State. In many cases, that is consistent with the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England, take decisions and responsibility in house, and get some more control.

One thing that does not make sense to me is that the Government are talking about devolving control and decision making, yet this clause gives the Secretary of State powers to control spending, direct how ICBs spend money in different areas, and penalise them if they do not do what they are told. The Minister has also talked in this Committee about a vision for the future in which ICBs are consistent with mayoral authority areas, and mayors sitting on ICBs to provide some sort of democratic accountability. But how can mayors be held democratically accountable if they are, or might be, overruled by the Secretary of State? How does the Minister see that working?

Also, greater financial intervention powers for the Secretary of State, if used, could expose ICB budgets to short term political pressure, such as funding for a specific health area that has received celebrity or media attention. How would the Minister guard against that?

If the Secretary of State is able to contest financial decisions taken by ICBs, will that slow down decision making and make things more “sticky”? Essentially, the changes seem to go against the Government’s stated aim of a more devolved and autonomous operating model for the health service. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.

Clause 44 is a little shorter. It essentially makes changes to the joint duties of ICBs and providers. Some of those changes are again necessitated by the abolition of NHS England; keeping some of the sections would result in overlapping systems, so those make more sense. But the duties requiring ICBs and their partner trusts to achieve overall system balance are repealed. That goes against the collaborative principle behind the creation of integrated care systems, and makes it more difficult to manage financial pressures across a geographical footprint. If, in a particular year, there is financial pressure in one area of an ICB but less so in another, it is not able to transfer things so easily between those areas. How does the Minister expect that to work?

Clause 44 also allows the Secretary of State to set objectives for “one or more” partners. Is that discretionary or are there criteria for it? If it is discretionary, what would prevent the Secretary of State from selectively choosing which trusts are bound by joint objectives and which are not? How will that decision be made? How will trusts know whether it is likely to be made, or in what circumstances it could be made? This could undermine consistency of treatment across different ICBs and trusts. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on those points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My hon. Friend is talking about uncertainty. Essentially, those powers could not be used at all to direct or they could be used to micromanage. It is not clear what the intent is.

My hon. Friend is right, and I have mentioned that in relation to other clauses. I am perhaps a cynic in my belief that if stuff is being written into legislation, that probably means that the Department has some idea of what it wants to use those powers for. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what her and the Department’s intentions are for these powers. How directing or otherwise will they be of ICBs?

Specifically, proposed new section 223GB to the NHS Act 2006, relating to service integration, also exposes that inherent contradiction. It enables the Secretary of State to require ICBs to allocate designated funding into pooled budgets with local authorities, and at the same time to impose centrally approved spending plans and performance objectives. It is not possible to take the clause forward without having some clarity on exactly how those powers are going to be used in future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, clause 44 is shorter. She covered most of the points that I was going to make, but I think the Government should explain how effective oversight of the system wide financial discipline that we have talked about will be maintained in the absence of the provisions omitted from the 2006 Act and the Health and Care Act 2022 by the clause.

I note that proposed new section 223GA to the 2006 Act, inserted by clause 43, includes the duty to “publish any directions” but there is no timing for that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to understand how soon after the direction is made we should expect the Minister to publish it?

My hon. Friend is right again: there is a lack of clarity in these two clauses, as I have highlighted. I am sure the Minister, having heard my hon. Friend’s question, will respond when she gets her moment.

That moment is now. I call the Minister.

In my comments on the amendments, I think that I addressed many of the points raised. On the final point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, he will be aware that the Government have already improved financial oversight of the NHS system this year without any changes. We are getting a grip on the finances that were allowed to go so badly out of control across the entire piece under the Conservative party’s stewardship.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the Opposition spokesperson, started her comments by saying that the changes made by the two clauses are entirely consistent with the wider Bill, and I agree. We are abolishing NHS England—which, as I have oft repeated in these deliberations, has not been opposed by the Opposition parties—and of course there are some consequences of that, including giving the Secretary of State powers.

I will address a couple of other points directly. To be very clear, the better care fund remains a core mechanism to support the NHS and local government to join up health and social care services to a greater degree. The changes made by the clauses address the inflexibility of the current arrangements. The Committee had a good debate earlier this week about the Government’s commitment to enhancing that collaboration and joint working at a very local level. The clauses introduce flexibility, allowing the Secretary of State to determine when pooling is the best way to achieve better outcomes, while local areas are of course still able to pool budgets voluntarily through section 75 of the NHS Act 2006.

The allegation that there is weakening of joint working is not true. The clauses do not remove the ability to pool budgets; they just allow flexibility. As I said, the focus remains on delivering outcomes for patients and communities, not on financial structures.

A final question asked for reassurance that decisions made by the Secretary of State will not be arbitrary. Parliament will be reassured through clear safeguards and transparency. Any directions issued under the new powers must be published, ensuring visibility and accountability. Decisions will be guided by consistent criteria, including joint spending plans and performance objectives. Pooled budgets will continue to be required where they support better outcomes. In exercising these functions, the Secretary of State must also have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to health services and the outcomes achieved. Together, that ensures that decisions are—quite rightly—transparent, justified and applied fairly across the entire system.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Licence conditions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 46 stand part.

Clause 45 adds an additional purpose to those already listed in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 under which the Secretary of State can set or modify conditions in the provider licence. It will allow the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for licensing following the abolition of NHS England, to set licence conditions that promote or secure compliance with statutory obligations.

The NHS provider licence was first introduced in 2013 for NHS foundation trusts and in 2014 for eligible independent providers of NHS funded care. It set clear rules and expectations around a range of matters, such as pricing and governance, for providers of NHS services. It also provided a mechanism for regulatory action when failures occurred at those organisations.

Licence conditions can be set only for specific purposes set out in legislation; the additional purpose does not change the existing licence conditions. The Secretary of State will be able to add or modify licence conditions only following a statutory consultation.

This additional purpose will allow the Secretary of State to hold providers to account when they are not meeting their legal obligations; for example, when they are not following procurement rules. As with other conditions in the licence, it means that we can use guidance to influence provider behaviour in these areas. The change is necessary and forms an important part of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene where providers are not meeting expectations.

Clause 46 clarifies the methods by which the Secretary of State can serve certain notices relating to changes in the regulation of healthcare services. It brings existing requirements up to date with modern methods of communication, reducing administrative burden.

As the Committee already discussed when considering the abolition of NHS England, the Bill will transfer functions relating to the provider licence and the payment scheme from NHS England to the Secretary of State. When changes are proposed to these documents, NHS England must consult those affected and must notify all relevant organisations of the consultation. Currently, that notice cannot be delivered by email without the agreement of the organisation receiving it—without that agreement, it must be posted.

That process is out of step with the modern, digital first approach set out in the 10-year health plan. Technology has evolved since those requirements were set, and we no longer communicate predominately through the postal system. The changes in the clause allow for rapid communication to ensure that the notice reaches the appropriate person promptly.

The clause brings the method by which the Secretary of State can deliver notices up to date with modern methods of communication to ensure that everyone affected has the chance to participate in the consultation in a timely way. I am sure all hon. Members agree that that is necessary, so I commend clauses 45 and 46 to the Committee.

Clause 45 makes technical changes to the licence conditions, allowing the Secretary of State to use those conditions as a tool to ensure compliance with legal requirements beyond those in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That power is somewhat open ended, which reduces certainty for providers, particularly independent ones, as they will not be able to easily anticipate what additional legal duties might be folded into the licence. The Minister said that there would be a consultation, but does she have any more details on how long the consultation process will be, or on how much notice of changes providers can expect? Like other clauses in the Bill, despite the Government’s discussion of devolution, the clause introduces another centralising power.

Clause 46 is about the specifics of to whom legal documents can be served and through what mechanism. I understand the Minister’s argument on the need for modernisation, but everyone will have had emails that were bounced by spam filters or the like. How will she ensure that the emails are not just sent but received, so that there is a fair playing field for everyone?

I understand the purpose of clauses 45 and 46, as there is clear public interest in ensuring that providers that hold licences in our health and care system comply with the law. Patients, taxpayers and staff are entitled to expect high standards, proper governance and accountability. Where a provider delivers vital public services, it is reasonable for the licensing scheme to help to uphold those obligations. In that sense, the intention of the clauses is good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham outlined a number of questions for the Minister. Could the Minister explain in more detail how clause 46, which essentially provides for the enforcement of the provisions in clause 45, will operate in practice?

I do not have any more details on how the clauses will operate in practice and follow through into guidance; that will obviously be in the usual guidance on the operation of the system. It is usual practice for people doing the work to make contact with the receiver of the email to check that they have received it and are acting on it appropriately.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 Single patient record

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

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 65, in clause 47, page 35, line 6, after “treatment” insert “, or to any specific support needs or reasonable accommodations required for the effective provision of such care or treatment”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is by design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying; he is making a very good speech. I wonder whether he agrees that one of the challenges for us as legislators, in looking at all the amendments on the single patient record, and indeed at the single patient record itself, is that while the principle of a single patient record might be a good, it is all about the devil in the detail and the delivery. We do not have a delivery plan or a vision of more of the detail relating to how it will look, so it is difficult to make judgments on many of the clauses.

As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. It would be helpful to have more clarity on what the single patient record will look like. I will not repeat my earlier questions, but I think they are prescient. I hope that the Minister—even if she cannot answer now, which I accept—has those in mind when she and her colleagues start to look at this.

Even if the Minister cannot provide detail, all I ask is that she provides reassurance that access to the single patient record will be based on explicit consent, limited to what is necessary for either the caring role—as in the amendment of the hon. Member for Winchester—or the clinical role overall, subject to some kind of regular review and supported by some robust audit mechanism. If we are to create a system on this scale, we must ensure that the safeguards are just as strong as the benefits.

I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that, through this amendment, the hon. Member for Winchester has given us an opportunity to think. I am grateful to him for this chance to talk about carers and this important issue. I am a carer of an older person, and for those of us who are carers, it is helpful to have some discussion about this area. Carers play a vital role and we are committed to ensuring that they have the support they need. We are of course very grateful for all the work that they do.

The Bill already includes a power that permits regulations to make patient information available to people other than patients on the patient’s behalf. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said, that can include carers, and it is our intention to do so. We want to ensure that carers who act on behalf of the people they care for get the full benefit from the single patient record.

NHS proxy access already allows for people other than patients—which includes carers, parents or care home staff—to manage the health and care of someone they care for. Setting up proxy access requires the consent and involvement of the individual and the person they care for. We will set out in regulations how proxy access will work for the single patient record, as in the existing NHS position.

The single patient record will be developed on two priority care pathways in maternity and frailty, which will initially be delivered through local arrangements. Some clinicians and patients will be able to view and manage additional elements of care, such as proxy access for carers, earlier than others. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw his amendment.

We have had some helpful comments about some other concerns.

Will the Minister confirm whether the intention of the Government is to separate parts of the record out so that people can give consent for part of the record to be shared, but not the complete record, where they have reasons to want extra privacy?

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.