What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all. What advice does the Minister have for small business owners in Beaconsfield and Marlow having to make the difficult decision to either cut jobs or close their businesses thanks to this Government?
11. What assessment he has made of trends in employment levels in the hospitality sector.
I thank the Minister for her answer and the positive news about the sector apprenticeships. Hospitality is critical in Salisbury as we move towards our 800-year celebration next year, but last summer there was a 25% drop in temporary work in the sector, and the cost of employer national insurance contributions for part-time workers in the sector—those working 15 hours—increased by 73%. I say respectfully to the Minister that I recognise that tough decisions have to be made in the Treasury; I was there for seven years, and was part of those decisions. However, this sector is under real strain, and part-time jobs for the youngest workers are not there at the moment. Something quite significant needs to change in the Government’s approach.
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
In Salisbury, we welcome zero emission buses, and the previous Conservative Administration worked with the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area—scheme to deliver 30 new buses. Last week, when I met Ed Wills, the new managing director of Salisbury Reds, we discussed a number of matters, including acoustic measures to mitigate the noise from those buses, but the challenge is that Chinese-manufactured buses are cheaper, and offer greater battery range. The Government need to make a decision about the next round of the ZEBRA scheme. Could the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement on this, so that local authorities around the country, including those in Wiltshire, can determine the best way to expand provision?
16. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support the creation of jobs for young people.
While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.
I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?
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.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish to speak on this aspect of the single patient record. Although I support the general intention and aim of the single patient record, I have some wider concerns about how it will be implemented. I will restrict my remarks to the issues related to this group of amendments, and particularly amendment 49 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Plainly, most people—I would probably include myself in this—are not immediately familiar with all the ins and outs of how their medical records are kept and used, and why should they be? However, they have some pretty clear views on what they expect, whether that is confidentiality or their records being used and stored in such a way that does not inadvertently act as a barrier to accessing healthcare in an efficient and timely way. That is why the Government have introduced these proposals, which I mainly support.
Plainly, there is already scope for this to happen and sadly patient records are wrongly accessed, either inadvertently through mistake or deliberately in bad faith. However, from a technological and design point of view, the single patient record inevitably makes that easier and more likely, whether through mistakes or deliberate acts. That is just one of the many considerations and downsides of a single patient record that is otherwise beneficial. It is incumbent on the Government to do what they can to mitigate against those inevitable structural problems that the record will produce, and amendment 48 is an entirely sensible way of achieving that. I am always slightly reluctant to use analogies from other sectors, because plainly there are differences, but in my former life as a family law solicitor, even within a small private law firm, there were structures in place to ensure that only people who needed to access data could do so, and much of it was arguably less sensitive than patient records. That was the case in a small firm, and because we have a national system of healthcare in this country, which is a good one, the scale of fallout and harm that could arise from such mistakes or deliberate acts is so much greater. I urge the Government not to see the amendment as seeking to undermine their overall plans, but as a means of strengthening them.
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. A single patient record is not the same thing as mandating that 450 record-keeping systems become one. In fact, the single patient record will work as a theory on paper only if there is interoperability between different databases. That is a massive challenge that is not dealt with here. It cannot be dealt with here, in the real world, and the single patient record will not be realised until it is dealt with, which could take years. Does the hon. Member have a reflection on that point?
I will pick up where the hon. Member for Lichfield left off. I make it clear that a single patient record is not a single electronic record-keeping system. Also, the single patient record is a theory, and it will remain a theory long after this legislation has been passed, as I am sure it will be, unless and until the electronic record-keeping databases and software in this country are able to speak to each other. I have experience of working for a national nursing charity, and my role specifically dealt with the legal and governance issues of trying to embed community nurses in different settings. However, that work was beset by the problem of different databases—different electronic record-keeping systems—that did not speak to each other. Even those systems that were supposed to speak to each other did not do so. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, sometimes there can be dozens, even hundreds, within even one NHS trust. That should not be a problem today, but it is, and the Bill will get us no further on the technicalities and the technology problems we have. These systems are already meant to speak to each other, and we do not need legislation to realise that should be happening. Indeed, there are still paper record-keeping systems in many places up and down the country. The theory of a single patient record is a good one, but it will mean nothing in practice until those paper record-keeping systems have become electronic and then all the electronic systems speak to each other. That makes me wonder whether a single patient record will ever be realised, regardless of legislation on the model that is supposed to exist. Indeed, the Bill does not mandate a single preferred electronic record-keeping system, and nor should it; there is a competitive market out there in which NHS trusts are free to engage and contract with different providers of electronic record-keeping. I wrote to the local health bosses in my area after being made aware that the provider of one of their main electronic record-keeping systems had offered to extend the system further throughout the trust in order to save money. However, the trust has not yet responded. I am not in a position to say whether that offer is a better one, but on the face of it, it certainly looked like it would save money because it was a record-keeping system that the trust was already using; it just was not being used across all parts of the trust. That letter has gone unanswered for a year. It is not just a technological issue; there is also a cultural issue of the lack of nimble, joined-up decision making. Some health bosses, not necessarily those in my area, are unable to take advantage of the financial benefits of changing or adapting to using new systems. Until that is resolved, a single patient record will remain ever wanted but never actually delivered. To use an analogy, different companies provide the services on people’s mobile phones—the internet access, social media; software and even hardware. Most of us end up with a smartphone that does pretty similar things to every other smartphone and, broadly speaking, all the different apps co-operate with each other. Of course, the major global technology companies have faced legal action in the US, Europe, this country and elsewhere to ensure that their systems talk to each other, and primary legislation has been required to make them do that.
That was a long intervention, but it was helpful. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the legislation is not seeking to require technology companies or the providers of electronic record-keeping systems to be able to talk to each other. It is trying to create the concept of a single patient record, which is good, but it does not mandate a way to achieve that. I do not particularly want to name companies, but a big provider that is already in the health space and that provides electronic record-keeping systems might say, “We can already provide a single patient record. It is for other providers to adapt and feed into our record-keeping system,” and there is nothing in the Bill that says one technology company must adapt to another. The technological issue is completely unaddressed. I am not even saying that it should be addressed in the Bill, because there are all sorts of issues around competition law and state support for particular companies. It is not a criticism per se of the way in which the Bill drafted, but this is an opportune moment to make the point that absolutely none of the clause will be delivered until a major issue that the Government have not yet addressed is dealt with. That issue is the interoperability of different electronic record-keeping systems provided by the private sector. They are all in competition with each other to get a bigger share of the market; unless and until that is addressed, the Government are not going to realise any of this. I do not want that to be the case. I want the single patient record to be realised, broadly speaking.
The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I have been trying to. He referred to a number of companies that each provide an electronic record-keeping system. The Bill does not mandate those companies to speak to each other and create a single patient record; there is no requirement on those private companies to do anything. As they are in competition with each other, their answer could be, “We can provide the single patient record—we are already doing it—if you just use more of our system and pay us more money.” I am not suggesting that this is the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility, but does he have anything to say about the practicalities of a single patient record as a theory and the interoperability of electronic record keeping—a practical thing not dealt with in the Bill?
I thank the Minister for clarifying that the data will continue to be stored and held in the databases in the electronic record-keeping system where it is currently kept. I am not looking for her to give me a detailed solution on the spot, but does she accept that unless there is seamless interoperability across all those systems the single patient record will not be realised, and that we are still an awfully long way from seamless interoperability across England, let alone the UK?
On a point of order, yesterday in Westminster Hall, the Maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), may have inadvertently misled the House. I confirm that I have given the required notices. The Minister stated on three occasions that a Court of Appeal judgment changed the legal status of maritime coastguard rescue officers. That simply is not true. The Court of Appeal confirmed worker status that already existed and has existed for years; it is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, backed by the Government, that is now seeking to change the status of those brave heroes to that of unpaid volunteers. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how I can seek to get the record corrected?
Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart-stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end. The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices. Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn. Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members. Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up. Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade-offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same. We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long-suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?
Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle-down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK-wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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?
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—
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.
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.
In essence, we debated the amendment in a Westminster Hall debate some months ago, when I had the dubious honour of being the shadow spokesman for the Conservative party despite not being a Home Office shadow Minister. It became clear in that debate that mandatory medical markers do not exist. It is still a voluntary system. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to make the system equitable? The hon. Gentleman and I support mandatory medical markers, and there seemed to be cross-party support for them in the Westminster Hall debate. If they are not mandatory, some people will potentially be put under a different system, because their sufficiency or ability to hold a shotgun licence could be taken away from them, while those who are not on the system, because it is not mandatory, would not lose theirs. How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the equity issue and the potential for some people to be missed?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. On amendment 71, I ought to declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance. Although I do not own a shotgun myself, I represent a large shooting community and I have been on a shoot relatively recently, but without a gun, so I did not shoot anything. As I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I spoke on this issue in Westminster Hall some months ago, when it was clear to me that there was a significant level of cross-party support for the idea of mandatory markers for GPs. As mandatory markers for firearms licensing are technically a Home Office issue rather than a Department of Health and Social Care one, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), responded to that debate, but he was unable to reassure us that provision would be made. I did not understand the arguments he made, because I think mandatory markers are probably the way forward. Given that they are supported by organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance—organisations that one might not have expected to be in favour of them—the Government should look into the idea. There would clearly be a benefit to the proposal in amendment 71. If a patient who holds a firearms licence presents a serious medical risk because of a mental health crisis, suicidal ideation or behaviour that raises concerns about risks to themselves or others, an immediately visible marker would help clinicians to make informed decisions and take the appropriate safeguarding action. But a firearms licence is obviously not a medical condition, nor is it health information in any traditional sense. This goes back to the point I made in the debate on a previous amendment, about how broad the information that we keep on the single patient record will be. The inclusion of such a marker across the single patient record could lead to issues relating, as we talked about in previous debates, to who would want to see that information. For example, there may be people out there who are not in favour of recreational shooting, and someone may hold a firearms license for recreational shooting. Of course, section 2 firearms licences, especially for shotguns, are often held by farmers and people involved in conservation, and for all sorts of other reasons, including the control of pest populations. But if someone has a licence for recreational use, there may be people who, for whatever reason, find that to be against their own beliefs and opinions. That might lead to a patient being subjected to a level of intrusion or bias, or perhaps not receiving the care they deserve, because someone has made an assumption about what they are like based on that information. We need to be careful about that.
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention; I had not appreciated that. If that is true, the security and safety of the individual who holds the firearms licence, and indeed of anybody else in the vicinity, is paramount, and we generally would not want people to know precisely where guns are held, because that could be a security risk. I think the hon. Member for Winchester has the best of intentions, but the consequences have not been fully thought through.
I will, but first I want to be kind to the hon. Gentleman and say that, as with his previous amendment, he has opened up a conversation about the single patient record that we really need to have, to ensure that what is on it needs to be there for the treatment of patients. As legislators, we need to have a wide conversation to decide what it includes and how it is going to be used.
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s optimism. I am not belittling his point—I, too, hope that no one would be treated, both in the traditional sense and in the medical sense, based on their background or anything else, including their recreational hobbies. Unfortunately, we have seen cases in the NHS in which someone’s religious background has led to antisemitism and other unfortunate issues. Unfortunately, sometimes the system itself has a problem. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report relatively recently on black maternal health. We could see the difference and the fact that, unfortunately, black women experience a worse level of care, often because of assumptions made about their backgrounds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I hope everyone is treated dispassionately, but I am afraid it does not always happen. We need to make sure that we root out that kind of behaviour, but we also need to protect people from it. Amendment 72 is another that was tabled with the best of intentions. The improved identification of veterans is an interesting idea, because I do not think many veterans actively identify themselves when they access healthcare. A visible marker could help to ensure that healthcare professionals are aware of a patient’s service history without relying on self-disclosure. There may be direct benefits to a veteran, because they may be eligible for dedicated NHS services—including mental health, rehabilitation and other veterans’ healthcare pathways—through the armed forces covenant. A marker could, then, assist clinicians in directing patients to appropriate support more quickly.
As we move towards a single patient record, we have to ensure that technological progress does not come at the expense of those who are least digitally connected. As others have said, I am particularly concerned about older patients and many disabled people, who often rely most on NHS services but can face the greatest barriers when healthcare systems—and all systems—become increasingly digital. For some elderly patients in my Farnham and Bordon constituency, navigating online platforms is challenging, and others may not have regular access to the internet at all. Unfortunately, my constituency has one of the worst full-fibre broadband roll-outs in the country, and it has extraordinarily poor mobile phone reception in the central rural parts of the constituency, despite my best efforts with BT Openreach and others. Disabled people may also face accessibility barriers that these systems do not always anticipate in their design. Modernisation should never mean creating a two-tier NHS—one for those who are digitally confident and another for those who are not. The people at risk of being left behind are often those with the most complex healthcare needs and the greatest reliance on the continuity of care. A proper assessment of digital exclusion is therefore not just a bureaucratic exercise, as some may describe it; it is an essential safeguard. We need to understand how the single patient record will affect elderly patients, disabled people, carers, those with learning disabilities and those who may struggle to engage with digital services.
For me, the key thing is that we must have equity of access to the single patient record. If somebody wishes to see their own medical record, they should be able to do so, whether they are digitally savvy or not. As far as I can tell, that is the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. We are seeing this already, but the more we go down the digital route—because it is more efficient and straightforward, and takes out the unnecessary bureaucracy of having a human interaction to book an appointment or whatever—the more likely it is that this will become the portal for all interactions. I am not saying that that is the Government’s intention, but he raises a point, perhaps inadvertently, that we need to think about. To conclude on amendment 70, before we proceed any further, the Government should be able to demonstrate that no patient will receive a worse service, face greater barriers to care or lose access to information simply because they are older, disabled or less digitally connected than others—that goes to the heart of fairness and equity of access in our NHS. I am absolutely certain that the Minister does not wish that to happen, but it would be interesting to hear how she will ensure that it does not happen. Amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a public awareness plan had first been published and laid before Parliament, and a minimum three-month public information campaign had been conducted before the system went live. That seems eminently sensible, and I hope it is something that would be not just welcomed by Ministers, but on their agenda already. Patients clearly have a right to know what information is being held, who will have access to it, how it will be used, what safeguards are in place and what rights they have in relation to their own data before the system goes live. A three-month campaign to give them that opportunity would be appropriate, because the things that I have outlined are not technical details that need to be buried in some Government website or hidden in the small print of a privacy notice; they are fundamental questions that deserve proper public engagement. I am especially supportive of amendment 49 because of the impact on older people, disabled people and those who are less digitally engaged. I do not think that most of my constituents spend their time reading NHS policy documents online—my notes say “most”, but I think none of them do, unless they are involved in the health world themselves—and they should not wake up one morning to discover that a major change to the management of their health information has already been implemented without their knowledge. A public information campaign is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is a democratic necessity. If Ministers are confident that the single patient record will improve care, strengthen efficiency and protect privacy, they should be eager to make that case to the public and should therefore welcome the scrutiny, transparency and informed debate that a three-month public information would bring.
On a point of order, Ms Lewell. Are we not voting on amendment 49?
As my right hon. Friend has just said, this is a unique system that will have unique benefits, but it will also have unique risks. Almost in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford, I do not think there is anything—[Interruption.]