partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

   Antisemitism: University Campuses

   The hon. Member is absolutely right. Later in my speech, I will come on to what I think the Government should be doing, but as the hon. Member mentions colleges, I will say that the Government should adopt David Bell’s recommendations once he has completed his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. We have to stamp this out wherever we find it. The effort to stigmatise, isolate and harass Jewish students has even, on occasion, been accompanied by physical violence. Last year, I was pleased to return to Leeds JSoc to hear the first-hand testimony of Jewish students. They told me of being taunted by shouts of “Free Palestine” when they were going to Shabbat dinner at Hillel House, an event that had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They told me what it feels like to have a lecturer boast of how proud he was of seeing his son arrested for supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. In some instances, they also told me personally that they were hiding their identity from their flatmates because of the fear of how they might react.

   Hansard source
2. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

   Antisemitism: University Campuses

   Having stood on the same site, I know just how powerful it is. Those people must be remembered for all time. I will come on later to recommendations for the Government; I realise that time is getting on, and I want to make some progress, but I will address the hon. Member’s point later. Abuse and intimidation on our campuses is not just directed at Jewish students. Rabbi Deutsch, the university’s Jewish chaplain, was hounded, bullied and, with his family, forced into hiding after death threats—that was at Leeds University again. Beyond Leeds, Jewish academics and staff on campuses have been subject to appalling antisemitism. Israeli professor Michael Ben-Gad was targeted by activists last year. He was threatened with beheading, and mass protesters stormed his teaching and his classes. Professor David Hirsh, a world-renowned expert on antisemitism, was forced to quit the University and College Union, of which he himself had been a founding member, because he found it intolerable to stay. Quite rightly, we would never accept such behaviour being directed at any other group of students or staff from any other minority background. In Britain in 2026, Jewish students and staff should not and must not be denied the safety, dignity and respect that we expect all students and staff to be afforded. Although it has obviously worsened considerably over the past three years, antisemitism on our campuses is not a new problem. Fifty years ago, anti-Israel activists on British campuses responded to the passage of the UN’s now infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution by attempting to ban Jewish student groups who supported the idea of a Jewish state, in effect banning huge numbers of Jewish students from campus. Half a century on, technology has exacerbated the challenge. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has rightly warned: “Campus antisemitism is the direct physical consequence of the online ecosystem. Social media platforms, AI chatbots, search engines and computer games have allowed extreme, conspiratorial antisemitism to shift from the dark fringes of the web into the mainstream student experience.” Two aspects are particularly noteworthy. The first is the manner in which well-networked extreme student groups operate anonymously, allowing them—sometimes in co-ordination with hostile state actors, it has to be said—to launch harassment campaigns against Jewish staff and students, with little or no risk of ever facing exposure or discipline. Secondly, no 18-year-old arrives at university without exposure to social media and what the APT terms “algorithmic grooming”. This speaks to a wider point. Campuses are not hermetically sealed bubbles. We know that through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the nefarious IRGC—Tehran and its media mouthpieces are seeking to radicalise young people here, spread antisemitism and amplify anti-Israel activism and narratives. In recent years, IRGC commanders have addressed UK-based student groups in online seminars, urging them to become “holy warriors” in an “apocalyptic war” against the Jews. Universities, one of them suggested, “have become the battlefront”, and they are calling them to arms. We must not allow our seats of higher education and learning, which at their best should promote, cultivate and guard the Enlightenment values of reason, tolerance and freedom of expression, to become incubators of extremism, fundamentalism and hatred. Too many universities have been too slow, too timid and too ineffectual in tackling antisemitism. In some instances, they have failed Jewish students and staff, the wider student body and the very purpose and principles underpinning academia and university life. That brings me on to my actions and what I ask of the Minister today. In the face of this challenge, I commend the action that the Government have already taken, especially the Prime Minister’s announcement that universities will be required to publish information on the scale of the problem on their campuses, as well as the specific steps that they will take to clamp down on it. I believe—to go back to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) said—that the Government should also consider the establishment of a statutory framework for the investigation and disciplinary handling of hate crime incidents in higher education and universities. The Charity Commission, the Office for Students and other regulatory bodies should all be empowered to ensure proper conduct and strengthen student union accountability, implementing sanctions where unions fail to address antisemitism. Higher education should be designated as a priority area for the extremely welcome Government agenda, “Protecting What Matters”, which was announced in March this year; it contains a lot of good material, but not necessarily the timelines in which to deliver it. I note that in the past UJS has provided a vital early warning system about emerging extremist threats. For instance, in the cases of the neo-Nazi National Action group and the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government have followed with proscription, recognising that a threat on campuses soon becomes a wider threat to the safety of everyone. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could clarify a few points. What is the timetable for implementing the measures set out in the “Protecting What Matters” strategy? Will he ensure that higher education is a priority area? Will the Government consider UJS’s proposal for formalised taskforces to better co-ordinate action by the police, universities and Government to combat criminality and extremist activity on our campuses? That includes the provision of clear public order guidance for universities and the police, to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing powers. Finally, will the Government consider the proposals developed by the Antisemitism Policy Trust to tackle the threat posed by social media? That includes developing a dedicated strategy to address the role of algorithms, gaming platforms, encrypted online networks and generative AI systems in facilitating the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories, extremist narratives and online-to-offline radicalisation. I want to acknowledge the work of Jewish societies, student unions and university administrators. Some of them are doing tremendous work right now to deal with this problem. I will give three quick examples. King’s College London adopted UJS’s antisemitism awareness training, working with it to adapt that important resource for many of its staff. Keele University’s campus security team responded to the appalling attacks on the Jewish community in north London by inviting Jewish students to speak about their concerns and what they can do to address them. In communications with all students, City St George’s student union in London encouraged them not to engage with City Action for Palestine, which has repeatedly shared content supportive of terrorism and proscribed organisations. I will end today with where it all began for me. This year, I had the privilege of attending one of Leeds University JSoc’s Friday night dinners, one of the first I had attended in 18 years. The invitation described it as a small gathering, but I was delighted to find that it was a rather less intimate event than that. There were over 150 students there, and there had been 300 the week before; I think the lower attendance in the week I came was not because of me, but because it was half-term. It was a pleasure to be there and to speak to as many students as possible. Around the tables, some students were discussing their studies. Many spent the evening gossiping and making new friends—everything that student life should be about for everyone. Our Jewish fellow citizens are not asking very much from us: simply the right for their children and grandchildren to expect and enjoy the same experiences at university, with all its new opportunities, discoveries and challenges, that so many of us cherished and enjoyed.

   Hansard source
3. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

   Antisemitism: University Campuses

   Can the Minister give us a more specific timeline than “very soon”?

   Hansard source
4. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

   Antisemitism: University Campuses

   It has been an excellent debate, and I value everybody’s contributions today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who talked about his experience compared with that of Jewish people, how wildly different it was and how insane it is that we tolerate that in this day and age. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for talking about the experiences of Warwick students, both good and bad. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) gave an excellent history lesson and spoke about the fact that this has happened before—and before Israel even existed. Antisemitism flares up on campuses regardless of the circumstances, and we must deal with that. I could not find a fault in the first half of the speech made by hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). He invited me to work with him to deal with this problem, and I gladly accept. I would gently say—I did not intervene at the time, because I wanted other Members to get in—that there is clearly a problem on campuses, and we have to intervene now, if 20% of all students say that they do not want to live with Jewish students. I would also say, on the issue of universities clamping down on free speech too much, that there is clearly still a problem if Jewish students have to live in fear on campuses today. It is worth having a discussion about that after the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke brilliantly about experiences of Jewish students from across the country. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) was excellent in her summation; I have to say that she, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the Minister almost spoke with one voice, giving a new, positive meaning to the word “uniparty”. I will end by saying a huge thank you to UJS, which has provided a lot of the statistics and evidence that we have used in our speeches today. I commend its members for their work, and I know that it will continue. I want them, and everybody outside this place, to know that they will always have a friend in us. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses.

   Hansard source
5. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

   Defence Investment Plan

   I welcome the defence investment plan and the additional investment announced today. Too many defence SMEs locally tell me how difficult it is to navigate the defence procurement system and to win contracts. Will the Secretary of State set out how they will be able to benefit from this investment and how we will then be able to benefit from their skills and expertise?

   Hansard source
6. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Akehurst

   Defence Investment Plan

   I am particularly concerned about missile and drone threats to the UK, so I welcome the £790 million in the DIP for additional air and missile defence capabilities. Could the Secretary of State give a little more detail about what additional capabilities will be added to our existing layered air defences?

   Hansard source
7. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Leigh Ingham

   Topical Questions

   I welcome the Government’s £500 million of investment in victims’ services, which is a serious investment after years of neglect. In my constituency, Staffordshire Women’s Aid has been supporting survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence for 50 years. For every £1 spent on victims’ support services, £10.80 is returned to the public purse. What steps are being taken to ensure that brilliant local organisations, such as Staffordshire Women’s Aid, can access this funding, so that no area falls into the gaps?

   Hansard source
8. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

   Topical Questions

   T2.   This month I was delighted to award my community champion award to Afzaal Hussain. After his best friend was stabbed and died in 2021, he set up In This Together Bucks, which has now removed more than 1,500 knives from the streets while also addressing underlying causes of knife crime through mentoring, mediation and support for families. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Afzaal on his work, and does he agree that organisations such as his in our communities are vital to the tackling of knife crime?

   Hansard source
9. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kevin Bonavia

   Defence Investment Plan

   The Prime Minister and many others have said that this country needs to be ready for an attack on NATO by Russia by 2030, so every step this country takes is critical, and I welcome today’s plan. We must mobilise everything we can, including our industry, so will the Secretary of State or a Minister in the Defence team meet me to see how the defence industry in Stevenage—including MBDA, Airbus and our SMEs—can benefit from the new defence export facility?

   Hansard source
10. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

    Knife Crime: Custodial Sentences

    Mr Speaker, I know that you are a great supporter of the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation. Next Thursday, it will be bringing MPs to Empire Fighting Chance, a boxing gym in my constituency that has been involved in the Government and Idris Elba-led anti-knife crime coalition. Does the Minister agree that listening to youth perspectives is crucial in the battle to reduce knife crime and that we should be commending the young people at Empire Fighting Chance for their involvement in what is often a deeply personal issue for them? They have lost friends and family to knife crime, but they want to be part of the efforts to address it.

    Hansard source
11. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 1 June 2026. I will begin by setting out the background. The instrument concerns machinery, which includes a wide range of workplace and consumer products such as cranes, excavators, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. The current framework for machinery safety is, like many other product regulations, based on EU rules that were assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union. The current EU directive and our UK regulations were first introduced in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Members will appreciate that machinery has adapted and advanced significantly in that time. As such, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accounts for potential risks from new and emerging technologies, as well as changes in supply chains and how they operate. I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. It has two functions: first, it ensures that updated EU machinery legislation can be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the Windsor framework; and secondly, it amends domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain. The SI will introduce mechanisms to allow the EU’s new machinery regulation to be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. The EU has updated its machinery rules through a new regulation that will apply from 20 January 2027, when it will replace the existing directive. The SI will give full effect to the machinery regulation in Northern Ireland by establishing a robust enforcement framework. It designates enforcement bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and district councils, and makes it an offence to fail to comply with obligations under the regulation. The instrument also provides for appropriate penalties, including fines and custodial sentences. This ensures that effective enforcement action can be taken where products are non-compliant. I reassure Members that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the measures will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system. In the vast majority of cases, compliance should be achieved through engagement and support for businesses rather than recourse to criminal sanctions. However, it is essential that penalties are available in serious cases of non-compliance. The instrument also provides for the continued role of UK-notified bodies in certifying machinery for the Northern Ireland market using the UKNI marking, a conformity marking that must be displayed alongside the CE marking when used for goods placed on the Northern Ireland market. In Great Britain, the instrument continues CE recognition, allowing businesses to place on the GB market goods that meet certain updated EU requirements, avoiding costly duplicate conformity processes. It achieves that by amending legislation to ensure that machinery that meets the relevant requirements of the EU machinery regulation can still be placed on the GB market. The instrument also includes provisions relating to Northern Ireland qualifying goods, ensuring that products in free circulation in Northern Ireland continue to benefit from unfettered access to the GB market. The EU’s machinery regulation aims to respond to new technological developments by introducing updated provisions that include clarified responsibilities across the supply chain, including clear importer and distributor obligations; provisions for digital documentation to reduce environmental impacts; and mandatory third-party assessments for certain high-risk products. The Government’s position is that those changes are beneficial, sensible and proportionate, and reflect how the machinery industry has developed since the previous regulations were introduced. As such, the Government will introduce a second SI in due course that will update legislation in Great Britain in line with requirements in Northern Ireland. The approach we are taking will support economic growth by eliminating costly duplicative processes, reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses, and helping to maintain the UK’s competitiveness with other markets. It will also support commitments in our trade strategy to reset the UK’s relationship and facilitate easier trade with the EU. It will protect the UK internal market and the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while also improving trade with the EU and other partners. My officials have carried out extensive stakeholder engagement regarding the future of machinery legislation in the UK. We ran a call for evidence last year and gathered verbal feedback through a series of roundtable events held across 10 locations and attended by more than 200 stakeholders. My officials engaged with businesses and trade associations across the UK and in key global markets. Stakeholders were supportive of modernising machinery safety requirements and continuing CE recognition, to reduce costs, support trade and maintain competitiveness. We received several responses from businesses in Northern Ireland and held two roundtable events in Belfast. There was broad support among stakeholders for the measures being introduced, including those to modernise and strengthen safety requirements. Many Northern Ireland stakeholders also expressed support for continued CE recognition in Great Britain. They told us this would ensure a clear and consistent approach to machinery regulation across the whole of the UK internal market. As the Committee is aware, we have already announced our approach in respect of introducing measures similar to those in place in the EU and Northern Ireland. Officials have also proactively engaged with the devolved Governments and enforcement authorities throughout the policy development and legislative process to discuss the upcoming changes and ensure they work for all parts of the UK. No significant issues have been raised with my officials, and we continue to engage regularly with stakeholders. It is clear from our engagement that this legislation is in the best interests of both industry and consumers across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. The Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that industry is well supported in complying with the new requirements. The approach we are taking reflects the feedback we have received from stakeholders and is designed to work in the best interests of business as well as consumers. The changes have been widely viewed as a pragmatic solution to support competitiveness, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and sectors with more limited resources. As machinery is a global sector, many businesses that manufacture and supply machinery have already begun preparing to meet the updated requirements to continue trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. Through our engagement with industry, officials have not identified significant adverse impacts arising from the instrument. The Government remain fully committed to supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. In the most recent Budget, we announced a £16.6 million UK internal market package to help businesses to adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape. We will also provide clear and timely guidance to give businesses the support they need to comply with the requirements with confidence and certainty. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

    Hansard source
12. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and their contributions to the debate. They raised a significant number of issues that I will pick up on in my response. First, on our product regulation legislation, since getting into Government we have legislated for the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will take our own approach and some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU. However, we have done that, and will continue to do that, on a case-by-case basis, where it is absolutely in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers and in our national interests. The arrangements under the Windsor framework are a settled and important part of UK law, agreed by Parliament to protect the UK internal market. We have made the sovereign decision that is right for the whole of the UK to improve safety and modernise in particular machinery legislation, which we are discussing today, to reduce duplicative and costly burdens on businesses and ensure that there is no friction with the UK internal market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our approach is supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders. This SI does not implement EU law in Great Britain; it does, however, continue CE recognition in Great Britain so that products that meet the new EU requirements can be placed on the GB market. That is not a new concept, but the continuation of current Government policy and the policy of prior Governments. The UK and the EU are strategic partners, and it is in our mutual interest to maintain trade flows and avoid trade friction, while responding to emerging technologies and maintaining a commitment to product safety and consumer protection. Mutual transparency and regular discussions are an indispensable part of that. Informed by our engagement with industry, the Government have reviewed the changes introduced by the machinery regulation, and we believe that they are sensible and proportionate and will ensure that safer products are available to consumers and businesses alike. That is why we are continuing CE recognition and seeking to introduce similar measures in GB. As I have said before, we are prepared to align with EU regulation, but we will take a pragmatic, case-by-case approach, doing it where it clearly advances the national interests, supports long-term growth, promotes consumer interests, attracts investment and supports jobs. Where that is not the case, we will take a different approach to deliver the best outcomes for businesses and consumers in the UK. At the centre of any long-term plans for the alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will maintain the integrity of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s rightful place within it. My officials engage with the Northern Ireland Government and enforcement authorities on a regular basis to discuss any issues or concerns they might have, and that close relationship will remain ongoing. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire mentioned Northern Ireland businesses and dual labelling, and I thank him for raising that. The answer is no: they can continue to CE mark only, and UKNI marking is optional if the conformity assessment is in the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, and a number of Members on the Opposition Benches, mentioned the impact assessment for this SI. As she knows, a de minimis assessment has been prepared for the provisions of this instrument relating to continuing CE recognition in Great Britain. These measures are considered to have a low impact per business from their introduction, and that is additionally the case for the Northern Ireland aspects of this instrument. The measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of the assessment. The Windsor framework is already given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement Act) 2020, which adds provisions and powers to the 2018 Act.

    Hansard source
13. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security. Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources—that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital. The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved. We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one-stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co-design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs. I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day-to-day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively. However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co-ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question. When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure. To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us. As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

    Hansard source
14. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The clause updates the National Health Service Act 2006 to abolish the requirement for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts to prepare and publish a joint forward plan and a joint capital resource use plan. The 10-year health plan aims to simplify local healthcare planning, and the Bill delivers that objective by removing legal requirements for integrated care partnerships, integrated care strategies, joint forward plans and joint capital resource use plans. Planning will now begin with the joint strategic needs assessment, developed by health and wellbeing boards. The assessment will inform a new neighbourhood health plan, replacing the joint local health and wellbeing strategy. ICBs will produce population health improvement plans, aligning multiple joint strategic needs assessments, neighbourhood health plans and local priorities across their wider populations. As a result, the planning process will be streamlined and less bureaucratic, and will deliver healthcare for local people based on local planning and strategy. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
15. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I largely agree about legislative plumbing—that is a nice phrase. As she rightly highlights, and as is clear in the explanatory notes and so on, the duplication and administrative burden on all these bodies is considerable. On her question about objectives, we certainly want to streamline that so that ultimately, as well as organisations knowing the objectives they are pursuing, the local population—importantly to her concluding point—can readily see and address that, follow it through and hold people to account. I do think that 150-page documents are not always the easiest to see. Young people will obviously be part of the joint strategic needs assessment, and ICBs will be mindful of the Government’s wider policy objectives, as we have discussed previously. With regard to maintenance and prioritisation of capital schemes, since coming into office we have already done a huge amount of work to streamline the relationship between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care—and, indeed, our friends over at His Majesty’s Treasury—in respect of the approvals process, making better use of capital and making that more transparent at local level so that individual organisations are involved in the prioritisation that comes forward to the ICBs. Question put and agreed to. Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Abolition of integrated care partnerships and strategies Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
16. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The clause abolishes the requirement for ICBs and their partner local authorities to form an integrated care partnership. It also abolishes the related requirement for that partnership to prepare and publish an integrated care strategy. These abolitions address the policy objectives of the 10-year health plan by streamlining the number of plans that must be created by local health systems and supporting key local stakeholders to work together more flexibly and effectively. The changes recognise that in many areas, integrated care partnerships have not had a positive impact on local health outcomes and have come with significant opportunity costs. Alternative planning approaches proposed elsewhere in the Bill and more broadly will enable local health bodies to plan for their patients in a way that is tailored to their strengths. However, I can reassure the Committee that where existing arrangements are working well, nothing in the Bill will prevent local areas from coming together to consider how best to integrate services and plan their approach to tackling the challenges they face. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
17. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    There has been a wide-ranging discussion on this clause. I remind Members that the abolition of ICPs is about reducing that complex legal framework, allowing for local decisions and putting partnership work in place in the most effective way. That is what the measure seeks to do. I do not think anyone has disagreed with the notion that the landscape is complex, and that people are producing a lot of reports. In future, health and wellbeing boards will be the focal point for the collaboration between ICBs and local authorities. They are statutory committees that bring together the NHS, local government and relevant community partners; set the strategic direction for health and care services; and oversee joint working in their area, which we are of course committed to making work in local areas. I do not think many people will disagree with that; I hope that is clear. There is also an enhanced role, not only for the health and wellbeing boards—as I said last week, I think they have been underutilised in most areas; again, I do not think people generally disagree with that point—but for health scrutiny. Again, across the country, that has not been pursued to the greatest extent to create links with elected councillors in local areas. We are clear that the role of local authorities is crucial at a local level—as the name describes—and particularly in working on our commitment for neighbourhood partnerships and developing the neighbourhood plan; most of that was covered in our sittings last week. I accept that there are a number of concerns about how that will work in different geographies. I think the Opposition said last week that a survey suggested a quarter of areas will keep those partnerships, which is absolutely fine. That is up to them. On the one hand, the Opposition say that there is centralisation and a power grab in this Bill; on the other, they complain—I should not say complain, because it is their right and their job to do so—about the move to devolution and the freedom to allow, or indeed encourage, local leaders to work together across authorities on behalf of the populations they serve, even where some of them are politically divided, because the populations they serve voted for different people. It is incumbent on all of us as individual elected politicians to work with people—whoever the population around us voted for. These provisions provide for that.

    Hansard source
18. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    We all have examples of decisions that are made in our constituencies that we do not like. Again, that is part of the democratic process, but I go back to my earlier point: either there is a centralised unaccountable body like NHS England making decisions, or the Secretary of State devolves those responsibilities. It is incumbent on people and elected leaders locally, and the ICB, which is not elected, to work with local leaders on these decisions. ICBs will be held accountable through mechanisms in the Department of Health and Social Care. There will be decisions that people do not like—that is a consequence of some of these things—but the clause simplifies the landscape.

    Hansard source
19. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will not; we need to move on from this point. Of course, if people want to keep the partnerships, they are totally able to do so. That will be up to local leaders to decide. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
20. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Clause 24 abolishes the requirement for health and wellbeing boards to prepare and publish a joint local health and wellbeing strategy. Instead ICBs, local authorities and their partners must work together through the health and wellbeing board to develop a neighbourhood health plan, in line with this Government’s commitment in the 10-year health plan. The neighbourhood health plan should be updated regularly to reflect the needs of the local population, unless all partners consider the existing plan is sufficient. In developing their neighbourhood health plans, responsible local authorities and partner ICBs must involve the people who live or work in the area of the responsible local authority. The neighbourhood health plan will cover most of the topics previously considered by joint local health and wellbeing strategies, but will also encourage a deep focus on tackling the challenges facing individual neighbourhoods. That may mean applying different geographical focuses to different elements of the plan, to ensure that planners are addressing the real and different needs of the diverse communities they serve. These plans will outline how the NHS, local government and local partners intend to improve the health of people in their locality and reduce health inequalities through a joined-up neighbourhood health approach. The plans will consider how local services can help realise national NHS priorities, further public service reforms, and improve performance against the adult social care outcomes framework and the local outcomes framework metrics. To support this work, the Government also intend to provide local areas with guidance and we will work with systems to ensure this addresses the needs of local planners and local communities.

    Hansard source
21. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I thank hon. Members for their comments. I accept those made by the hon. Members for Winchester and for North Shropshire. I offer the Liberal Democrats the assurance that the Government fully appreciate the important role that primary care plays in informing ICB decisions, which is why we have retained the requirement that ICBs engage with their system partners, including primary care services, in the exercise of their planning and commissioning activities. It is universally recognised that full engagement with providers, including primary care, is fundamental to good commissioning, and this is reflected in the strategic commissioning framework. The neighbourhood health framework sets out how neighbourhood health plans should be developed through health and wellbeing boards and with the involvement of system partners. We expect primary care to be fully involved in the process. In addition, ICBs will continue to engage local representative primary care committees, such as the local medical committees. ICBs must comply with their duty to obtain appropriate advice from persons who have broad professional expertise in prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness and the protection or improvement of public health. Primary care practitioners will remain key sources of such advice. Although I agree that experience of general practice is fundamental—as a commissioner, I worked very closely with general practitioners, who deal with 90% of patient contacts—I do not believe that placing an additional requirement on ICBs to engage specifically with primary care providers is necessary. I will take this opportunity to clarify matters. We are moving between the roles of ICBs and local authority health and wellbeing boards. I know this is a subject of great interest and will continue to be debated in relation to those bodies’ commissioning and providing functions. The planning structure will be improved under clause 24, reflecting our commitment to neighbourhood health and making it a reality. Planning begins with a joint strategic needs assessment developed by health and wellbeing boards; that assessment informs the new neighbourhood health plan, replacing the joint local health and wellbeing strategy. Meanwhile, ICBs will produce population health improvement plans, aligning multiple joint strategic needs assessments, neighbourhood health plans and local priorities. Patient and local voices must, of course, be embedded in ICB decision making and in the planning process. ICBs are being supported to do that. The strategic commissioning framework published on 4 November 2025 clearly set out that user involvement is key to strategic commissioning. Having proper plans that address the needs of neighbourhoods will help the NHS to deliver for every community in our country. That is where the patient focus is and where people experience healthcare the most, and it is why we have made these commitments in neighbourhood health plans. I commend clause 24 to the Committee as the means to make that a reality. Question put and agreed to. Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 NHS trust accounts Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
22. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Clause 25 makes focused but important changes to the accounting and audit arrangements for NHS trusts by amending schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006. It does not put additional burdens on NHS trusts; instead, the aim of the clause is to align the requirements for trusts with the updated accounting arrangements for foundation trusts made elsewhere in the Bill. The changes are needed as a consequence of the abolition of NHS England and the removal of the requirement for foundation trusts to have councils of governors and members. The amendments the clause makes replicate trusts’ existing duties to keep proper accounts and records about those accounts, and to prepare annual accounts for each financial year. The clause also replicates the Secretary of State’s current power to direct an NHS trust regarding the form of its annual accounts, but extends that power of direction so the Secretary of State may also direct a trust to prepare accounts for a specified period—for example, when part-period accounts are needed. That will help to ensure a consistent approach to financial reporting while retaining the flexibility to keep requirements up to date. The clause also sets out and strengthens how the audit arrangements for NHS trusts should operate, mirroring the approach for foundation trusts and integrated care boards. It provides that NHS trust annual accounts are audited under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, as is the case currently, but it also provides that part-period accounts may be audited in accordance with that Act where the Secretary of State so directs. The clause also enables the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the accounts and related auditor reports, as is currently the case. To reflect the fact that the Secretary of State will have oversight of providers once NHS England is abolished, it requires the accounts and audit reports to be sent to the Secretary of State. Taken together, these measures support transparency, consistency and robust financial assurance. They will help to reduce unnecessary divergence in accounting requirements across different types of NHS provider, while maintaining clear oversight of public funds. That is consistent with the Bill’s broader intent to support effective governance and clear accountability for providers. Clause 26 makes minor technical amendments to ensure that the statute book remains clear and coherent as the Bill aligns the approach to audit and accounts across NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It sits alongside the provisions in the Bill that update the arrangements for the audit of foundation trusts following the abolition of NHS England and the removal of the requirement for NHS foundation trusts to have councils of governors and members. The clause does that by amending or removing outdated transitory provisions relating to the audit of NHS trust accounts in two places: the NHS Act 2006 and the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Clause 26 therefore supports the effective implementation of the wider measures in this part of the Bill by ensuring that the legislation is up to date, accurate and internally consistent. I commend clauses 25 and 26 to the Committee.

    Hansard source
23. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    If there are specific examples that are helpful, I will write to the hon. Lady—I am not entirely sure I got the point about charities, but we will pick that up in Hansard. As I outlined in my opening remarks, these clauses are about standardising the key requirements across the NHS provider landscape in relation to annual and other accounts and records in relation to those, and audit and reporting requirements, including keeping those up to date and having a consistent approach across all NHS provider types. Of course, we worked closely with NHS England colleagues and directors of finance in seeking to bring forward those provisions. Question put and agreed to. Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Special Health Authorities: establishment and exercise of functions

    Hansard source
24. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Clauses 27 and 28 make amendments to the legal framework around special health authorities to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to best manage the reliable delivery of healthcare for patients and the public. As the Committee knows, special health authorities are independent bodies established by the Secretary of State, by order, to perform specific functions. They play a key national role in the health system, carrying out specific functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Clause 27 does two key things to the special health authority legal framework. First, it amends section 28 of the NHS Act 2006 to increase the scope of functions that a special health authority could be established to deliver. Currently, the Secretary of State can create a special health authority only for the purpose of exercising functions under the 2006 Act. The clause allows a special health authority to be established to exercise functions under any other Act as well. Secondly, the clause amends section 29 of the 2006 Act, which currently enables regulations to provide for the functions of a special health authority to be carried out flexibly, by another special health authority or jointly with one or more other special health authorities. That applies only to functions that the Secretary of State has directed the special health authority to exercise under section 7 of the 2006 Act. The clause removes that limitation, so that those arrangements can be made for any functions of the special health authority, not just those that it is directed to carry out under section 7. These changes are needed because the health and care system is underpinned by a range of statutory functions that do not sit exclusively within the 2006 Act. The Secretary of State needs to be able to establish special health authorities to carry out those wider functions, and to give those functions to existing special health authorities. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State has the modern, adaptable tools required to place specialist functions in the right national body, with the appropriate governance and accountability. Equally, special health authorities need to be able to work with other special health authorities across all their functions in a way that best serves the needs of the wider health and care system. On occasion, it is necessary for Ministers to merge, alter or abolish special health authorities, either because of changing circumstances or to ensure the smooth and effective running of the system. Clause 28 provides the flexibility to transfer and redeploy staff. It allows regulations to be made to enable staff to be transferred to an integrated care board or another special health authority. These changes ensure that staff can be transferred where they may be needed most, allowing for flexibility to direct resources in the health system. The clause also allows for arrangements to be made for a special health authority’s staff to be made available to another special health authority, a local authority, the Secretary of State or an integrated care board. That may be necessary during an emergency or to provide specialist support to help an organisation achieve a particular outcome. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to give directions to a special health authority to make staff available to another special health authority or integrated care board or the Secretary of State. Clause 28 also amends the existing power to make regulations about the sharing of information with other bodies, to allow information to be shared with integrated care boards in addition to the Secretary of State and other special health authorities. That allows for information to be shared across the system so that national and local functions can be successfully fulfilled and supports a more joined-up health system. Clauses 27 and 28 provide for future-facing updates that will support effective administration and ensure the more reliable delivery of healthcare for patients and the public. I commend them to the Committee.

    Hansard source
25. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    To be clear, in response to the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, it is not currently our intention to set up any new special authorities to deliver any specific functions. We are taking this opportunity to update the legislative framework and ensure that in future the functions that a special health authority could carry out are less limited. The current legislative framework limits the remit of such authorities to their functions under the NHS Act 2006, which is outdated and does not reflect changes since that time. There are functions of the Secretary of State under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that we may want special authorities to carry out in future. I agree with the Opposition spokesperson that the situation is complex. We have had a lot of changes over many years, as both she and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said. I agree that we need flexibility for future provision, and that is what the clauses provide. We have no immediate intention to delegate specific functions of the Secretary of State. However, following the abolition of NHS England, a range of functions may need to be established, as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined. Those functions could, as an example, include the data and information functions in part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which currently sit with the Secretary of State. I assure the Committee that the clauses do not change the existing processes or scrutiny that exist around setting up a special health authority. They are, as I think the Opposition spokesperson said, about future-proofing. I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29 Constitution of NHS foundation trusts

    Hansard source
26. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Amendment 19 reinstates in primary legislation the requirement in schedule 7 to the National Health Service Act 2006 for an NHS foundation trust board to include one executive director who is a medical or dental practitioner, and another who is a registered nurse or midwife. I want to be clear to the Committee from the outset that there was never any intention to change the policy on the clinical membership of NHS foundation trust boards. Foundation trusts would still have been expected to have appropriate clinical leadership on their boards, but we had heard from ambulance foundation trusts that the current framing of the requirement for clinicians is not always helpful, and greater flexibility was therefore required. However, we also heard from important stakeholders, including the Royal College of Nursing, that removing the requirement from primary legislation has been perceived as deprioritising clinicians, which is absolutely not the case. We have therefore tabled amendment 19 to remove any doubt. These roles provide valuable clinical oversight of board governance in decision making in foundation trusts, and are essential to ensuring the safety and quality of patient-facing services in the NHS. At the same time, some providers may need different clinical expertise at board level. For example, in ambulance trusts, an experienced paramedic may be better placed to provide the relevant clinical guidance and oversight. The amendment therefore gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to create exceptions to the requirement following engagement with relevant stakeholders. That preserves the current position in primary legislation while allowing for targeted flexibility for ambulance or patient transport-focused foundation trusts where appropriate. I commend amendment 19 to the Committee. Clause 29 introduces schedule 3, which makes changes to the governance and constitution of NHS foundation trusts. It removes the various statutory roles of foundation trust members and councils of governors, and repeals the requirement for FTs to have them. Amendment 73 to 75 look to oppose that, but I do not think that we are discussing those.

    Hansard source
27. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Thank you for the clarification, Sir Jeremy. I will come to amendment 75 at the end of the debate. The Bill’s removal of councils of governors from NHS foundation trusts is part of delivering the 10-year health plan goal of hospitals putting patient experiences and outcomes at the heart of their decision making. That is not because we want to rid the system of local voices in democratic accountability—far from it. Although governors have provided helpful advice and oversight for some foundation trusts, we expect the next generation of NHS foundation trusts to put in place more responsive and flexible arrangements for drawing on patient, staff and stakeholder insight. Rather than a one-size-fits-all model, providers should develop engagement arrangements that reflect their local populations, geographies and healthcare needs. Foundation trusts will have the option to retain aspects of their engagement model where it is working well, but can take a different approach if needed. Following Royal Assent, foundation trusts will be expected to have those arrangements in place and will be assessed as part of the non-statutory advanced foundation trust process. Schedule 3 makes related changes to governance and decision making, in line with the Government’s policy to streamline oversight of providers and reduce duplication in the system. For example, the legal powers to appoint chairs and non-executive directors of foundation trusts and NHS trusts will, in future, both sit with the Secretary of State while supporting the effective use of talent across the NHS. Other functions of the council of governors, such as reviewing plans and major transactions, currently duplicate existing NHS England responsibilities, which will transfer to the Secretary of State through this Bill. Removing those requirements will therefore reduce duplication in the system. Schedule 3 will also give the Secretary of State responsibility for approving changes to foundation trust constitutions and material changes to private patient income, and deciding chair and non-executive remuneration. The Secretary of State will take on the oversight role currently exercised by NHS England, and previously Monitor, including monitoring foundation trust performance, use of resources and governance. That will support system alignment and ensure that appropriate accountability arrangements are in place. Can I seek clarification, Sir Jeremy, that I can speak to clause 30 at this point?

    Hansard source
28. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 30 clarifies how NHS foundation trust status will be applied for and granted following the abolition of NHS England and the removal of the council of governors model. The Government are committed to reinvigorating the foundation trust sector by granting high-performing providers greater freedoms and autonomy. The power to authorise foundation trusts originally sat with Monitor and passed to NHS England in 2022. The clause, alongside schedules 3 and 11, sets out how that power will operate when it transfers to the Secretary of State. It also makes consequential amendments to the authorisation process, including removing requirements linked to recruiting members and electing governors. The Secretary of State will also set the criteria for becoming a foundation trust. I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee.

    Hansard source
29. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I think I am almost going to agree with the hon. Gentleman on his final point. It is important that local people have confidence in how their local systems are run and managed and, clearly, in the outcomes. I will come first to the issue of governors and boards and then move to the amendments. I think we have all had emails, as is quite right, from local board members. Let me say, as I did earlier, that that is with good intent; they are very good people, who have given public service to be part of their local health system. As I said, this provision is no judgment on them; it is, as we heard, about effectively making the really important patient voice and patient experience central to the functions of the organisations delivering our healthcare. As I said in previous sittings, a debate will continue to be had about where we most effectively have that, but our intention throughout the 10-year health plan and this Bill is about devolution to providers and to ICBs and about making boards, as I also said in a previous sitting, responsible and accountable for the outcomes. Let me outline broadly, because I think this is of interest to people, the impact on governance and the role that governors had. Just to be clear, since the creation of foundation trusts in 2004, NHS England—and, before it, NHS Improvement and Monitor—has had a statutory role to oversee the governance of NHS foundation trusts, including holding the whole board to account and taking steps where it identifies weaknesses in how foundation trusts are being run. The regulatory function is underpinned by the NHS provider licence, which will continue when NHS England’s functions pass to the Secretary of State. That is why we do not consider that the removal of the council of governors will have a negative impact on the governance of FTs, as some hon. Members have suggested.

    Hansard source
30. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will move on, if I may. I think my response will the cover the issues raised in the debate. On amendment 36 and new clause 59, I note the concern that the Secretary of State could act inappropriately when making appointments to the boards of ICBs and NHS trusts and foundation trusts. We discussed democratic accountability in a previous sitting, and at the end of the day it is up to the British public whom they elect to Parliament and as the governing party. Transparency and democratic accountability are at the heart of our reforms. It would not be right for the civil service to be given sole legislative responsibility for appointments to NHS trusts, foundation trusts or integrated care boards. Ministers are democratically accountable to Parliament, and civil servants act on their behalf under the Carltona principle. Civil servants serve and advise the Government, and act on behalf of Ministers, but it is for Ministers to take decisions and to be held accountable to Parliament for the performance of the NHS. The civil service will run fair, open and equitable campaigns to fulfil these roles and will recommend appropriate candidates to Ministers. Ministers are under a duty to comply with public law principles and to act reasonably, and will adhere to the Nolan principles, including objectivity, transparency and integrity, in discharging this function. The practical arrangements for appointments are being developed as part of the transition planning for the integration of NHS England’s functions into the Department, and will be based on these principles. It would therefore be inappropriate to exclude Ministers entirely from the appointments process. I urge hon. Members not to push the amendments to a vote.

    Hansard source
31. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will address clauses 31 to 34 and schedule 4 together. Clause 31 ensures that NHS foundation trusts are subject to the same robust, transparent audit regimes as other NHS bodies. Together with schedule 4, clause 31 makes provision about the audit of NHS foundation trust accounts, which is needed as a consequence of the abolition of NHS England and the removal of the requirement for NHS foundation trusts to have councils of governors and members. Schedule 4 does that by removing the current bespoke provisions related to the auditing arrangements for the accounts of foundation trusts and amends the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 so that foundation trusts are subject to the auditing regime under that Act. This means that foundation trusts will in future be subject to the same auditing requirements as trusts and integrated care boards, ensuring a clear, consistent and transparent framework for local audit across NHS provider organisations. Taken together, these measures strengthen consistency in financial reporting and audit assurance across the NHS provider sector, while preserving the independence of the local audit process. Clause 32 repeals provisions of the NHS Act 2006, requiring NHS England to maintain a register of NHS foundation trusts and a power to charge fees related to maintaining the register. The register formed a repository of documents that related to how foundation trusts were governed and regulated. However, removing the requirements does not mean there will be no transparency. NHS foundation trusts are already required to publish the information provided on this register, and where a foundation trust is placed into special administration the administrator is required to publish its report. As a result, the additional requirement to maintain a register is unnecessary, burdensome and duplicative, providing the public with no new information. For those reasons we are removing that bureaucratic duty in the Bill. On clause 33 stand part, the Department of Health and Social Care, like all Departments of State, has a responsibility to diligently and responsibly steward taxpayer’s money in delivering services to the public. Clause 33 updates and strengthens existing legislation to make sure we have the statutory tools we need in order to effectively manage and oversee the finances of the NHS. It does that by updating sections 42B and 42C of the NHS Act 2006 so that the existing last-resort statutory capital spending limit for foundation trusts can also apply to revenue expenditure for a given year. Foundation trusts account for a substantial proportion of NHS revenue spending, at around 40%, and continue to benefit from significant operational autonomy, including the freedom to retain and reinvest surpluses. We remain committed to seeing those freedoms expanded further through our advanced foundation trust programme. However, this strengthened power ensures we have a financial framework that makes it easier to consider additional freedoms. The Department must therefore ensure it has in place robust tools to oversee the finances of the health service, to reassure taxpayers and Parliament that public money is being managed effectively and to ensure that the Department can meet its financial obligations. The power will remain subject to strong safeguards, including a mandatory consultation period with the foundation trust before any order is made, the requirement for any order made to be published, and detailed statutory guidance setting out the circumstances in which the power would be used and how limits would be determined. Crucially, this is a last-resort measure. This power would be used only in exceptional circumstances—for example, when the Secretary State thinks there is a risk of breaching a departmental delegated expenditure limit. I should note that the existing capital backstop on which it builds has never been used. The purpose here is not routine financial management, but assurance. By ensuring that foundation trust freedoms operate within a viable and sustainable framework, the clause helps protect those freedoms rather than undermine them. Finally, clause 34 makes straightforward but important provision about financial accountability when NHS organisations change legal form. It requires an NHS foundation trust that has been newly authorised, or that has recently acquired an NHS trust or another NHS foundation trust, to prepare the final accounts for its predecessor organisation. As the Committee will appreciate, organisational change, whether through authorisation to foundation trust status or through acquisition, can bring real benefits for local services, but it can also create a practical issue at financial year end. The predecessor body will have ceased to exist in its previous form and so will not be in a position to complete and sign off its final set of accounts. Clause 34 addresses that gap by making clear where responsibility sits—

    Hansard source
32. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I will start where I left off. Clause 34 addresses the gap by making it clear where responsibility sits, so that there is no doubt about who must produce the final accounts and ensure that they are completed properly, and about how those accounts should be audited. We think this is a proportionate provision to ensure continuity and clarity on how NHS money has been managed during organisational transition. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

    Hansard source
33. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I thank the shadow Minister for in general, I think, agreeing that the alignment of many of these processes is quite sensible. The shadow Minister talked in general terms about financial controls. The Government take financial controls and our responsibility for taxpayers’ money very seriously. As I said last week, from very early on, we were very keen to ensure that there is a grip on NHS finances in order to properly deliver the sort of healthcare that all our constituents deserve. We take that very seriously. There has not been that sort of grip at board level and through the system in recent years. As a result of the measures that we have taken, I think this is the first year in six or more years that the NHS has not gone back to the Department for additional funds to get through the year. The Committee can be assured that financial control is important. The shadow Minister referred to limits. Of course they are overall limits; the Secretary of State does not go line by line through what a trust spends. I understand the point that people are trying to make to conflate some situations, but of course it is an overall limit. The safeguards in these provisions are designed to protect foundation trusts’ freedoms and not constrain them, but a foundation trust can enjoy such freedoms only if it is in a well-overseen and stable NHS financial system. By including a backstop for use in exceptional circumstances, clause 33 helps to safeguard public funds and will help the Department to meet its financial obligations, which I think hon. Members understand. It is a usual process for the Department to go through, as anyone who has sat on the Public Accounts Committee will know. Adherence to the departmental expenditure limit creates and maintains the necessary environment for the foundation trust to exist. Question put and agreed to. Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clauses 32 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 35 Conversion of failing NHS foundation trust into NHS trust Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
34. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    During the process of producing our 10-year plan, we were clear that, as much as we will reward the best performing providers with new freedoms to innovate, we will not hesitate to act on poor performance, and this group of measures deal with just that: action in the event of a failing provider. Clause 35 and schedule 5 insert new provisions into the NHS Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to, by order, convert a failing foundation trust to an NHS trust. This is intended to take place only in the most critical circumstances, and where it is in the public’s best interest for the Secretary of State to be able to direct the trust about how it should exercise its functions, to address safety or other issues at the trust. Foundation trust status should be a mark of good performance, and there must be a mechanism to remove it when performance is seriously deficient. This deauthorisation power will help to maintain the integrity of the reinvigorated foundation trust status and provide an additional incentive for challenged foundation trusts to improve. The power to make a conversion order can be used where the foundation trust has failed to comply with a condition of its provider licence or with another legislative requirement. In deciding whether to make a conversion order, the Secretary of State must consider various factors, including the seriousness of the failure, the health and safety of patients, the quality of the provision by the trust of goods and services, the financial position of the trust, and the way the trust is being run. The conversion power is also subject to two additional requirements. First, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about the matters they will consider in deciding whether to exercise the conversion power, including the factors I just outlined. They must consult on any such guidance before its publication. Secondly, where the Secretary of State proposes to use the power, they must first consult the foundation trust in question, any integrated care boards in the areas in which the trust operates, and any other person to whom the trust provides goods and services, and whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult. Clause 35, together with schedule 5, also inserts new schedule 9A into the NHS Act 2006, which sets out the immediate consequences of a conversion order. Deauthorising a foundation trust has no impact on the property it holds, the contracts it has with commissioners and other groups, or the terms of employment of employees. These powers set clear organisational consequences for significant underperformance and allow the Secretary of State the freedom to take action to protect patients in extreme circumstances. Clause 36 contains another critical power to allow action in the case of a failing foundation trust. It allows the Secretary of State to add conditions to an NHS foundation trust’s provider licence where they consider that the trust will breach its licence conditions due to issues with its governance. The clause is a consequence of abolishing NHS England and makes changes to the powers currently held by NHS England under section 111 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to confer them on the Secretary of State, with additional consequential changes reflecting the abolition of councils of governors. The clause sets clear expectations for a foundation trust through the licence conditions and provides the Secretary of State with a transparent mechanism to take more urgent, targeted enforcement action to address failures of governance. Should the foundation trust breach any conditions imposed via section 111, the Secretary of State may require it to make changes to the executive directors of its board as necessary, including removing or suspending executive directors, replacing executive directors with interims, and preventing the trust from appointing specific individuals. If the foundation trust fails to take those actions, the Secretary of State may implement the changes. To reassure the Committee, there are clear safeguards underpinning the clause, which can be used only where there is evidence that failures of governance in the foundation trust will cause it to breach the conditions of its licence. Further, acting under section 111 does not preclude the Secretary of State from using their other regulatory powers, including to require the foundation trust to take steps to address a breach of any condition of the licence, or to accept undertakings from the trust to address the breach. Finally, the section 111 power was originally granted to Monitor in 2012 under transitional arrangements, as it was anticipated that the power could be withdrawn once governors had transitioned into their roles and could hold boards to account without outside intervention. Over 13 years on, that has proven not to be the case. With the abolition of the foundation trust councils of governors, it makes sense to repeal the provisions under sections 112 to 114 of the same Act that made it transitional. Clause 37 makes changes to the special administration framework to ensure that it continues to function coherently after the abolition of NHS England. The clause makes focused, technical amendments to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to amend the framework for establishing a mechanism for financial assistance in cases where a provider is subject to a health special administration order under chapter 5 of that Act. It also amends the Act to remove the duty to establish a mechanism for financial assistance to foundation trusts to which a trust special administrator has been appointed. The duty no longer needs to apply to foundation trusts, because the Secretary of State already has the power under provisions in the NHS Act 2006 to provide financial assistance to NHS foundation trusts if needed. With the abolition of NHS England, the duty to establish a mechanism for financial assistance for independent providers will be retained and conferred on the Secretary of State. It is worth noting that the provisions related to financial assistance in special administration cases, and chapter 5 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which sets out the powers and processes for the making of health special administration orders, have not yet been commenced. However, the amendments made by the clause ensure that the special administration regime can operate smoothly if it is ever needed. The clause does not create new financial support mechanisms, but ensures that existing ones can be used appropriately in the reformed system. In short, clause 37 ensures that the legal framework reflects the new institutional landscape while retaining the ability to act swiftly to safeguard continuity of services during special administration. Clause 38 makes changes to the trust special administration framework to ensure that it continues to function coherently after the abolition of NHS England. This clause, together with schedule 6, make targeted changes to the trust special administration process set out in the NHS Act 2006 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts as a consequence of the abolition of NHS England. It also aligns more closely the processes between NHS trusts and foundation trusts. Trust special administration is, and will remain, a last resort mechanism used only in cases of serious failure. It is used to protect patients, stabilise services and put the organisation back on a sustainable footing. Where deemed necessary, a trust special administrator would be appointed to manage the trust and work with relevant key stakeholders to develop recommendations regarding the organisation and its services. The amendments made by schedule 6 remove functions that currently sit with NHS England and confer the key decision-making functions on the Secretary of State, who will provide clearer lines of accountability and faster decision making when rapid intervention is required. The amendments also simplify the steps involved in the TSA process, with the aim of improving the speed of intervention and providing transparency. They align more closely the processes for trusts and foundation trusts, and set out a simpler process in relation to the administrator’s draft report, consultation and final report. They also require, as is the case now, that key documents and decisions are published and laid before Parliament. That will help ensure proper and meaningful scrutiny of the TSA process and outcomes. It also helps ensure that affected patients, staff and local partners have the opportunity to engage during the process, while maintaining the balance with the need to deliver timely intervention and secure continuity of safe services. In addition, the amendments in schedule 6 make changes to the role of the Care Quality Commission in trust special administration. The CQC will be able to recommend that a trust special administrator should be appointed. The Secretary of State is also required to consult the CQC before making an order, ensuring that independent expertise on quality and safety informs decisions and that intelligence on service performance is co-ordinated. The provisions in the Bill ensure that the process remains fit for purpose, proportionate, and aligned across NHS trusts and foundation trusts. They support faster, more coherent decision making in the most serious cases, with the aim of protecting patients and securing sustainable, high-quality services for the future. Taken together, the clauses provide the necessary tools for the Secretary of State to take proportionate, swift and decisive action in the event of provider failure. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

    Hansard source
35. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    As people who have been listening will know, this is a chunky set of clauses on some technical details. Let me broadly pick up some of the key points. I want to be very clear about deauthorisation and our seeking to establish, essentially, a more dynamic model. As I said, the coalition Government repealed the legislation on deauthorisation in the 2012 Act. Although other regulatory levers exist to manage poor performance, we are using two core arguments. First, converting foundation trusts into NHS trusts will enable the Secretary of State, if needed, to intervene further through their power of direction over NHS trusts. The Secretary of State will therefore be able to focus on the patient and public interest over preservation of providers’ statutory freedoms in cases of serious failure. I hope that that addresses some of the points that have been raised. Secondly, having a more dynamic environment with the potential for deauthorisation in such cases, and the consequent loss of statutory autonomy, may act as an incentive for challenged foundation trusts to improve, and it would show that there are consequences. As I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows, the usual processes exist for managing performance across various aspects of the provider. They will continue. This is for exceptional circumstances. As I said, this is about maintaining a more dynamic model than the one we have. The purpose behind her questions about continuous service—the purpose of having a range of failure powers—is to ensure continuity of care for patients and the public. The analogy with general practice does not hold; this is a very different set of circumstances. But, obviously, she raises an important point about public concern relating to the service’s provision, and I assure her on that. We need to make sure that we diagnose the situation, provide the trust with support and assess which toolbox is most applicable. The CQC can recommend that a trust special administrator should be appointed where it is satisfied that there is a serious failure to provide services of a sufficient quality, and it must provide a report on the safety and quality of services following the appointment of an administrator. The Secretary of State must also consult the CQC before making an order to appoint a trust special administrator. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 agreed to. Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 39 Joint working and delegation arrangements

    Hansard source
36. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    Government new clause 20 and clause 39 both look to strengthen joint working arrangements across the health system. Clause 39 is part of the architecture of the Bill that allows the delegation of functions from the Secretary of State to NHS bodies, local authorities or other relevant organisations. The clause builds on the existing delegation powers in section 65Z5 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which already allow NHS bodies to delegate functions and pool resources with one another and with local authorities or other relevant bodies on a voluntary basis. It is a well-used voluntary power that enables systems to develop joint working and ensure that health functions are carried out by the most appropriate body or groups of bodies. The result is stronger integration, with better joint working between NHS and local government, and services better tailored to meet local needs. With the abolition of NHS England and the new functions of the Secretary of State, it is right that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to delegate their health functions appropriately and efficiently under a voluntary arrangement, as and when necessary. We would not want to exclude the Secretary of State from joint working arrangements, if joint working would bring benefits to patients and the public. The power is therefore purposefully broad to allow that, including allowing the Secretary of State to delegate to a range of public bodies, establish joint committees and pool funds. It also allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to relevant bodies about the use of their powers under sections 65Z5 and 65Z6. This proposal is not, however, a means to avoid accountability. Accountability for any function delegated through this power remains with the person delegating it whereas liability rests with the person to whom the function is delegated. Accountability, as opposed to liability, means that the body delegating a function must provide oversight for how their functions are carried out and ensure that any issues are dealt with. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will continue to be accountable to Parliament for the health service in England, including any delegated powers. I am sure that Parliament will relish holding all Ministers to account. Building on our ambition to support greater local partnership working, as set out in our 10-year plan, we have tabled Government new clause 20 to strengthen section 75 of the NHS Act 2006 by providing much greater scope for combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority to use these arrangements. Section 75 currently supports flexible voluntary partnership arrangements, including the pooling of budgets between NHS bodies and local authorities. These arrangements are a critical tool in supporting local collaboration and ensuring more joined-up working within systems. The new clause looks to strengthen the section 75 guidance-making power. At present, that power only covers consultation and applications for consent on section 75 arrangements. The Government’s new clause will extend the guidance power so that it can cover all aspects of section 75, helping us to support the wider and more effective use of partnership arrangements. For those reasons, I commend new clause 20 and clause 39 to the Committee.

    Hansard source
37. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I got a little confused at the end, but I think the Opposition generally accept the power in this clause. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon contended that this Bill and previous amendments to it will drive local authorities and the NHS further apart; just to have it on the record, I do not accept that that is true at all. Section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 and the work that we are doing on this further highlights the effect of some of the things that we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Winchester raised new clause 26. I have sympathy for the intention behind the new clause. We all want health and care services to work closer together, as I have said repeatedly, and we agree that the partnership framework under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is a useful tool for doing so. While I understand the new clause, it is not necessary. The Department can review the section 75 framework without needing legislation, and indeed it has already done so. The Department carried out a review of section 75 in 2023, as has been said. Since then, we have continued to consider how these partnership arrangements can best support health and care integration. The new clause would risk duplicating ongoing work. Furthermore, that work is not a one-off exercise but an ongoing process of learning and improvement across the country, and we want something that is responsive and flexible enough to respond to changes in health and care services and to the changing needs of people who use them. For that reason, I do not consider requiring a single statutory review to be the most effective approach. Hon. Members raised important issues about clarity of accountability and responsibility. To reiterate, the legislation is clear: the legal responsibility or liability for a function being carried out properly rests with the receiving party; however, the delegating party is accountable for that function being carried out, and they must know how it is being carried out and make sure that any issues are addressed. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham rightly alluded to one of the examples that we are exploring around section 75, which is how it might support key priorities in delivering neighbourhood health, to make absolutely clear and sure that we bring services closer together. Both spokespeople outlined a quote from Melanie Williams of ADASS. Although I do not know the whole context of the quote, I understand the frustration of colleagues in social services and this whole area as it is one that I worked in myself. I understand the issue, but it is slightly different because it concerns the what, rather than the how, of what is being discussed. Section 75 is part of the how. We want to make this easier for people who are trying to do the right thing, and these provisions, which I commend to the Committee, do just that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40 Consolidated accounts Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
38. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    We know that robust finances are an essential part of the health service. The financial accounts related to the NHS are of keen interest to His Majesty’s Treasury and indeed to Parliament. The Government are especially mindful of the keen interest of the Public Accounts Committee in this area. Under current arrangements, NHS England prepares a set of financial accounts for all NHS trusts and foundation trusts, and that is audited by the National Audit Office. That is the point at which the National Audit Office conducts its oversight of NHS providers, with that feeding into the National Audit Office’s assurance over the Department of Health and Social Care group. The financial accounts for integrated care boards are currently included in the NHS England group accounts, which are presented separately and audited by the National Audit Office. With the abolition of NHS England, the Government intend to reduce central administration costs, so financial reporting needs to be proportionate while balancing stakeholders’ keen interest in financial information related specifically to the NHS. Clause 40 therefore replaces the current consolidated accounts of NHS providers with a single set of consolidated accounts for the NHS covering its trusts, foundation trusts and integrated care boards. That consolidated account will continue to be audited by the National Audit Office. We believe that bringing the accounts together in this way will assist the public, Parliament and the National Audit Office in scrutinising NHS expenditure. Although it is not covered by the clause, it is important for the Committee to be aware that there will be no change to the current requirement for the Department to publish a Department of Health and Social Care group annual report and accounts that will consolidate the NHS accounts with the core Department and other group bodies—for example, its arm’s length bodies. However, the Government recognise that only reporting figures for the NHS in the overall Department group would reduce transparency compared with the current structure of NHS financial accounts. The clause therefore seeks to prioritise high quality audited financial accounts information being made available while balancing against administrative costs, both of which are important to the Government. Clause 41 amends the Secretary of State’s existing power to create a scheme allowing NHS bodies to pool funds to cover property losses and legal claims arising from their healthcare activities. They ensure that when liabilities arise, whether from damage to property, negligence or other claims, there is a clear and consistent mechanism through which those liabilities can be managed and resolved. In doing so, they protect the financial stability of the NHS. The clause updates the legislation for the new landscape by removing NHS England from the arrangements and ensuring that responsibility for administrating the schemes rests appropriately with the Secretary of State. Although the clause is targeted and technical, its effect is essential in that it ensures continuity and legal clarity and continued effective operation of arrangements that underpin confidence and functionality across the health service. Clause 42 is a necessary technical and structural change that supports the new statutory framework following the abolition of NHS England. It removes provisions in the NHS Act 2006 and the Health and Care Act 2022 that relate specifically to NHS England’s funding and financial responsibilities, which will no longer be required once NHS England ceases to exist. The clause avoids duplication and confusion and ensures that financial accountability is clearly defined in the post NHS England system. Under the reformed framework, the Department is responsible for the overall funding of the NHS and for national financial assurance, while integrated care boards and providers continue to operate within defined statutory financial duties and controls. Clause 42 plays an important housekeeping role, providing legal clarity and underpinning a more transparent and coherent financial framework that is fit for the NHS future operating model. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
39. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I am pleased that, in an outbreak of cross-party agreement at 3.20 pm on a Tuesday, I completely agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. It is a point that I made myself: the ability of Members of Parliament and the public to understand the granularity relating to their local providers and ICBs is very important for transparency and accountability. I hope Committee members recognise that I have tried to drive much more transparency in that system. They are absolutely right that that is separate from this clause, and we will continue to expect providers and ICBs to do that; I hope that addresses that point. To add further clarity on the wider point the clause deals with, the consolidated accounts we prepare include some analysis by different types of body. That will mean separate information about NHS providers being included in the document, such as a summary of income and expenditure. Separately, providers and ICBs will continue to publish accounts so that people can look at those. The Government will listen to any feedback from users to adapt the nature of this content in future years after the initial publication, recognising that this is a new development following the abolition of NHS England. We are also mindful that too many separate publications add to administrative costs and risk losing focus. The intention is to have transparency at the local level, building that up to do something more sensible and cost-effective that is also transparent at national level. I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 41 and 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Emma Foody.)

    Hansard source
40. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Julia Buckley

    High Streets

    The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Does he join me in congratulating Barnsley market, a local market that is leading the way by bringing health services into the town centre, which is driving up footfall and has led to a thriving community? We will be leading a delegation from the all-party parliamentary group on local markets next week, so we can all learn from that example and hopefully feed into the high street strategy.

    Hansard source