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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

   These clauses will make a series of vital changes to the NHS financial framework following the abolition of NHS England, strengthening funding arrangements and financial accountability. First, clause 43 will enable funding to flow to integrated care boards following the abolition of NHS England while simplifying the powers to direct how resources are used. The first change in new section 223G will transfer the responsibility to fund integrated care boards from NHS England to the Secretary of State, maintaining continuity of allocations and allowing in-year adjustments where needed. We will also simplify the existing power in new section 223GA to direct integrated care boards in how resources are used, making it clearer and easier to use. That will ensure that safeguards can be applied consistently, such as the ability to recover funding where there is a failure to comply with a direction. Transparency will be maintained through the requirement to publish directions. The clause will also introduce new section 223GB, setting how the direction powers in new section 223GA can be used in relation to expenditure on service integration across health and social care. At present, service integration funding must be placed in a pooled budget with local authorities, even if that is not the most effective approach. The current legislation allows for only one model, even where that may introduce unnecessary bureaucracy or delay. The clause will remove that mandatory requirement, giving the Secretary of State discretion each year on whether integration funding should be pooled. That will not remove pooled budgets; they will remain the default where they deliver better outcomes, and local areas will still be able to enter section 75 agreements voluntarily. This clause will introduce proportionate flexibility and enable the Secretary of State to decide, transparently and through published directions, whether funding should be pooled in particular circumstances. That will ensure that we can act quickly when needed, for example in responding to urgent pressures, so that the Secretary of State is not constrained by a blanket legal requirement that does not always add value. Clause 43 will also make necessary consequential changes following the transfer of functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State. That will include replacing “NHS England” with “The Secretary of State” in section 223GC, which concerns the power to give directions about integrated care board expenditure limits, and repealing section 223K on quality payments, as the Secretary of State can use other powers to deliver payments for quality improvement purposes. Having set out a clearer and more streamlined framework for allocating and directing NHS resources, we now turn to how integrated care boards and providers will be held accountable for managing those resources. Clause 44 will omit sections 223M and 223N from the National Health Service Act 2006, which require each integrated care board and its partner NHS trust and foundation trust to balance their finances collectively. By removing sections 223M and 223N, we will ensure that one organisation’s deficit can no longer be obscured by another’s surplus, while preserving the Secretary of State’s ability to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner trusts where system-wide alignment is needed. If we are to achieve the ambitious aim set out in the 10-year health plan, of getting most providers to achieve a surplus by 2029-30, we must place the onus back on individual organisations. Each NHS organisation should be unambiguously accountable for managing its own finances, rather than relying on collective system balances to absorb overspends. Importantly, that does not mean abandoning collaboration. Clause 44 amends section 223L of the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts, where local system-wide alignment is genuinely required. This approach supports the wider policy direction for ICBs to operate as strategic commissioners. With clearer organisation and financial accountability, ICBs can focus on population health outcomes, prioritising prevention, reducing health inequalities, shaping services around need, and driving better value for money through more effective commissioning. These clauses make a clearer, more disciplined framework, where individual accountability is strengthened, ambiguity is reduced and national oversight is more coherent, while retaining targeted tools to support collaboration where it adds value. I therefore commend clauses 43 and 44 to the Committee.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

   In my comments on the amendments, I think that I addressed many of the points raised. On the final point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, he will be aware that the Government have already improved financial oversight of the NHS system this year without any changes. We are getting a grip on the finances that were allowed to go so badly out of control across the entire piece under the Conservative party’s stewardship. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the Opposition spokesperson, started her comments by saying that the changes made by the two clauses are entirely consistent with the wider Bill, and I agree. We are abolishing NHS England—which, as I have oft repeated in these deliberations, has not been opposed by the Opposition parties—and of course there are some consequences of that, including giving the Secretary of State powers. I will address a couple of other points directly. To be very clear, the better care fund remains a core mechanism to support the NHS and local government to join up health and social care services to a greater degree. The changes made by the clauses address the inflexibility of the current arrangements. The Committee had a good debate earlier this week about the Government’s commitment to enhancing that collaboration and joint working at a very local level. The clauses introduce flexibility, allowing the Secretary of State to determine when pooling is the best way to achieve better outcomes, while local areas are of course still able to pool budgets voluntarily through section 75 of the NHS Act 2006. The allegation that there is weakening of joint working is not true. The clauses do not remove the ability to pool budgets; they just allow flexibility. As I said, the focus remains on delivering outcomes for patients and communities, not on financial structures. A final question asked for reassurance that decisions made by the Secretary of State will not be arbitrary. Parliament will be reassured through clear safeguards and transparency. Any directions issued under the new powers must be published, ensuring visibility and accountability. Decisions will be guided by consistent criteria, including joint spending plans and performance objectives. Pooled budgets will continue to be required where they support better outcomes. In exercising these functions, the Secretary of State must also have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to health services and the outcomes achieved. Together, that ensures that decisions are—quite rightly—transparent, justified and applied fairly across the entire system. Question put and agreed to. Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Licence conditions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Clause 45 adds an additional purpose to those already listed in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 under which the Secretary of State can set or modify conditions in the provider licence. It will allow the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for licensing following the abolition of NHS England, to set licence conditions that promote or secure compliance with statutory obligations. The NHS provider licence was first introduced in 2013 for NHS foundation trusts and in 2014 for eligible independent providers of NHS-funded care. It set clear rules and expectations around a range of matters, such as pricing and governance, for providers of NHS services. It also provided a mechanism for regulatory action when failures occurred at those organisations. Licence conditions can be set only for specific purposes set out in legislation; the additional purpose does not change the existing licence conditions. The Secretary of State will be able to add or modify licence conditions only following a statutory consultation. This additional purpose will allow the Secretary of State to hold providers to account when they are not meeting their legal obligations; for example, when they are not following procurement rules. As with other conditions in the licence, it means that we can use guidance to influence provider behaviour in these areas. The change is necessary and forms an important part of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene where providers are not meeting expectations. Clause 46 clarifies the methods by which the Secretary of State can serve certain notices relating to changes in the regulation of healthcare services. It brings existing requirements up to date with modern methods of communication, reducing administrative burden. As the Committee already discussed when considering the abolition of NHS England, the Bill will transfer functions relating to the provider licence and the payment scheme from NHS England to the Secretary of State. When changes are proposed to these documents, NHS England must consult those affected and must notify all relevant organisations of the consultation. Currently, that notice cannot be delivered by email without the agreement of the organisation receiving it—without that agreement, it must be posted. That process is out of step with the modern, digital-first approach set out in the 10-year health plan. Technology has evolved since those requirements were set, and we no longer communicate predominately through the postal system. The changes in the clause allow for rapid communication to ensure that the notice reaches the appropriate person promptly. The clause brings the method by which the Secretary of State can deliver notices up to date with modern methods of communication to ensure that everyone affected has the chance to participate in the consultation in a timely way. I am sure all hon. Members agree that that is necessary, so I commend clauses 45 and 46 to the Committee.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I do not have any more details on how the clauses will operate in practice and follow through into guidance; that will obviously be in the usual guidance on the operation of the system. It is usual practice for people doing the work to make contact with the receiver of the email to check that they have received it and are acting on it appropriately. Question put and agreed to. Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 Single patient record

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that, through this amendment, the hon. Member for Winchester has given us an opportunity to think. I am grateful to him for this chance to talk about carers and this important issue. I am a carer of an older person, and for those of us who are carers, it is helpful to have some discussion about this area. Carers play a vital role and we are committed to ensuring that they have the support they need. We are of course very grateful for all the work that they do. The Bill already includes a power that permits regulations to make patient information available to people other than patients on the patient’s behalf. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said, that can include carers, and it is our intention to do so. We want to ensure that carers who act on behalf of the people they care for get the full benefit from the single patient record. NHS proxy access already allows for people other than patients—which includes carers, parents or care home staff—to manage the health and care of someone they care for. Setting up proxy access requires the consent and involvement of the individual and the person they care for. We will set out in regulations how proxy access will work for the single patient record, as in the existing NHS position. The single patient record will be developed on two priority care pathways in maternity and frailty, which will initially be delivered through local arrangements. Some clinicians and patients will be able to view and manage additional elements of care, such as proxy access for carers, earlier than others. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw his amendment. We have had some helpful comments about some other concerns.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

   The hon. Lady knows that we are talking about an enabling power in the Bill. All the details will be brought forward in regulations, through discussions and consultation. We will discuss that more broadly as we talk about the wider clause. One of the key issues I have been asked about is protecting vulnerable people. Patients will access a single patient record through the NHS app, and NHS England has published guidance on clinical safety, safeguarding and the NHS app, which provides advice on minimising the risk to those where there may be challenges or potential risks. We will adopt a similar approach to the single patient record. Clinicians will be able to redact information that is too sensitive to share, and we will agree a protocol with professional bodies on how that will be applied. I am sure that we will discuss that in more detail, because it is an important area to get right.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   Wherever possible, the single patient record will build on source records such as GP records. As such, it will include relevant patient information and, where appropriate, digital markers such as those suggested in the amendments. We have had some useful discussion as a result of the amendments, but such considerations are generally operational, and legislation is neither necessary nor practical. On amendment 71, Members will know that the Government have been doing significant work in support of a digital medical marker for firearms. Medical information for firearms licensing provided by the applicant has been a mandatory requirement for every firearm and shotgun licence application since November 2021, as we have heard, when the new statutory guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing was introduced. When any individual applies for a firearms licence, the applicant’s doctor must provide details of any relevant medical conditions, such as depression, dementia, mental health conditions or drug or alcohol abuse. A digital maker is placed on the GP patient record when a certificate is granted, and a GP can alert the police if a licence holder has a relevant medical condition. The digital marker automatically flags to the GP if a patient is suffering from a relevant medical condition and is a firearms certificate holder. It is true that the marker is not legally mandated, but it is supported by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the former issues guidance to GPs about the firearms marker. GPs already have professional duties to consider patient and public safety, and existing firearms licensing arrangements support GPs to share relevant concerns with the police where appropriate, while the responsibility for licensing decisions rests with the police. Data shows that, since its introduction in 2023, the marker is being used and that GPs are notifying police of medical issues that have arisen. There is nothing to suggest that the system is not effective.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I am afraid I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question, but if it is relevant, I will try to get back to her on it. People applying for a licence must now indicate whether they have seen a medical practitioner other than their GP. The Government also intend to make a statutory instrument to require licence holders to inform the police if they consult a third-party medical practitioner who is not their GP. The single patient record will build on and connect with information from GP source records where appropriate; no new provision is needed for that to happen. That process should be agreed as part of operational arrangements with the profession, in line with the current approach to markers in the GP record. If it is agreed that it would be beneficial for health and care professionals to have wider access to the firearms marker, the single patient record could facilitate that, but we do not intend to fill the Bill with detailed operational requirements such as that. We do not believe that the SPR is the appropriate vehicle for having a debate about regulations requiring a report on the merits of a mandatory marker. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we should not expand the clearly defined scope of the single patient record—the scope is limited to direct care—to include a debate about what is stored more generally in NHS records. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw amendment 71. On amendment 72, as I have already outlined, the single patient record will build on and connect with existing source records, such as GP or hospital records, wherever possible. Where a person’s status as a military veteran is recorded, it will be possible to make that information available in the single patient record. Therefore, the provisions already ensure that the information is made available, where veterans opt to have that status recorded—that addresses some of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. There is no need to make any statutory requirement to ensure that staff have that information and consider any necessary adjustments or potential treatment options that may be relevant to ensure safe and effective care. In addition, the clause contains powers to make regulations to allow people involved in the provision of an individual’s direct care, including that of any veteran after they have left the military, to access their single patient record. We want the single patient record to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of care for everyone. That includes making sure that military veterans can access necessary support and that staff can provide them with appropriate care. Furthermore, duties in the Armed Forces Act 2006 require the NHS and local authorities to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, which, of course, I fully support. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester not to press amendment 72.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I am grateful to hon. Members for this debate. Meaningful public engagement will be key to the success of the single patient record—we absolutely understand that—in building awareness and in designing the system. It has to have digital inclusion at its heart, but adding statutory requirements for public awareness campaigns and risk assessments is not the way forward. Amendment 49 seeks to put such a requirement on a statutory footing. I want to reassure the Committee and all Members: as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston said, public awareness is absolutely key and will be integral to success. Work is already under way to ensure that we do that; we do not need to wait, nor should we be constrained by the proposed amendment. In 2024, we began extensive public engagement on the use of data across health and social care, which showed strong support for the single patient record. We have heard that most people felt it was “long overdue and a necessary step towards better care”. The public engagement findings indicated support to progress at pace on the concept of a single patient record, to resolve the frustrations that patients and the public have when they have to repeat their story at multiple health and care settings. As we move towards our ambition to give all patients in England access to a core set of their data through the single patient record from 2028, we will maintain a sustained drumbeat—as they say in the jargon—of public communications to raise awareness of the single patient record. We have heard some examples of where the Government do that well. Of course we want to learn from such examples across the country and from previous Government campaigns that have worked well, to explain the benefits and safeguards in plain English, and to signpost accessible information and feedback routes for patients and the public. I heard the comments made about people who may be excluded or have particular disabilities, including some older people—from conversations with my own constituents, it is often older people or those with multiple disabilities who can have their experience enhanced. We should make no assumptions about who does or does not feel excluded in this space; we need to learn from them all. Furthermore, we have already published public-facing single patient record information and a dedicated feedback route. We will continue to co-create plain English, easy-read and translated materials, frequently asked questions and “voices heard/action taken” updates with public panels and patient groups ahead of roll-out. We will build on what we learn from that ongoing work as we develop the regulations. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham not to move amendment 49. On the lead amendment, moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, we recognise, as I hope I have assured the Committee, that digital inclusion is an important issue. To quote another Member, we are eager to get it right, and we are taking it very seriously. Digital inclusion is a key driver in addressing health inequalities, supporting individuals and empowering people to better manage their health, which is at the heart of our 10-year plan. It is a system-wide issue, and one that the health and care system is taking action to address. We have considered this as part of the equality impact assessment of the single patient record provisions in the Bill, and will continue to keep those issues and potential mitigations under consideration throughout the development and implementation of the SPR. Therefore, although we agree with the aim of the amendment, we do not consider it necessary. Indeed, it would duplicate work that has already been done.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Part the difficulty is that the powers in the Bill that enable the Government to bring forward a single patient record are separate from the secondary routes whereby we describe and work through the detail of regulation. All those considerations have to be very clear. The hon. Lady and I have spoken regularly about the lack of broadband access in her community, which remains a huge problem. All those considerations need to be worked through with the team. They are varied and multiple, and we need to bring parliamentarians and the public with us in doing that, as we bring forward secondary regulations. NHS England’s digital inclusion framework, as currently, supports the delivery of the 10-year plan by addressing those particular connectivity and skills issues, as well as confidence and accessibility. That work is already partly in train through NHS England. We need to build on that and bring it forward as we come forward with the regulations. I visited the team up in Leeds around some of the digital inclusion they have already been doing from the app. It is very impressive how much they are doing with people to develop the app. I think people would agree that we can take some of that learning forward, because it is about making sure that digital transformation is inclusive and aligned with the ambition in the 10-year plan to personalise care, reduce inequalities and create a health system that works for everyone. In addition, as set out in the “Managing health services for others” guidance, since February 2026 the NHS has had a process to allow proxy access to the app, which should also support people who, for example, do not have the skills to do it for themselves. Alongside those improvements, it is policy to undertake an inequality and health inequalities assessment prior to hosting anything new on the app. Again, that helps to identify, mitigate and monitor unintended negative impacts on vulnerable and marginalised populations before implementing new policy, services and procedures, as raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. That process should identify and consider the mitigations for the groups identified in the amendment. I hope that Members can see how seriously the Government have taken the development of digital access so far. We absolutely recognise that we have to get it right to enable this record, which the public and population so desperately want to see. That work has already been undertaken and it will continue. For those reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    This is another important discussion to have on the record to give patients and the public confidence as we introduce the vital single patient record. I start by stating that the security and privacy of people’s health data is paramount, and we will build the strongest safeguards possible into the record. Members from across the House have asked how those safeguards will be built into how the system is designed and operated, which is what we are doing. It will operate on a roles-based access control model, similar to other NHS patient record systems where access to patient information is restricted to the authorised user only. The single patient record will go a step further by applying advanced cloud-based audit and oversight capabilities, enabling near real-time monitoring of system access and detection of unusual or inappropriate patterns. That will allow NHS security teams to track and detect access patterns, and to quickly intervene if specific records are accessed by staff who have no clinical relationship with the patient in question. The single patient record will ensure that just because a clinician has permission to view a specific patient record, that does not mean they are authorised to do so without a clinical need. The security and access arrangements will be set out in the regulations themselves, which will be debated, rightly, in Parliament. Therefore, it is not necessary to set them out in a plan beforehand. Furthermore, there are already existing enforcement arrangements that provide sanctions for inappropriate access to patient data, which will also include accessing the single patient record. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for his extremely helpful intervention, in which he highlighted his own experience in this field. Some of the examples that we heard again today, including Southport, Nottingham, the recent case in Cambridge and others, are truly shocking to people. Clearly, that should never happen, but sadly it has. As my hon. Friend rightly outlined, there are provisions in place for training people on information governance and tracking when that happens. Additionally, I want to be clear that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes it an offence to use a computer to access information in an unauthorised manner, such as a person accessing information without a legitimate reason. Inappropriate or unauthorised access to health records—often referred to as snooping—is a serious offence that can lead to severe penalties, including dismissal, criminal prosecution and financial penalties. Regulated healthcare professionals, such as doctors, nurses and pharmacies, can be reported to their respective professional bodies, which can result in them being struck off in serious cases. The information commissioner also has powers to investigate and take action against infringements of data protection legislation, which can include monetary penalties, enforcement notices, undertakings, prosecutions and reprimands. Furthermore, patients have a right to access data that is held about them under the data protection legislation, and those rights will continue to apply to the single patient record. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her amendment.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The single patient record is fundamental to the Government’s mission to create a modern, joined-up NHS that puts patients at the centre of their care. The way we currently manage health records is letting patients down. That must change. Patient information is fragmented, so care is fragmented. Local shared care records have demonstrated what can be achieved. The OneLondon shared care record is used by more than 100,000 frontline staff, with estimated monthly savings of £4.6 million, and around 45,000 patients are reported to have benefited from the Greater Manchester care record in March 2026, with 15 minutes of treatment time saved per patient. Successful as some local shared care records are, however, they do not provide a uniform, comprehensive single record across England. The single patient record will allow people to have access to a summary of their full health record and provide relevant health and care providers with access to the health and care information they need to provide effective joined-up care. This is not a new problem and patients have not been silent about it. For more than a decade, patient groups and organisations across the country have been calling for exactly the kind of change that the single patient record will deliver. As far back as 2013, National Voices captured it simply and powerfully: “I would like to tell my story once.” The call has only got stronger. Our independently delivered public deliberations found strong support for the single patient record. It was described as a long-overdue fix to fragmented care, while the survey of 2,000 people found more than three quarters in favour of a single patient record. The Committee has heard directly from a range of stakeholders about the benefits a single patient record could have for patients and their care. Clause 47 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of creating and operating the single patient record. The purpose of regulations made under this clause is to bring together patient information and make it available to patients and their relevant health and care providers such as GPs, hospital doctors, social care providers or others involved in their direct care. Only information concerned with direct care will form part of the system. We have also included strong safeguards. The security and privacy of people’s health and social care data are paramount, and we will build the strongest of safeguards into the single patient record. It will be designed to protect personal data by default, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance ensuring that only the right people can access the right information, at the right time—and only for the right reasons. Permissions to access patient information will be restricted to authorised users only, with an audit trail of who has accessed a patient’s data. The Secretary of State must also consult appropriate persons before making regulations and must have regard to ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent misuses of data.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I turn first to new clause 7. Patient data is at the heart of the NHS, and it is important to help plan and run health and social care services; we have discussed that before, and a lot of these points have already been recorded in our earlier conversations. The security and privacy of people’s health and care data are paramount. To be clear, the Bill does not rewrite our data protection laws; it works alongside them, allowing the NHS to use existing, lawful frameworks to share information safely and legally for the direct care of patients. Article 25 of the UK general data protection regulation already applies to the federated data platform, and will apply to the single patient record. The new clause is therefore not necessary. In the NHS, there are different ways in which patient information is used, and not all of them involve asking for explicit consent each time. For example, if a GP refers someone to a hospital, that person would not expect the clinician reviewing the case to ask their permission before looking at their medical record; their agreement is understood as part of seeking care. That is called implied consent. Although a national data opt-out exists, it applies only to data used for secondary purposes such as research and planning. The single patient record is expected to operate roles-based access control, whereby permission to access patient information is restricted to authorised users only, with an audit trail of who has accessed the patient’s data. Inappropriate or unauthorised access to health records, often referred to as snooping, is a serious offence. There are mechanisms to manage that, including prosecution and fines. In 2025-26, we invested £75 million across health and social care, building on the £375 million invested since 2017. Through our ambitious cyber improvement programme, we are tackling the changing cyber risk head on, expanding protection and services to better protect the health and care system. The single patient record system is expected to be assessed as critical national infrastructure, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance to meet our existing duties to keep personal data safe under the data protection legislative framework. I turn to new clause 8. No decision has been made about who will be the IT suppliers of the single patient record. It is expected and intended that it will be delivered through contracts with multiple suppliers, which will reduce dependency on a single supplier. Furthermore, no decision has been made as to how, if at all, the single patient record will link to existing infrastructure such as the federated data platform. As hon. Members will expect, I would not support using the Bill to try to rewrite the contract for the federated data platform. Hon. Members have discussed a wide range of issues relating to this area. They probably know that negotiating the intellectual property in relation to software in digital services is complex and often contentious. The new clause would make it a condition of any single patient record IT supplier contract that the NHS owns the intellectual property in data connector software, regardless of the circumstances. In practical terms, that would be likely to disincentivise suppliers from offering their services if they were required to sacrifice the IP of a product. It is unnecessary to impose such a condition, as there are other ways in which the NHS can ensure that software is reusable, such as broad general licences to use the data connector software in whatever manner, requirements to use industry standard code and interfaces, and information standards. The recent changes to the NHS information standards in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 make relevant IT suppliers accountable for meeting information standards and enable the Government to monitor and enforce compliance with information standards by IT suppliers. We wish to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, while ensuring that patients get the best technology to improve care outcomes and to keep the NHS financially sustainable. That will give the NHS more choice and help to improve standards while supporting economic growth. We have had what they call a wide-ranging discussion on some things that are not actually in the clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it is absolutely right, and we have heard some excellent examples from Members with clinical experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will now be forever known as Data Dave—sorry about that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has clinical experience and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has NHS experience, as do I. That experience is really valuable. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments and had a long list of questions, most of which are addressed in various pieces of information that we have put forward. However, I take the point about the intellectual difficulties of what the clause does. We all agree with it, as does the country, and patients think it already happens. We are an outlier in this sphere. The Government are going to change that situation. However, these questions and concerns are the reason why we take through secondary legislation, which is something that we all understand but the outside world does not. We need to bring people with us. Our officials have come to talk to Members of Parliament about the Bill. I am open to suggestions from Members about the best way to address the issues, and particularly about the best way to inform Members on behalf of constituents. These discussions are important to building public trust and security. I will finish on a broader point. I commend clause 47, which gives an enabling power, but let us be very clear that patient information will still be held in the system in which it was originally created. These bodies, whether GPs or hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring that the data is handled securely and lawfully and is accessed for valid reasons only. As I mentioned earlier, we have shared systems operating already. Some parts of the country and some of our constituents are already experiencing some of the benefits of a shared system. We will use that experience and learn the lessons of the past, under whichever Government, to build for the rest of the country the shared systems that some people have already. We will come on later to provisions on devolution arrangements, on working for the future and on operating more efficiently across devolved areas.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman tempts me to spend the next hour talking about the shocking state of the capital and infrastructure systems that we inherited from the previous Government, but I will not. Of course they do not work: that is one of the biggest issues around staff morale. We saw through the 10-year health plan, particularly with clinicians having to log on to nearly 10 different systems, how that impedes progress and efficiency at a local level. Where it is rolled out, the federated data platform helps to make systems more efficient, particularly in local hospitals. We heard in our evidence sessions about maternity and frailty, which are the areas in which we will be testing and rolling out this approach to make the best use of it on the ground. Alongside that, the work to make systems more interoperable and efficient at a local level continues. I commend clause 47 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 Information about health service products Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Clause 48 will make amendments to the health service products legislative information gateway to allow the Government to continue to disclose certain information concerning the pricing and supply of health service products, which are items that include medicines that are used in the NHS. We recognise the importance of the effective flow of information between central Government about the pricing and supply of health service products to the NHS. Data sharing is governed by a clear legal framework defining who can access it and under what conditions. That supports the controls that the Government are able to exercise in relation to the pricing and supply of health service products. Clause 48 will maintain the current safeguards for confidential and commercially sensitive data, ensuring continuity as NHS England’s functions are redistributed to the Secretary of State and integrated care boards. It will achieve that by enabling the Secretary of State to share pricing and supply information with people who provide services to them, such as primary care providers. That is essential to preserve the sharing of information and operation of the service that they provide for patients where that process is currently managed by NHS England. As a consequence of the changes being made, the Secretary of State will be able to share relevant information with third-party service providers, such as providers of the software that primary care service providers use. They will be able to receive relevant data to make lawful disclosures of that information for specific purposes, those being the provision of certain services to the primary care service provider. This will ensure that there is no disruption to how data flows across the system. This change will simply enable those who receive essential data to continue to do so following the abolition of NHS England. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 49 Health and social care information: delegation of functions

    Hansard source
16. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Clauses 49 and 50 explain our approach to the transfer of NHS England’s existing data and information functions to the Secretary of State. Slightly counterintuitively, I will start with clause 50 before turning to clause 49. Clause 50 inserts schedule 7, which takes existing NHS England information functions and transfers them to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as part of a single centre for data and digital policy in the NHS. The schedule also includes changes to existing information functions. This will support the shift from analogue to digital and allow us to make the most of opportunities from data and AI, as set out in the 10-year health plan. The changes will not weaken the fundamental safeguards in place to protect health and care data, nor fundamentally change rules relating to how confidential patient information can be used. I will now outline some key changes made by the clause. It will ensure that information systems for the NHS are set up, where appropriate, not just for the collection and analysis of data but for processing more generally. This will make it easier to support machine learning and artificial intelligence activities, among other uses of data. The clause extends the extent of chapter 2 of part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to the whole of the UK, and provides for the Secretary of State to establish information systems in the interests of the health service or adult social care in England, or in connection with the provision of care across the British Isles, as NHS England currently can. The clause enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance to health and social care bodies on the processing of information. It transfers to the Secretary of State NHS England’s powers to require and request information, and such requests will be able specify the form, manner and time within which the information requested is to be provided. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to publish information obtained in the operation of an information system, including information about service providers. Where NHS England had a duty to publish such information, it is right that the Secretary of State should retain discretion in that regard. Obviously, there may be circumstances in which the publication of data would not be appropriate, and the clause does not give the Secretary of State complete freedom to publish personal information. The Secretary of State may publish personal information without patient consent only where it is for the protection of life or health, or for the protection of public safety or security. It is possible that there could be circumstances—for example, in relation to infectious disease—in which information is published that could lead to an individual being identified. None the less, the change simplifies the process of publication while maintaining a high bar for the publication of personal information. The Secretary of State’s power to disclose information—for example, to health bodies—other than by publication will be slightly different from NHS England’s current power. The grounds for disclosing personal information will largely mirror the current grounds, with a few additions, including in respect of facilitating clinical trials or other research. This will help to address barriers to data access for research while preserving existing rules on confidentiality. As with his powers of publication, the Secretary of State will also be able to disclose information for the protection of life or health, or for the protection of public safety or security. The Secretary of State will be bound by certain existing duties on NHS England, including a duty to have regard to any relevant advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group when publishing or disclosing information in accordance with his data functions. The Secretary of State will retain the regulation-making power to establish an accreditation scheme for information service providers, which will now include a broader range of providers, including public bodies. Clause 49 permits the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions relating to health and care information. Currently, some of those functions can be delegated by NHSE via arrangements with third parties or under regulations. The clause will insert new section 251ZF, which allows the Secretary of State, by arrangement, to delegate to persons specified in regulations functions relating to information standards. Information standards help to reduce fragmentation in digital and data services. They include mandatory requirements for how information is recorded, shared, governed and supported by IT. Increasing interoperability and consistency in digital and data is essential to increasing value for money, reducing the burden on staff and, ultimately, improving the quality of care. The continued use of information standards is key to the 10-year health plan’s aim of improving the interoperability of digital and data services across the health and care system. This will provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to delegate such functions to persons who have the required technical expertise, where necessary. Clause 49 will also insert new section 277G, which enables the Secretary of State to direct public bodies to exercise a wider range of his information functions, defined as “relevant information functions”. This includes not only information standards but other information functions, such as the Secretary of State’s duty to establish and operate information systems. The measures will provide the Secretary of State with important flexibility to delegate such functions to persons who have the required technical expertise, where necessary. In all, the changes are necessary not just to effect the transfer of data functions to the Secretary of State but to enable better data use for the benefit of the NHS now and into the future.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Let me respond to the hon. Member for North Shropshire on amendments 6 and 7. As she said, amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 6, so I will take them together. I think we can all agree that the CQC and NICE should have access to the information they need to undertake their important work. Amendment 6 is not required to ensure that. Clause 50, and the associated changes in schedule 7, maintain the current ability for any person, including NICE and the CQC, to request the establishment and operation of an information system. However, NICE and the CQC will not be able to make the equivalent mandatory request they used to be able to make to NHS England because NHS England is to be abolished. Amendment 6 seeks to maintain the current position when, in reality, mandatory requests were practically never made under the current arrangements. They were thought necessary when a separate arm’s length body had responsibility for collecting data about healthcare. There is no need for the Secretary of State to be subject to the same mandatory requirement as they are responsible for oversight of the entirety of the NHS and the adult social care system, and for its effective regulation. Furthermore, the CQC has a statutory power, under section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to require the provision of “documents, records (including personal and medical records) or other items” the CQC considers “necessary or expedient” for the purposes of its regulatory functions, from a range of health and social care commissioners and providers. On amendment 7, the Government agree that a code of practice setting out strict standards for how health and care organisations must handle confidential patient information is an important component of a healthcare system that uses data safely and effectively. That is why clause 50 allows for the insertion of new section 252ZA into the National Health Service Act 2006, to transfer to the Secretary of State the duty to publish a code of practice on confidential patient information. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire not to press amendments 6 and 7 to a vote. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about duplication. I think the answer to her question is yes, but if that is not correct, I will make sure that I respond to her accordingly. Question put and agreed to. Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 7 Health and social care information systems etc Amendment proposed: 6, in schedule 7, page 96, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert— “For section 255 (power to request NHS England to establish information systems), substitute— ‘255 Powers to request the Secretary of State to establish information systems (1) Any person (including a devolved authority) may request the Secretary of State to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information of a description specified in the request. (2) A request may be made under subsection (1) by a person only if the person considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the person to have in relation to the person's exercise of functions, or carrying out of activities, in connection with the provision of health care or adult social care. (3) The Secretary of State must comply with a mandatory request unless the Secretary of State considers that the request relates to information of a description prescribed in regulations. (4) For the purposes of this Chapter a request under subsection (1) is a mandatory request if— (a) it is made by a principal body, and (b) the body considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the body to have in relation to its discharge of a duty in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England. (5) Subsection (6) applies where the Secretary of State has discretion under this section as to whether to comply with— (a) a mandatory request, or (b) any other request under subsection (1). (6) In deciding whether to comply with the request, the Secretary of State — (a) must, in particular, consider whether doing so would interfere to an unreasonable extent with the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of its functions, and (b) may take into account the extent to which the principal body or other person making the request has had regard to— (i) the code of practice prepared and published by the Secretary of State under section 263, and (ii) advice or guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 265. (7) In this section “principal body” means— (a) the Care Quality Commission, (b) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and (c) such other persons as may be prescribed in regulations. (8) In this Chapter “health care” includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.’”—(Helen Morgan.) This amendment would enable the Care Quality Commission and NICE to continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system, following the transfer of NHS England’s functions. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Clause 51 makes changes to section 42 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, which governs how information collected at the registration of births, deaths and other life events may be shared for specific purposes. That information plays a vital role in supporting public services, including health service planning, population analysis and the delivery of care. The UK Statistics Authority may already share this registration data directly with a range of public bodies, including the Secretary of State and integrated care boards. Clause 51 adds NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in England to that list, providing a clear statutory route for sharing statistically codified registration data with trusts and foundation trusts responsible for delivering services on the ground. The clause is not about expanding the type of information that can be shared or widening the purposes for which it may be used, and does not create new datasets or weaken existing safeguards. All information sharing remains subject to the same statutory controls and protections that already apply. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 52 Arrangements with devolved authorities etc about information services Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Clauses 52 to 57 are vital. The Committee has discussed our relationship with colleagues in the devolved authorities; these clauses ensure that arrangements with devolved authorities and the Crown dependencies can continue following the abolition of NHS England. Turning first to clauses 52 to 54, although healthcare is devolved in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the devolved Governments currently make arrangements with NHS England to deliver a number of functions on their behalf. Clauses 52 to 54 enable those existing arrangements to continue following the abolition by giving the powers to the Secretary of State. The policy intent is not to impact or reach into devolved competencies, but to secure continuity and legal clarity through existing cross-border and UK-wide arrangements involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is about making sure that the current expertise and resources of NHS England remain available to devolved authorities once these functions merge with the Department of Health and Social Care. The clauses will not give the Secretary of State any ability or power to do anything in relation to devolved authorities other than as mutually agreed. Arrangements will be fully voluntary and do not create a power for unilateral action; rather, they ensure that, where co-operation is wanted, there is a proper legal basis for it. Under clause 52, the Secretary of State takes on the data functions of NHS England and, on request from the devolved authorities, to make arrangements for the provision of information services. Clause 52 additionally applies to Crown dependencies. There are a number of such arrangements already in place between NHS England, the devolved authorities and the Crown dependencies. For example, NHS England provides the NHS login service for the NHS Wales app, as well as the electronic prescription service for Wales, and NHS England collects and analyses data for audits that span multiple devolved authorities, such as the national audit of pulmonary hypertension. These provisions will support continuity of those arrangements. We are making sure that, if it is appropriate, data functions that are transferring to the Secretary of State can be delegated. Proposed new section 294B of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will allow that power to likewise be delegated to an appropriate public body. Clause 53 provides a clear statutory basis for the Secretary of State, by agreement with the devolved administrations’ health bodies, to make commissioning arrangements for the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland health services. This clause will help to ensure continuity for patients across the United Kingdom, reducing the risk of disruption, and support the effective commissioning of services where cross-border work remains the right approach. Clause 54 enables the Secretary of State, by agreement with a devolved authority, to exercise certain education and training functions on that authority’s behalf and to provide services or facilities in connection with those functions. Education and training arrangements often work best when they are co-ordinated efficiently and supported by shared systems. At a time when every part of the health service needs a strong pipeline of skilled staff, it is vital that useful joint arrangements can continue with clarity and confidence as responsibility is transferred from NHS England to the Secretary of State. The clause updates the statutory framework and helps to ensure that shared arrangements supporting recruitment, training cycles and workforce planning can continue following the abolition of NHS England. Clause 55 relates to clauses 53 and 54. The agreed arrangements are effective only if they can deliver in a practical and efficient way, which is why this clause enables the Secretary of State to direct a public body to exercise some or all of the Secretary of State’s functions under arrangements made with the devolved authorities in relation to commissioning or education and training under section 295 or section 296A of the 2012 Act. In short, it provides a mechanism to ensure that functions under agreed commissioning and education and training arrangements with devolved authorities can be exercised by the most appropriate public body in England. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to direct the public body in how those functions are to be exercised, including in relation to information obtained in the course of exercising them. It also requires directions to be published. Those features support both operational clarity and accountability. On clause 56, public authorities in the Crown dependencies may seek expert advice or practical assistance from the health system in England. Following the abolition of NHS England, this clause transfers the existing power from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and provides a clear legal basis for the Secretary of State or ICBs to provide that advice and assistance for purposes connected with the provision of healthcare. The clause also makes clear that advice or assistance may be provided on such terms as a provider considers appropriate, allowing support to be given in a practical and transparent way that is tailored to the circumstances of the case, whether that involves technical advice, specialist expertise or other practical assistance in connection with the provision of healthcare. Finally, on clause 57, clarity and consistency in legislation depends on clear definitions, particularly where a group of provisions are intended to operate together as a coherent scheme. This clause does not create any new powers or duties; rather, it provides the necessary interpretive framework to support the operation of the preceding clauses and ensure legal certainty and clarity. As a group, these clauses play a vital role in ensuring that existing arrangements with our devolved authorities and the Crown dependencies can continue following the abolition of NHS England. I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 53 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

    Hansard source
20. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

    Business of the House

    On 15 June, a vehicle crashed through the fence at Sunny Days nursery in Vale Road, Ellesmere Port, injuring a number of children. Thankfully, it does not look as if there has been any long-term damage. The parents want to praise the staff at the nursery and the local residents and businesses who came to the children’s aid, but the incident has raised questions about security and safety standards at nurseries. I understand that the Department for Education is looking at the issue, but will a Minister make a statement about it?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for recognising the work done not only by me, but by Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick on the APPG. I was struck by a comment in the Committee’s report about the argument put forward by some freeholders that ground rents are used to cover service charges and that people will be put in danger if they are lost. The Committee used the word “shameful” for that argument. Does that not show that this system is a money-making racket? People are using any excuse to carry on that income stream.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    I start by referring the Chamber to my chairmanship of the leasehold and commonhold reform APPG, where I work closely with organisations such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, to which I pay tribute. As we have heard, complaints from constituents about management companies and the exorbitant fees they charge are something that we all deal with on a weekly basis. It is not a new phenomenon; it is something that I raised on the Floor of the House five years ago because I could see it becoming the next big scandal, and sadly that has come to pass. Homeowners who buy their homes in good faith understandably expect to live in a functioning estate where responsibilities are clear and, where necessary, charges are fair. All too often, the opposite is the case. Homeowners are left in the pernicious situation of paying for services once in their council tax bill, and once again in extortionate service charges. Poor services are often exacerbated by a lack of accountability. Residents are forced to persistently chase matters, while frequently being passed from one organisation to another without resolution. But as soon as residents fall behind with a payment, these companies leap into action, often using aggressive debt collection tactics. Adding insult to injury, the financial structures of these estates are all too frequently opaque: governance structures lack transparency; companies are labelled as dormant for accounting purposes; and dodgy practice—where freeholders, management companies and debt recovery companies operate in an interconnected web—allows them to rack up eye-watering fees. I will cite one very recent example from my constituency, where a constituent owed some service charges to RMG, with which I think we all are familiar. Looking at his bill, the constituent had been charged an instruction fee and a client admin fee on top of his service charges, adding another £600 to the bill, yet RMG had somehow managed to inflate the £1,100 owed in service charges to £3,300 by the time court papers were issued. There is no world where a trebling of this sum can be justified, and it just shows what a scam the system is. Time and again, I see people raising problems from a range of new build developments in my constituency, including Ledsham Garden Village, Mersey View and Jacks Wood estates, where homeowners face a range of challenges. In Ledsham Garden Village, residents are facing combined service charges and fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, although only a fraction of the spending can be accounted for, which just rubs salt into the wound. Residents do not have any idea how the money is being spent and if it is being spent on the estate at all; they do not know whether the company is getting best value for money, how reserves are being used or how costs are allocated over different phases of the development. There are persistent maintenance issues, inconsistent grounds maintenance and safety concerns because of poor traffic management. People who buy their homes in good faith deserve better. Then there are the Jacks Wood estate in Ellesmere Port and the Mersey View estate in Bromborough, where the adoption process has effectively stalled, leaving residents in limbo. The regulation of managing agencies is clearly something this House would like to see, but I would like to make some further suggestions. We could introduce standard costs across the country for estate management fees so that there would be a baseline from which to judge these companies. Residents could be given a far greater say over who manages their estate. We could have three-yearly ballots in law on whether they wish to carry on with the same management agents, which could end the “put up or shut up” approach that a lot of these companies adopt. As we have heard suggested today, an immediate step the Government could take would be to make it a condition of any planning permission moving forward that the developers must hand over the whole estate adoption to the local authority and pay a commuted sum for it, ending that revenue stream entirely.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    Yes, indeed. Residents of an estate in Eastham have been paying for a sewer that they cannot actually locate, which just shows that there is too much ambiguity over what these charges are for. Finally, local authorities could be given powers to use their resources to bring estates up to an adoptable level and then charge the developers for that work retrospectively. The developers do not want to do it, and we need to find a way of breaking that logjam. These are just some of the measures that, alongside the many welcome reforms from this Government, would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Historical Forced Adoption

    I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Historical Forced Adoption

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Points of Order

    I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that Ministers themselves are responsible for their words at the Dispatch Box. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concern, and I am sure that they will pass it on to the Minister. He is an experienced Member, and will know that a number of routes are available to him to pursue questions to the Government on this issue. The Clerks in the Table Office can advise him further, if need be.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Points of Order

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point and will doubtless communicate it to the Minister, who is in his place, who will be able to consider whether there is anything in his remarks that requires correcting or whether, taken as a whole, they gave an accurate account of the situation.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Points of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on purely a private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter and failure to follow that guidance is regarded as very discourteous. Bill Presented Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Matt Turmaine presented a Bill to change the procedure for amending Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 110).

    Hansard source
29. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    Before we come to the debate on commonhold and leasehold reform, I inform that House that permission to appeal has been granted following the judgment on the judicial review brought forward by ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund and others over the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The case is therefore sub judice. Mr Speaker has granted a waiver to allow Members to discuss fully the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report on the implications of the Government’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. I call Florence Eshalomi, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    Before the hon. Lady rises, I remind Members that this is a very oversubscribed debate, and I am sure that many people want to speak.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    We will start with an immediate four-minute time limit.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh MacAlister

    Access to Further Education

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this timely and important debate. I have not had the chance to speak to her since her powerful and moving contribution earlier. FE colleges are engines of economic growth and social justice. They are anchor institutions, bridging talent with opportunities. While often overlooked, they are central to our very success and prosperity as a country. I know full well the power of further education from my own local college, Lakes college in Cumbria, which, with the power of the Dispatch Box, I will declare is the best in the country. It has a distinctive national specialism in nuclear skills and engineering. But it is essential that everyone—whatever their background and circumstances and wherever they live—can access the opportunities of excellent further education.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh MacAlister

    Access to Further Education

    I am just relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were not ticking me off for something else. [Interruption.] Okay. It is a growing list. It is essential that everyone, wherever their background and wherever they live, has access to excellent further education funding. That point was made by a number of Members in the debate. Just yesterday, the Government announced an additional £120 million for further education in 2026-27, rising to £365 million in 2027-28.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh MacAlister

    Access to Further Education

    I do, and it is only possible with the funding that I was setting out that the Government have secured. Funding per student aged 16 to 19 will have increased by over 12% in two years. That comes at a time of significant growth in student numbers. As a result, total 16-to-19 funding will increase from £7.6 billion in 2024-25 to over £9 billion in 2026-27, which is a material increase. This is timely because of the current challenge we face of the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training. The number is too high, and the consequences are serious. The Government have a comprehensive plan for further education and post-16 education and skills overall to support young people into rewarding careers and tackle high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. As well as technical excellence colleges—specialist further education colleges in England designed to deliver high-quality training in priority sectors—we are introducing the new V-levels, which will sit alongside T-levels as the technical route and A-levels as the academic route, which Members will be familiar with. The youth guarantee is this Government’s commitment to ensure that all young people can access education, training and apprenticeships, employment support or work opportunities. We are supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships and offering a £2,000 hiring payment for small businesses. This is complemented by the jobs guarantee, which provides eligible young people with a guaranteed six-month paid job, helping them gain work experience, skills and a route into sustained employment. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby highlighted the need for capacity in FE. Demographics mean that this is a national challenge, but we expect 67,000 additional 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to enter the post-16 system in 2028, which is very soon. That means we are investing £570 million to create the space that is needed in FE. Post-16 providers that are not in mayoral strategic combined authorities—I believe that the hon. Member’s constituency is not—have been able to bid for the construction skills capacity fund, the outcome of which will be revealed very shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised the variation in the cost of payments per pupil. High-cost 16 to 19 courses do receive more money. For example, engineering attracts 73% more funding than base cost classroom courses. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) was right to highlight the problems with the apprenticeship levy as was. We are making big changes to make it less bureaucratic for small businesses, in particular with the growth and skills levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) highlighted issues with transport, as did many other Members. He was right to say that bus access is integral to opportunities at further education colleges. I know that from my own constituency.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh MacAlister

    Access to Further Education

    As a Cumbrian MP, I know that problem all too well, and I know that many in Cornwall experience that too. We are building back our bus system in this country. There have been significant increases in funding for local authorities to build back that bus system. We do need to go further on it, and I completely recognise the connection that has been drawn by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) asked about funding. About 70% of FE funding comes from the Department for Education through the funding for post-16 courses. Earlier in my speech I set out the 12% increase over the last two years. Because that is such a large proportion, I recognise the other issues with adult skills budgets, but overall FE college funding is going up as a result of all of that.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh MacAlister

    Access to Further Education

    I was about to turn to my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to recognise the limits of my knowledge, given that my noble Friend in the other place has responsibility for that issue. I will happily ask for officials to write to my hon. Friend about that concern. He is also right to highlight the need for care in handling the transition in qualifications—a point he has made many times and on which he has helped the Government get to a sensible place. I will also ask my noble Friend, given her responsibility for this brief, to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) about the issue in his constituency. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), rightly highlights issues around funding. I believe I have covered that in relation to yesterday’s excellent news on FE teacher pay, overall funding and the population at post-16 settings; there will be a 12% increase over the next two years. The hon. Member and I spend quite a bit of time exchanging ideas and comments about each other’s plans; I have stopped keeping a tally of spending commitments from the Liberal Democrats, because they are racking up. I congratulate the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are of one mind on the need for a transformation in further education. I do not have time to tackle the hypocrisy of the Conservative party’s student loans plan, because I have been asked to wrap up. With that in mind, let me finish by saying that further education colleges are a manifestation of so much that we value as a Government and as a country. We back them with the money, reform and status they rightly deserve. There will be more to come, but change is already afoot. I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby for securing the debate and all Members for contributing.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jon Trickett

    Business of the House

    I have not yet had the opportunity to mention the knighting of Kevin Sinfield—a great human being, a brilliant sports player and, I suppose above all, a humanitarian. One of his distinguishing characteristics is his modesty, but modesty cannot be attributed to the new boss at Royal Mail, who is driving that company into the ground, in spite of the efforts of the posties. He has paid himself a £7 million salary in a single year. Can we have a debate about corporate failure and executive reimbursement? That would allow us to express our frustration about what is happening in the country.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Topical Questions

    When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?

    Hansard source
39. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for the assiduous work that she has done with her Select Committee. It is inspiring when we, as Back Benchers, can have genuine influence by bringing the concerns of our constituents to this House of Commons and directly into the minds of Ministers, and when improvements result from that. I can recall my hon. Friend the Housing Minister using his mobile phone to instruct officials from a debate—because he was hearing so many complaints from hon. Members—to call in the CEO of FirstPort. I want to touch on a couple of examples from my constituency. One constituent, a customer of FirstPort, had their service charge increase from £980 in 2023 to £3,800 in 2026, causing them financial hardship because they had to take out a loan in order to pay the bill. Now they say that their property is unsellable. There was a clear lack of transparency, with repeated requests for service charge accounts allegedly being ignored. Another constituent reported significant concerns about FirstPort property management, highlighting that service charges increased from around £1,000 in 2021 to £3,400 in 2026 for broadly unchanged services. They, again, allege lack of transparency and more. Residents ultimately exercised their right to manage and appointed a new managing agent, which estimates comparable services at around £1,600 per year, suggesting that FirstPort’s charges were unduly high. I pay tribute to the work of Labour for Leaseholders, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky). We held a mini-inquiry and gave evidence to that inquiry. I think it was clear to all hon. Members that there is a captive market and that private companies and others are exploiting people; it may be within the law, but we have seen the behaviour of these companies and we are calling it out. One has to ask why and whose interests are being served—I will simply leave that question there. In my remaining time, I want to move on to something that started as a negative and ended up as more of a positive. Residents of Eastfield House, a block of flats in Houlton in my constituency managed by Clarion Housing, repeatedly contacted me about problems. I went out to see them. I saw one of the flats, and the various problems with maintenance and lack of transparency—frankly, it was the usual story. It was deeply concerning: I saw the anguish, the stress and the upset of these people, who are having their dignity disrespected and damaged. I contacted Clarion, which generously attended a meeting that I held with residents a few weeks later, and is taking action. The company has already given a payment to those residents, and it has a single point of contact and an action plan. It is doing what it can to improve the situation. I pay tribute to Clarion; it has shown that things can improve. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was a very good start, and I know that the Government are consulting further. This Government are intervening in failing markets, because if we do not do so, the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, worse, to exploit people.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    I entirely agree. As I was saying, the market is failing, and many of the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, at worst, exploit people. As we have heard from hon. Members, some of those companies and individuals will continue to push the limits of decency, and possibly legality, because there is no accountability. Let us make it as hard as we can for them. Let us protect and empower the people who really count: the leaseholders. In my remaining seconds, I ask the Minister to touch on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the need to look at the right-to-manage process. I suggest that the threshold should be reduced to 30% or that a deemed consent process should be brought in so that our residents can take control of poor estate management. We owe it to them; they deserve dignity in the housing that they have purchased.

    Hansard source