Caroline Johnson MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Jul 2026 · Health Inequalities: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure that it is just Opposition Members who are saying this. In Staffordshire and right across the country, more doctors can help to reduce inequalities, and many Labour Members, from the Cabinet to Back Benchers, promised that this Government would double the number of medical school places. The former Secretary of State and the current Minister for Care repeated that promise at the Dispatch Box. We were then told in a ministerial correction that the Government had never committed to doubling the number of medical school places. How can this be accurate? Is it Government policy to double the number of medical school places, or is this a promise that they intend to break?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not opposed to the principle of GPs seeking advice or guidance; the issue is the compulsory nature of that and GPs not being able to refer.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clauses 14, 79 and 80, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in England and then to produce a strategy every two years to meet that target. This is not the first time the House has heard about life expectancy targets; as I am sure you will remember, Ms Lewell, the previous Government’s 2022 levelling-up White Paper talked about narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy between the areas where it is highest and lowest, and aimed for healthy life expectancy to rise. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, life expectancy has increased quite dramatically over the last century, but that is largely due to improvements in child mortality. That is a good thing, but it is worth looking at how healthy life expectancy is calculated. The Sullivan method starts by looking at mortality rates over a specific timeframe for a specific population, and then takes data from a cross-sectional study where people are asked to rate their own health, multiplies them together and produces a figure for healthy life years. Therefore, the main element that separates healthy life expectancy from unhealthy life expectancy is survey responses; it is not a clinical metric. If somebody on a huge amount of medication and treatment feels healthy, they are healthy. If someone on very minor treatment feels unhealthy, they are unhealthy. It is a self-reported measure. The Government’s website says that if mortality improves by 2%, healthy life expectancy increases a very small amount; if self-reported feeling healthy goes up 2%, there is a much bigger increase in healthy life expectancy. We want people not just to live longer but to live well, but it is a case of how we measure it and how we ensure that there are no perverse incentives. We should look at it over time in the same individuals. How do people feel when they get up in the winter, when it is cold, dark, raining or icy? They may feel less healthy than when the sun is shining, it is the weekend or England have won the world cup. The Government’s own figures show that musculoskeletal health is particularly important. Musculoskeletal conditions are prevalent among 17.2% of the population, and people with them are three times more likely to have self-reported ill health. We have asked before if the Government will introduce a modern service framework on musculoskeletal disease, having scrapped our long-term conditions strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government have given more consideration to that and are now willing to do an MSF on musculoskeletal health. New clause 79 would require the Government to create a committee across Government, including the Prime Minister, all Cabinet members and one Minister from each Department. The idea behind the new clause—that we need to work together—is important, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how feasible, practical and effective that would be. Finally, new clause 80 concerns the duty to promote public health. Of course, it is the Minister’s duty to do his or her job, and part of that is promoting public health. What does the Minister think the practical effects of that new clause would be on bureaucracy in Departments?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be relatively brief. New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require the arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be laid before the House to be voted on. A key concern is costing. There have been various estimates of the additional cost of medicines. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said that he would not change or cut the NHS budget to pay for that increased cost. Will the Minister tell us the estimated extra cost of medicines, and where that money will come from, if not from the DHSC budget?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is setting out the important guidance that can be provided to clinicians managing the care of children who are seriously unwell. I want to add for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which is producing that guidance; I am grateful to her for setting out its importance. End-of-life-care decisions are very difficult. They need to be taken in conjunction with families but—the Minister is absolutely right—they must be made in the best interests of the child in all cases.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who tabled new clause 25, asked me to speak to it, which I shall do briefly. This is a very serious issue. Critically ill children are infants, children and adolescents with life-threatening illness or injury, often requiring intensive, continuous care to survive conditions from leukaemia to meningococcal disease, traumatic brain injuries and major surgery such as spinal surgery. I should say that I am a consultant paediatrician, but I have worked in paediatric intensive care as a junior—now called a resident—doctor. The new clause as drafted does not, I think, do what the hon. Member was aiming for. When I read it through, I think he is looking at cases such as the tragic one of little Charlie Gard, whom we all remember died of encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, known as MDDS. It is incredibly rare. That tragic case highlighted the potential for disputes between parents and doctors, which, thankfully, are unusual. The new clause is headed, “Parents of critically ill children: communication and involvement in decision-making”. Of course parents should be involved in decision making about their children, but it is worth noting that the median time that children spend in ICU is two days and that, thankfully, most of them get better—very few do not. The new clause talks about teachers being involved, which in most cases is unnecessary and impractical; in many cases, a child may be admitted on a Friday and discharged from the ICU by the Monday. In the majority of cases, there is no practical reason for teachers to be involved. I understand the desire for parents to be part of every meeting, but sometimes clinicians need to be able to talk frankly about cases. Sometimes they will have multidisciplinary meetings where they talk about a plethora of different cases, or they may compare one case with another in terms of what they have seen, the findings of scans and the like, so it is not possible to have parents in every single meeting, although it is of course desirable for them to be aware of the discussions. Other parts of the new clause, including provision for parents to know about everything and to set out how communication and language needs may be met, seem reasonable. It mentions independent mediation where there is disagreement, which is a beneficial way to go about things, but we must not legislate so as to get in the way of urgent care, because most critically ill children in intensive care have urgent care needs that need dealing with now, not in a week’s time. Forming ethics committees to make decisions takes a long time, and that would get in the way of urgent care. I think the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley is aiming for legislation that relates to chronically mechanically ventilated children with significant medical conditions, rather than children with an acute critical illness, but I said I would move the new clause and I have. I think he is trying to provide better care for some of the sickest children. That is a desirable aim and I know he cares deeply about it, but the new clause as drafted would not do what I think he aims for, and it could get in the way of paediatricians and others managing some of the sickest children in the country, so I will not press it to a vote.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is very, very aware of my views and opinions on the Tobacco and Vapes Act, particularly on vaping and stopping vaping among children. That Act, a bit like this Bill, left lots of opportunities for the Government to provide for regulations. Anyone who has been in a shop in the past few days will have seen vapes still behind the counter, still very visible, very colourful and in lots of different flavours and suchlike. Can the Minister update the Committee, and therefore the House, on when she expects the regulations provided for by the Tobacco and Vapes Act to come into force, so that we can actually apply the law, as opposed to just having it sat on the statute book?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I should say that I am a member of the Education Committee. As the hon. Member for Winchester says, new clause 28 would extend the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when determining an appeal, it may order that EHCPs must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters. It is clearly important that children with special educational needs get the support they need. We are all very aware, from our inboxes, that that does not always happen. I do not know whether putting this into legislation would make it happen, or whether it would need much more work than one clause, but clearly it is a very important aim and I support the principle of it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how she thinks this could work in practice and whether it is legislation or a more widespread plan that is required.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This Government came to power saying that they would be more transparent, but they have not been. It took us months to get numbers out of the Government about the Chagos Islands deal.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her good wishes. The council has not just proposed closing Swallow Lodge; it has also recently closed the memory support service. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said about services for people with dementia, and this is another area where people will suffer because of the closure of vital services.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 28 Appeals against health and social care provision in EHC plans “(1) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1530) are amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3). (2) After regulation 42, insert— ‘42A Other matters relating to EHC plans against which appeals may be brought (1) In addition to the matters set out in section 51(2) of the Act, a child’s parent or a young person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the matters set out in paragraph (2), subject to section 55 of the Act (mediation). The matters are— (a) a decision of a local authority, following an EHC needs assessment, that it is not necessary for health care provision or social care provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan; (b) where an EHC plan is maintained for the child or young person— (i) the child’s or young person’s health care or social care needs as specified in the plan; (ii) the health care provision or social care provision specified in the plan.’ (3) In regulation 43 (appeals), after paragraph (2) insert— ‘(3) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that— (a) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c); (b) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d). (4) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that— (a) the health care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) are amended; (b) the social care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) are amended; (c) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) where those needs have not been specified in the plan; and (d) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) where those needs have not been specified in the plan. (5) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that— (a) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g); (b) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h). (6) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that— (a) the health care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) is amended; (b) the social care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) is amended; (c) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan; and (d) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan. (7) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of health care needs or health care provision, it must send a copy of the order to the responsible commissioning body. (8) When sending a copy of an order, the First-tier Tribunal may also send a copy of the decision which disposes of any appeal brought under section 51(1) of the Act or under regulation 42A to the responsible commissioning body. (9) The responsible commissioning body must respond within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order to— (a) the child's parent or the young person, and (b) the local authority that maintains the EHC plan. (10) The time limit specified in paragraph (9) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply for the responsible commissioning body's response. (11) A response under paragraph (9) must— (a) be in writing, (b) state what steps, if any, the responsible commissioning body has decided to take following its consideration of the order, and (c) give reasons for any decision not to follow the order, or any part of it. (12) The local authority must send a copy of the response received from the responsible commissioning body under paragraph (9)(b) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date it was received. (13) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of social care needs or social care provision, the local authority must issue the amended EHC plan to the child's parent or the young person within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order. (14) The time limit specified in paragraph (13) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply. (15) The local authority must send a copy of the amended EHC plan under paragraph (13) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date on which this is issued to the child's parent or the young person.’ (4) The Special Educational Needs and Disability (First-tier Tribunal Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1306) are revoked. (5) In consequence of the revocation made by subsection (3), the following 15 provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 are also revoked— (a) regulation 10(3)(e); (b) regulation 14(2)(e); (c) regulation 201(11)(e); (d) regulation 21(10)(e); (e) regulation 22(5)(e); (f) regulation 25(2)(e); and (g) regulation 31(3)(e).”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause extends the powers of the First-tier Tribunal so that when it is determining an appeal it may order that Education, Health and Care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on these matters. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This group of new clauses is about carers and how we look after them. They do so much work for so many people across the country by looking after their loved ones. Many of them are not necessarily in good health themselves, and some are even children. These new clauses have a positive intention: to try to improve carers’ lives and make sure that they are recognised. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on his success in keeping open his respite care centre. Perhaps he could share his notes with me, because the Reform county council in Lincolnshire is currently trying to close Swallow Lodge, a respite care centre that provides for people of working age who have severe disabilities. The council wants to close it, and the people there are devastated by that suggestion. We had a public meeting, which many people came to, and they had not been consulted at that point. I think that an assumption was made that they are not able to communicate, but many of them are able to do so with support. However, that communication had not happened. It has caused fear for people. They are worried about where they will go instead and whether it will be suitable. What about the people they made friendships with at the centre? Many of them have elderly parents—in their 80s, in some cases. It is also economically short-sighted, because people may end up going into full-time care, which will ultimately cost the council more. The council has now been persuaded to do a full consultation, which will happen over the next few months. If the hon. Member can share anything with me that was successful for him that could help me keep Swallow Lodge open against the Reform county council’s changes, I would be very grateful.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understood that one of the Government’s greatest priorities was to reduce waiting lists, but one of the things that people are waiting for the most is musculoskeletal or orthopaedic treatment. Why is it not a priority for the Government?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  1. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials in certain circumstances on the rule of law.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  In restricting access to jury trials, the Government have leant quite heavily on the Leveson report, but the Government go much further than the report recommends. Will the Solicitor General explain why?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. When reading it, it is ironic to me that they seem comfortable with data being shared across the EU but not across our own country. It did not make complete sense to me, but the hon. Lady for North Shropshire may be able to tell us more about that in her summing up. What else will the sovereign health data trust group do? It will have “continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment”. Having oversight over “all health data” is quite a big job. Again, what sort of resources does the hon. Lady think that will entail, and what does she have in mind in terms of the cost and bureaucracy of that? It would also “have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit.” What is the threshold for that? A lot of these organisations will be working in a commercial environment; if they receive a letter, potentially from a competitor, saying there is a concern, does that meet the threshold? What would the threshold be? Having decided that the data might not be used for public benefit, what investigatory powers does the hon. Lady envisage the trust having to establish whether that is the case or not? What if it does receive some concerning correspondence, it does the investigation under the investigatory powers that it has been given, it decides that it does not think it is being used for public or patient benefit, and it restricts the organisation’s ability to access data? That will potentially have a significant financial penalty and it may affect patients’ access to healthcare, too. What right of appeal would the organisation have? Who would they appeal to and how would it work? On the wording, commercial activity may well benefit patients, which is sometimes forgotten. The next thing the data trust will have to do is “ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available”. I would like some more detail about that. Would that include anonymously provided data? What effect would that have on the research environment and the integrity of research done under commercial arrangements? What about the costs? Would any costs be shared and what effect would that have on future commercial negotiations when the Government are trying to get the next organisation to look at the data? What level of detail made publicly available in the contract would need to be provided? The trust would need to publish minutes of their meetings, which seems reasonable. It would need to “ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.” Do the Liberal Democrats really intend for all data collection to go through public consultation? If, as we talked about regarding corridor care, the Government wanted to know how many people are waiting more than 24 hours in A&E, would they have to do a public consultation to collect that data? It seems overly bureaucratic.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 12 Corridor Care Accountability “(1) Six months after the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the prevalence of corridor care in NHS hospitals. (2) A report under subsection (1) must include— (a) an analysis of data on the number of corridor incidents at the national, integrated care board, trust, and hospital level, (b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken that year to reduce the number of corridor care incidents, (c) the Secretary of State’s plans to reduce the number of corridor care incidents in the coming year, and (d) information regarding the amount of funding directed toward reducing the number of corridor care incidents that year and funding allocated for such efforts in the future. (3) Following the publication of a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must give evidence in front of a panel (to be called the “Corridor Care Tribunal”) including— (a) patients, (b) bereaved or affected families, and (c) frontline NHS staff who have been impacted by corridor care. (4) Panel members for a Corridor Care Tribunal under subsection (3) shall be identified by local Healthwatch organisations and NHS Royal Colleges.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff. — (Helen Morgan.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, but I need to answer my right hon. Friend’s question first. My right hon. Friend has a much better memory than me—I was much younger then—so I am sure his statistics will be accurate.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think what members of the public want is the people who are in government now to do something to improve their lives. I am in danger of repeating myself, which could present an extra concern when so many people are questioning my memory, but there has been a 2.5% increase in the number of A&E attendances, but a 17.1% increase in the number of people waiting more than 12 hours after a decision to admit. That suggests that the Government are not going in the right direction. The public may enjoy a history lesson from time to time, but what they really want to know is what is happening now to make their lives better. I am sure the Minister will give us the answer to that in her summing up, but at the moment the Government are not bringing down the long waits in A&E. Let me return to the new clauses. Corridor care needs a whole-pathway approach. In last night’s debate we talked about the importance of preventing admissions—I know that is one of the Government’s shifts—in order to increase hospital capacity. The hon. Gentleman for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about capacity and the number of beds having reduced over a long period—another history lesson—but when my mum had me, a good few years ago, it was common for women to stay in hospital for quite a long time after having their child, and it was quite common for people to stay in bed for many days after having an operation. We now know that it is better for people to be up and about, and people leave hospital more quickly. That is a good thing. The reason for bed numbers coming down over successive Governments of different parties is clinical as well as managerial. I think that is worth saying. Will the Minister answer a question that I asked in last night’s debate but, unless I missed it, she did not answer in her summing up? Does the NHS have more beds now than it did when Labour came to power in July 2024, or fewer? I believe the answer is fewer.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clauses 12, 56 and 84 are about care in our accident and emergency departments and care in corridors. I do not want to rerun the debate on corridor care that we had in the Chamber last night, but corridor care does not provide safety, privacy and dignity, and it is unpleasant for the patient, their family and staff. If someone is in a corridor, how can they get changed, or use a commode or a bed pan? How can they be examined privately, and give information about their medical history without being overheard by a person walking down the corridor or the person in the bed next to them? Corridor care also has safety issues; for example, a patient may not be proximal to as much equipment, such as oxygen supplies and other equipment that might be required in the event of a collapse or arrest. It is not right and should not be the case that patients are cared for in corridors. The hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett talked about the history, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East that the current situation and the future are what is important. A&E services are under pressure. Attendances went up by 2.5% last year, but in March 2025, 46,766 people waited more than 12 hours in A&E following a decision to admit before being moved to a more appropriate bed. That figure is up 8.8% on the previous year. The Government’s urgent and emergency care plan sought to improve that poor performance, but things have got worse. The latest NHS figures, from May 2026, show that more than 50,000 patients waited more than 12 hours following a decision to admit—17.1% higher than the May 2025 figure. The narrative that there was a problem but now things are getting better is not necessarily accurate. We keep being told that waiting lists are coming down, but they are higher than they were a month ago, and for those waiting for an admission or procedure, they are than they were a month ago and higher than they were a year ago.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I would be interested in whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire has made any estimates of personnel time or cost that the proposal would entail. In summary, the new clause would create an unelected committee removing democratic control. Essentially, it is asking a committee of unelected individuals to write and implement policy, which is the job of the Minister. That should be under ministerial control.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry; I forgot. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon will tell me if I am wrong, but that is an elected Select Committee, with political balance, that is set up specifically to scrutinise the work of the Department of Health and Social Care. If the Department is working to try to reduce the number of patients receiving corridor care, and to measure it, it seems to me that the right organisation to scrutinise that work is already in place: the Health and Social Care Committee. I therefore think this measure would be a duplication. However, I understand the need to get patient voice into the picture; that is why it is unfortunate that the Government are choosing to abolish Healthwatch, which I think would do that very effectively. New clause 56, also in the name of the Member for North Shropshire, talks about A&E waiting times. I will start by saying that we all want A&E waiting times to be shorter—we all want people to be seen quickly and do not want patients to suffer—so the intent behind this proposal, to get people seen more quickly, is obviously a good one. However, the new clause would require, within six months, provision to be made requiring “every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.” I have a question about the wording of that, because my understanding is that someone is admitted to A&E when the decision is made to admit them to A&E and they become an A&E patient. I wonder whether the hon. Lady intends it to mean admission to an appropriate bed, whether in the trust or elsewhere. Usually, people waiting in corridors or in A&E are waiting for admission to the ward, rather than for someone to make a decision. New clause 56 would also require the Secretary of State to establish and implement an A&E scheme to help trusts to achieve that requirement, and provides that the scheme must consider creating safety nets, step-down beds and a dedicated workforce plan for A&E—it will be nice to see the workforce plan, which the Government are supposed to have written—and mandating the presence of a “qualified clinician” in the waiting room. Will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell the Committee what she means by a qualified clinician? Does she mean a consultant, a senior nurse or a healthcare assistant? What sort of qualifications does she think that they must have? The Secretary of State must also have regard to Baroness Casey’s report, but that is not due to be written in time for the new clause, which creates a little tension. However, again, I agree with the principle that social care is important in this context. In summary, the principle of new clause 56 is good and important, but I think that there are some issues with the drafting of it. New clause 84 in my name, which has been well covered by my colleagues, would just require the publication of data. In her speech earlier, the hon. Member for North Shropshire gave a figure of 15,000, but I looked back at Hansard and last night she said that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine reported that long waits caused 15,860 deaths. That figure tells us what a serious problem this is. Being able to measure that figure and, I hope, see it falling would be a helpful step. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Emma Foody.)

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East just said, new clause 6 seeks in essence to ensure that we have good data security and control, with which I agree. Trust is important, data security is important and supporting research with anonymised data is a good thing to do. What would the new clause do? First, it would establish an independent body known as a sovereign health data trust. In essence, that is a group of people who have been put together. The new clause does not say how big the group would be—I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire had its size in mind—but it describes a group of people with “a diverse range of backgrounds…and…health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.” Are the first group intended to be laypeople, rather than experts? What does the hon. Lady mean by a “diverse range of backgrounds”? Does that relate to protected characteristics, or is she looking for a farmer from Northumberland and a lawyer from Islington, because they have different backgrounds? It is not entirely clear what she means, so I would be grateful if she clarified that. Additionally, however big that group is, who would decide how it is composed and by what criteria? Who would be responsible? The sovereign health data trust would be charged with creating a health data charter. That leads me to my second question: what is a health data charter? In essence, a health data charter—as defined in the new clause—must “set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS”, and, as my hon. Friend the for Isle of Wight East said, “include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data”. That is important, because we have heard in the media several examples of data being put up for sale or leaked, and the problems caused by that. The charter must also “ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs”. I am glad to see that bit about relevant opt-outs. We have talked about the importance of the record being shared not as a whole, but in pieces. Things such as obstetric or sexual health ought perhaps to be consented to separately. Patient control of the data is important. How would the hon. Member for North Shropshire deal with safeguarding issues in the control of data, particularly in relation to children? The new clause sets out that the charter must “provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment”— which seems reasonable—and must “set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS”. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Lichfield and I discussed the important value of the NHS data—I think he said that it was the most valuable dataset in the world, and he might well be right. I was a bit confused by that part of the new clause, because we talked earlier this week about the Health Services Safety Investigations Body being able to sell time and training and share expertise, including with private sector organisations overseas. The Government changed that in the Bill, so that they would only be able to retain costs and not make any money for the Treasury. When we put amendment 56 to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained. I do not know what the difference is between using NHS data for research and the HSSIB using their expertise for training overseas organisations. I would be grateful to understand that. The charter must be “designed in such a way to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space”. The European Health Data Space regulations were introduced in March 2025. We are in a transition period, and they will be implemented in 2027 and 2029. It should be interoperable in technical terms “through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles”. What is the European Health Data Space? Essentially, it is a single patient record for Europe. Its instructions say member states may—I underline the word may—offer “an opt-out option for the cross-border exchange of electronic health data under EHDS.” I do not understand the Liberal Democrats’ argument for that, because they have made a strong argument throughout Committee stage that data needs to be shared carefully. They advanced some clauses that will ensure that data is held in the United Kingdom and that we use British tech where possible. New clause 6 would make us interoperable with the European system and presumably move us towards European systems.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.