Danny Chambers MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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 beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 28, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, extends the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when it determines 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 those matters. I am sure all Members are probably in a similar situation in that EHCPs, in their various forms, are one of the main reasons we get contacted by constituents; they certainly fill up my inbox. Following the Education Committee’s report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”, which identified significant gaps in accountability and engagement from the DHSC and health services in the special educational needs and disabilities—or SEND—system, the Health and Social Care Committee held a one-off evidence session to build on those findings, looking at the delivery of the health aspects of EHCPs. The Health and Social Care Committee followed up a recommendation that the Education Committee had made that the powers of the SEND tribunal service should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. SEND tribunals are independent national tribunals that decide appeals against local authority decisions about the special educational needs of children and young people, including decisions made about an EHCP. Currently, they can make binding recommendations in relation to education provision, but not in relation to health and social care needs. The Education Committee argued: “This would ensure that when a failure to deliver a health provision specified in an EHC plan occurs, health bodies are legally obligated to take corrective action.” When the Health and Social Care Committee raised that with witnesses in its evidence session, several were supportive of placing this duty in legislation, although they noted that it would require other reforms to workforce and commissioning arrangements to be successful. New clause 28 would provide a level playing field between education bodies and ICBs, so that ICBs are also under a legal obligation to comply with recommendations from SEND tribunals.

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

  More

  I pay tribute to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. It does good work in trying to eradicate rabies in countries with street dogs, as part of hearts-and-minds engagement. We can work public health into pretty much any Department.

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

  More

  Just to blow my own trumpet, my greatest academic achievement was getting correspondence published in Nature on the impact of conflict on antimicrobial resistance. It might interest Members to know that, in Ukraine, 80% of wounds have novel bacteria that are displaying multi-drug resistance, which has become a limiting factor in getting soldiers back on to the frontline. We are trying to reframe issues such as antimicrobial resistance as national security and defence issues, rather than purely public health issues.

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

  More

  I thank Committee members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke particularly well and emotively—I know that he worked for Dementia UK before entering Parliament. My mother was a carer for my father, who had dementia, and my sister and I gave her respite care, although probably not enough of it. I know that many Committee members will have been in a similar situation, as it is a common disease, and it is becoming increasingly common. I also thank the Minister for her comments and reassurance. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a point about children being carers. I sat on the Mental Health Bill Committee last year, and to give an example of how impactful such Committees can be, it is now a requirement, as a result of the Committee’s consideration, to identify whether mental health patients have children who are carers. That was not the case before, and we appreciated the Government engaging with us on that issue. It is often teenagers who care for adults with severe mental health issues, but they were not even identified before, so they could not be given the support they required. That has changed now, and it is fantastic to see that, through Committee scrutiny, we can make a tangible difference to people’s lives. I will not press new clauses 16 and 17 to votes, but the Liberal Democrats do think that it would be sensible and impactful to establish a national respite care scheme, so I will press new clause 18 to a Division. On new clause 16, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 18 National Respite Care Scheme “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme. (2) The scheme under subsection (1) must make provision for— (a) a local authority carrying out a carer’s assessment under section 10 of the Care Act 2014 to be required to consider whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring responsibilities. (b) unpaid carers to receive support to take breaks from their caring responsibilities to— (i) maintain their physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing, (ii) participate in work, education, training or recreation, and (iii) participate in family and community life. (c) a carer to receive appropriate support if a local authority carrying out an assessment under subsection (2)(a) determines that a carer is unable to take sufficient breaks from caring. (3) Under subsection (2), ‘support’ may include— (a) replacement care for the cared-for person; (b) respite services; (c) any other steps a local authority considers appropriate as support. (4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient support to local authorities to ensure the scheme under subsection (1) is delivered in every local authority. (5) For the purposes of this section ‘unpaid carer’ has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a National Respite Care Scheme. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank everyone for their comments. I thank the Minister for her reassurances on the seriousness of this issue. Given that we are waiting for the response to the report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Emma Foody.)

• 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 will speak to new clauses 16, 17 and 18 together. They relate to the duty on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Certainly, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, and having been a carer myself—like many people in this room—I have a particular interest in the mental health of carers. Sometimes we forget that, as well as the patient, the carer also needs a huge amount of support, as what they do can be very draining. Unpaid carers are essential to the sustainability of the NHS and social care system, but carers consistently experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes than non-carers, and frequently struggle to access support for their own health needs. There are approximately 4.7 million unpaid carers in England. They provide support valued at an estimated £152 billion annually—equivalent to the annual NHS budget. Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The GP patient survey 2025 showed that 72% of carers report a long-term condition or disability compared with 61% of non-carers. The Office for National Statistics reports that one in four adults providing unpaid care described being in “not good health”, compared with one in five adults who are not providing unpaid care. The probability of reporting being in “not good health” was higher for people providing more hours of unpaid care. Some 49% of unpaid carers reported at least one adverse health effect from providing that care. Low mental wellbeing was more common among unpaid carers, at about 20%, than among those not providing unpaid care, at 15%. An academic study analysing GP patient survey data found that, for those caring for more than 50 hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to losing 18 days of full health every year. A study has also found that carers cancel medical treatments and appointments because nobody is available to step into their caring role, and that, because of their caring responsibilities, carers cannot find appointments at times when they can attend. A more targeted approach to support unpaid carers could help to prevent the onset of deteriorating carer health and wellbeing as a result of their caring roles. Although ICBs have broad duties relating to population health and inequalities, there is currently no explicit statutory duty requiring ICBs to improve the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers specifically.

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

  More

  I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.

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

  More

  New clause 14 is about healthy life expectancy. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years, setting out how the target would be achieved. New clause 79 would establish a public health committee and health creation unit to promote public health and cross-Government policymaking. New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. All three new clauses are closely related. Over the last 100 years, life expectancy in the UK has been increasing for a variety of reasons, including vaccination, improved hygiene and medical advances, but worryingly, between 2022 and 2024, it decreased by 1.8 years for men and 2.5 years for women. That is the first time it has decreased in a while. There is an 11.1-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies, which is partly due to demographics and different socioeconomic situations. Socioeconomic disparity is causing a very significant difference in life expectancy. We need wider whole-of-Government working to address the root cause of and contributing factors to ill health. DHSC, the NHS and social care deal with too much in silos, which is a problem across the whole of Government. There is too much siloed working. All Departments should be working with at least one eye on the health of the nation. That is what our new clauses seek to foster. A healthy life expectancy target would provide the basic metric for that aspiration, forcing wider thinking on prevention and ill health, rather than on waiting lists and hospital performance, as important as they are. New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. That should aim to focus the minds of non-DHSC Government Departments that have a central role to play in the promotion of good health and longevity, whether that be housing standards or environmental regulations. We included health protection—areas such as clean water, for instance—as well as health promotion, which includes areas such as active travel. New clause 79 would create a public health committee and a health creation unit to support its work, especially between Departments. This is an idea originally introduced under the coalition Government, designed to tackle obesity, alcohol abuse and other public health problems. Although we recognise that it was not perfect, given the Tories’ lack of engagement and spotty attendance, the desire to foster cross-Government thinking was definitely right.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that intervention. Unless something changes significantly by the time we get to vote on new clause 76, which I understand will not be today, we will press it to a vote for transparency’s sake, but we will withdraw new clause 15. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers “After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert— ‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers (1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers within its area. (2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to— (a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by carers, (b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health, (c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and (d) the need to ensure carers are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support. (3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area— (a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes, (b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and (c) provide carers with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing. (4) In preparing a Joint Forward Plan, an integrated care board must include— (a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of carers within its area, (b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for carers, and (c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by carers. (5) In this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 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 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  It is well recognised that people who inflict deliberate pain, injury or violence on animals are more likely to be involved in domestic abuse, yet if someone is prosecuted for deliberately injuring an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws, meaning that their conviction is unlikely to show up under the domestic abuse disclosure scheme. Will the Minister look at how we can change the recording of such offences, so that people who deliberately harm animals are likely to be reported as being at risk of committing domestic abuse against people?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s mentioning an update to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966; after 60 years, it is much needed to make the Act fit for purpose to regulate new business structures and paraprofessionals such as physios, and to protect the title of veterinary nurse. Could we have an assurance that, with the change of Administration, the update will remain a priority and will not be kicked into the long grass? It is much needed right now.

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has just highlighted a point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). That kind of experience causes concern not only for its lack of dignity, but for infection control, antimicrobial resistance and hospital-acquired infections. That kind of treatment not only has a lack of dignity, but can be lethal. That is a huge public health issue, which my hon. Friend’s specific example highlights.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lib Dem-run Winchester city council on its fantastic initiative, Solar Together, which installs solar panels on council houses? So far, it has installed solar panels on 35 properties, reducing energy bills, lifting people out of fuel poverty and reducing carbon output. What support is the Minister giving to ensure that such initiatives can continue, in Winchester and throughout the whole country?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps he is taking to help tackle climate change.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This subject is of particular interest to me. For quite a few years I was a trustee of a charity that supported evidence-based medicine and quality improvement. The hon. Lady talked about a no-blame culture. We now tend to use the term “just culture” but it is the same kind of thing: we must have a safe space for people to come forward, like in the airline industry. We want to encourage reporting not only of mistakes but of near misses so that improvements can be delivered without tragic incidents having to take place. If we are to create a culture in which people will come forward to admit even potential mistakes and near misses, they cannot in any way fear punitive punishment under regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that folding HSSIB into the CQC will make it difficult to create a culture in which people feel confident enough to want to come forward with and overtly discuss mistakes and errors?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The size of the contract would be pretty much irrelevant; what matters is the implications arising from the contract being signed. Does a contract potentially compromise our data sovereignty? Alternatively, if a contract failed for any reason, whether it was because of the action of a state actor or a non-state actor, would the service continue to function?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman must have read the next line of my speech. We are concerned that a DHSC employee appearing before that Committee will not clearly and openly state whether DHSC is failing. New clause 78 “would ensure that Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations are funded to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care” in 2013-14. We do not just want to protect Healthwatch; we want to strengthen it. As I mentioned, it receives almost £26 million a year, which is spread over 153 organisations. In real terms, that is about 60% less than the £43.5 million that DHSC originally estimated would be needed to fund the network. The Healthwatch network does such amazing work—I will not go through it all again—despite being underfunded compared with those original estimates. Imagine the work it could do if it was adequately funded. Even more worryingly, there is still no clarity on how Healthwatch’s functions will be funded once they have been transferred to the new system. Given the ongoing constraints and cuts to ICB running costs, there is a real risk that the funding for Healthwatch will simply end up being incorporated into wider ICB budgets, and money for the patient experience infrastructure could end up being cut entirely. The new clause aims to ensure that the Healthwatch network is properly funded, but it also raises the point that, if this change is to go through, funding for patient experience infrastructure must be protected. Otherwise, the Bill risks not just weakening patient experience, but removing it altogether as the funding gets swallowed by wider NHS operational demands.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  For over 50 years, there has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system. The creation of Healthwatch was, in part, a direct response to the issues raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs. In a 2024 Healthwatch poll, almost a quarter of NHS patients said that they had experienced poor care in the past year, but 56% of them—more than half—took no action. Of that 56%, 20% said that that was because they were scared that giving negative feedback directly to NHS services would affect their ongoing treatment. Women, people living in areas of greater deprivation, disabled people and unpaid carers were significantly more likely to give the fear of retribution as a reason for not speaking up. The Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to an independent body and express how the NHS can work better for them, patients will now be able only to give feedback to the same organisation that might have failed them. I have had experience of that in the past few weeks. My partner Emma has endometriosis, which has been an ongoing condition. She was worried that speaking to the local hospital trust specifically about the treatment she received might affect her treatment going forward. The Government have argued that the changes will bring patient insight closer to decision making, making it much more effective at securing change. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that patients do not need “ventriloquists”. That blatantly disregards the vital role played by Healthwatch in advocating not only for vulnerable patients who, understandably, do not feel confident navigating health services with often complex or combative systems, but for whole communities with a pre-existing distrust of the system. We believe that removing Healthwatch leaves the health service to mark its own homework, which creates a conflict of interest. It will significantly undermine public trust, as independence is removed. Will vulnerable people who have suffered harm or poor experiences in the health and care system really have faith in a system headed by a director in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is the very organisation running the system that caused them harm in the first place? On a local level, will they have faith going to the same ICB that oversees the providers that have failed them? One need only look at the long list of maternity failings in Mid Staffs to see that internal functions can fail catastrophically. We know all too well that the NHS default is sometimes to cover up. The public knows that, too, so independence is everything. Healthwatch has been keen in spotting and exposing challenges in the health service, such as widespread failures in the NHS referral process, yet there will be no incentive for the new system to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main NHS performance metrics. The system does not always know what questions it needs to ask, so an independent route for unsolicited feedback is important. We also think that the provisions disadvantage hard-to-reach communities and those who may have a distrust towards the NHS and public authorities, making it harder to gain the feedback and concerns of those communities. That risks inadvertently further baking in inequalities. More widely, clarity has not yet been provided on how those functions will be funded. The reform is coming alongside major reductions in ICB running costs. Healthwatch currently receives almost £26 million a year; that is already 60% less in real terms than the original DHSC estimate to fund the network. There is a risk that the money will be absorbed into wider budgets and never spent on the patient experience infrastructure. If people want to see the value of Healthwatch, they need look no further than the Cabinet Office briefing notes on the King’s Speech, which reference a May 2025 Healthwatch report on missing medical records to make the case for the single patient record. Fundamentally, the Government are conflating patient voice with patient involvement in decision making. While greater patient voice in commissioning and decision making is needed, it is not a replacement for the advocacy and other functions of Healthwatch, which helps vulnerable people to navigate a complex health and care system and performs signposting functions. Splitting local healthwatch functions across ICBs and local authorities once again separates health and care and reinforces existing gaps between them. As we know, many issues span both areas and need a joined-up investigative approach. How will the new model ensure a joined-up view of people’s experiences across the NHS and social care? We urge the Minister to reconsider this decision. We have seen overwhelming support for Healthwatch across the sector, and it is becoming increasingly clear that many people in the NHS and the medical profession think that this is a huge mistake. Healthwatch England has played a central role in escalating the findings of local healthwatch organisations and in advocating nationally. We have three examples. The first is the call to publish research highlighting inequalities in waiting times for disadvantaged groups, and for a demographic breakdown of waiting lists, which the NHS obliged with last summer. The second example arose after Healthwatch Sunderland supported a patient with a learning disability who had received accessible screening information but risked missing care because of inaccessible follow-up letters. Healthwatch England raised that gap with national bodies and highlighted inconsistencies in communication, and, as a result, the national easy-read templates were introduced across the cancer pathway, which improved accessibility and reduced risk. The third example is that Healthwatch feeds back patients’ horrific stories of corridor care—including that of a pensioner who was left in a corridor—to NHS leaders, and lobbies for increased transparency and oversight when it comes to corridor care. I have several questions in three forms. Is the Minister genuinely sure that a director of patient experience in DHSC will be eager to advocate for patients and flag issues at a national level given that they will essentially be flagging to their bosses where work is not up to scratch? Is she sure that the level of persistence that has so often been needed to advocate for change at a national level would be forthcoming from a director employed by DHSC? What will be the mechanism for escalating local concerns that indicate national or systemic issues? Will the Minister explain where the Government envision the new director sitting in the DHSC structure, and what the reporting lines will be? How will the Government ensure that they have the resources and sense of operational independence to investigate and raise concerns nationally? Healthwatch England has often flagged issues to MPs and to the Health and Social Care Committee as a way of applying pressure on NHS leaders and Ministers to enact change.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would not always object to that, because the whole point of the new clause is that such a contract would come to Parliament and then might well be approved if it turned out to be the best system and in our national interest. The thrust of all three new clauses is to ensure that we do not get exposed and make ourselves vulnerable, which could affect the functioning of the NHS and compromise people’s data. A future Government could set up their own AI system in the UK. How would data be used by that system? We are looking at future-proofing people’s privacy and future-proofing the ability of our country to deliver a service properly. There is also an economic opportunity. We should always prioritise domestic suppliers where possible, and even cultivate them, and help them to innovate and develop, because spending potentially tens of millions of pounds with foreign companies will not do anything to grow our own economy. Given the world-beating talent in our country, we see no reason why the long-term effect of domestic options to foreign systems could not be developed with sufficient Government support. As such, where a contract is signed with a foreign supplier, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to support domestic alternatives. We recognise the complexities involved with NHS procurement, and our new clauses represent one vision built on the core principles of domestic resilience and digital sovereignty. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I would appreciate some comments on. How do the Government intend to build trust in the single patient record to make sure that it is not undermined, rather like the federated data platform has been? Does the Minister agree that the poor reputation of Palantir and distrust has been an important element in the slow roll-out of the federated data platform? Has she considered undertaking a risk assessment with a national security focus of current NHS digital and tech contracts? Does she agree that, in an ever more turbulent world, building domestic capability in this area is central to the security of our country? Does the Minister agree that the domestic life sciences and tech sector is more than capable of developing and scaling many of the systems that we rely on foreign companies for at the moment? The Government have very much positioned AI and technology as the NHS’s white knight. We agree that the potential is huge, but do the Government not think that the NHS needs a long-term digital strategy to support a joined-up development and roll-out of these systems and technology? An analogy to this is how the defence investment plan and future defence procurement can help prioritise and boost economic growth in the UK. We think this is another way that economic growth could be nurtured.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is not about closing off markets or shutting off the potential to use foreign companies if they are most appropriate. It is about prioritising and investing in UK technology and our economy to solve some of our domestic problems while also providing security. Saying that we are closing off domestic markets is misunderstanding the thrust of the new clause.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s response and the comments of other Members, which were insightful as usual. When we discussed whether carers could access parts of the single patient record, Members made very good points about privacy and historical health issues that a patient might not want a carer to know about. Those are very sensible concerns, but someone watching these proceedings or looking back over the record would think that there had been a lot more agonising over whether someone caring for a patient could access relevant information than over the potential systemic misuse of health information facilitated by private companies. A lot of people are worried about that when it comes to procurement, trust and sovereignty. I thank the Minister for her comments on new clause 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic suppliers “In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert— ‘1CD Duty to prioritise domestic suppliers (1) In exercising functions in relation to the health and care service, the Secretary of State must prioritise the awarding of any contract that will involve the handling of NHS patient data to suppliers based in the United Kingdom. (2) The Secretary of State may only seek to procure technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data from suppliers based outside of the United Kingdom where a viable domestic alternative does not exist. (3) Before signing any contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must consult with— (a) patient groups, (b) national security experts, and (c) staff unions, on the proposed contract and lay a report on such a consultation before Parliament. (4) Where it is proposed to sign a contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must arrange for a motion agreeing to the signing of such a contract to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and no such contract may be signed where a motion for its agreement is negatived by either House of Parliament. (5) If a contract is awarded for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must place a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out whether the Government is taking, or is planning to take, steps to develop or support long-term domestic alternatives to the systems provided by the contract.’”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based, suppliers for technology systems and contracts handling NHS patient data, and places restrictions on the signing of contracts for such systems with non-UK based suppliers. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.