Karin Smyth MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  These are minor and technical amendments. Government amendments 20 to 22 make changes to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to remove references to NHS England, reflecting that NHS England will be abolished. Those amendments are consequential to the Armed Forces Bill 2026. Government amendment 83 makes changes to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to remove reference to NHS England and update a reference to NHS trusts to take account of the new conversion procedure created by clause 35 of the Bill. Government amendments 23 and 24 both amend the NHS Act 2006 by removing unnecessary consequential amendments to that Act. Clause 67 inserts schedule 11, which makes minor and consequential amendments that are required as a consequence of the provision made in other clauses of the Bill. They mostly result from the abolition of NHS England, the conferral of NHS England’s functions on others—primarily the Secretary of State and integrated care boards—and the changes made to the NHS provider landscape. Those minor and consequential changes are made to a large number of enactments, but notably a significant number of such consequential changes are made to: the Mental Health Act 1983, the NHS Act 2006, the Health and Social Care Act 2008, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. The changes are necessary to ensure the proper operation of the statute book and reflect the substantive changes being made elsewhere in the Bill. I commend clause 67 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 11 Minor and consequential amendments Amendments made: 20, in schedule 11, page 140, line 16, at end insert— “91A The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.” This amendment and amendments 21 and 22 remove a reference to NHS England from section 343AZB of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (to be inserted by the Armed Forces Bill). Amendment 21, in schedule 11, page 140, line 17, leave out “of the Armed Forces Act 2006”. See explanatory statement for amendment 20. Amendment 22, in schedule 11, page 140, line 18, at end insert— “92A In section 343AZB (inserted by the Armed Forces Act 2026), in subsection (5)(a) omit sub-paragraph (i).” See explanatory statement for amendment 20. Amendment 23, in schedule 11, page 144, line 5, leave out paragraph 118. This removes an unnecessary consequential amendment to section 12E of the NHS Act 2006 (that section is replaced in its entirety by clause 10 of the Bill). Amendment 24, in schedule 11, page 148, line 9, leave out paragraph 139. This removes an unnecessary consequential amendment to a heading that is replaced by clause 11. Amendment 83, in schedule 11, page 191, line 35, at end insert— “Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 400 In Schedule 1 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (relevant authorities)— (a) omit paragraph 9; (b) in paragraph 12, omit ‘section 25 of’.”— (Karin Smyth.) This is a consequential amendment to Schedule 1 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which would remove a reference to NHS England and update a reference to NHS trusts to take account of the new conversion procedure created by clause 35 of the Bill. Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to. New Clause 20 Arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities “(1) Section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (6), for the words from ‘consultation’ to the end substitute ‘the making of arrangements by virtue of this section’. (3) Omit subsections (7A) to (7L). (4) In subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert— ‘“local authority” includes— (a) a combined authority, (b) a combined county authority, and (c) the Greater London Authority;’.”— (Karin Smyth.) This enables combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority to enter into arrangements with NHS bodies under section 75 of the NHS Act 2006 in relation to any of their functions, replacing the current different and more limited provision about combined authorities and combined county authorities. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 21 Dispensing medical practitioners etc “(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) In section 132 (persons authorised to provide pharmaceutical services)— (a) for subsection (1) substitute— ‘(1) Except as may be provided for by or under regulations, no arrangements may be made by an integrated care board with a person providing primary medical services under Part 4 to provide pharmaceutical services.’; (b) in subsection (3), for ‘medical practitioners’ substitute ‘persons providing primary medical services under Part 4’; (c) in subsection (4)— (i) for paragraph (a) substitute— ‘(a) as to grounds on which an integrated care board may, or must, refuse to grant an application for inclusion in a list referred to in subsection (3),’; (ii) in paragraph (aa) omit ‘of medical practitioners’; (iii) in paragraph (b), for ‘NHS England by a medical practitioner’ substitute ‘an integrated care board by a person’; (iv) omit paragraph (c). (3) In section 134 (pilot schemes), in subsection (8) omit ‘by a medical practitioner or dental practitioner to a patient of his’. (4) In Schedule 12 (LPS schemes), in paragraph 1(8) omit ‘by a medical practitioner or dental practitioner to a patient of his’.”— (Karin Smyth.) This updates the legislation about the provision of pharmaceutical services by medical practitioners to conform with current law and practice whereby commissioning arrangements are generally made with the practice rather than individual doctors. It also removes a reference to dental practitioners that is not needed. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 22 Inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services “(1) Section 133 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services) is amended as follows. (2) For subsection (1) substitute— ‘(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a situation or event has caused or is likely to cause a disruption resulting in the inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services in England or in an area within England.’ (3) In subsection (2)— (a) after ‘Secretary of State’ insert ‘may by direction’; (b) for paragraph (a) (but not the ‘and’ at the end) substitute— ‘(a) require an integrated care board to make other arrangements,’; (c) in paragraph (b) omit ‘may’. (4) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(3) A direction under subsection (2) must specify the period for which it has effect. (4) The period must not be more than 6 months. (5) But the Secretary of State may by further direction extend the period for which a direction under subsection (2) has effect by up to 6 months at a time. (6) The Secretary of State must publish any directions under this section.’”— (Karin Smyth.) The amendments made by this clause (among other things) relax the legal test for making alternative provision to address the inadequate provision of pharmaceutical services owing to a disruption of services. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 23 Pharmaceutical services: appeals etc “Schedule ( Pharmaceutical services: appeals etc ) makes provision about the destination of appeals, and jurisdiction to determine certain matters, currently governed by Part 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (pharmaceutical services and local pharmaceutical services).”— (Karin Smyth.) The clause introduces a Schedule which amends provisions about certain appeals etc to the First-tier Tribunal. Those appeals will be transferred to an NHS body determined by regulations. It is expected that initially this will be NHS Resolution. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 91 Regulations: reference to agreements and standards “(1) The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 is amended as follows. (2) In section 2 (power to make regulations about human medicines), after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) making provision in reliance on section 3, 4, 5 or 7 may refer to international agreements or standards relating to human medicines, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time.’ (3) In section 16 (manufacture, marketing and supply), after subsection (2) insert— ‘(3) Provision made in reliance on subsection (1)(a) may refer to United Kingdom standards that— (a) relate to the marketing, putting into service or other supply of medical devices, and (b) are specified in a list published by the Secretary of State from time to time. (4) Regulations made under section 15(1) that contain provision made in reliance on subsection (1)(a) about relevant requirements (or exceptions from them) may include provision in relation to a medical device where— (a) the device complies with regulatory requirements applicable somewhere outside the United Kingdom which is specified in regulations, and (b) a description of the device and the regulatory requirements applicable to it are contained in a list published by the Secretary of State from time to time. (5) In this section “United Kingdom standard” means a standard that is— (a) set by the British Standards Institution, or (b) primarily developed for use in the United Kingdom, or part of the United Kingdom.’”— (Karin Smyth.) This new clause would amend the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to (a) enable regulations to refer to both international agreements and standards and standards developed in the United Kingdom and (b) enable the Secretary of State to dispense with requirements placed on devices which meet regulatory requirements applicable outside the United Kingdom. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  As the UK resilience action plan sets out, we are living through a period of profound change. Ensuring that our institutions are clear in what they must do to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies is essential. With that mind, the clause is necessary. It clarifies the existing duties on NHS trusts under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—the legislation that sets out how the UK prepares for, co-ordinates and responds to serious emergencies. Since the Civil Contingencies Act came into force, NHS trusts have been included as category 1 responders. That means that they have had specific legal duties to assess risks, plan for emergencies, maintain business continuity, warn and inform the public, and work together to co-ordinate an effective local response. Due to changing policies by the previous Government, references to NHS trusts were removed from the Civil Contingencies Act, yet under transitionary powers in other legislation, they remain category 1 responders. This has meant that their role has seemed unclear for some other responders and the public. I want to be clear that the clause does not change the position of NHS trusts, nor their duties or functions under the Civil Contingencies Act; instead, it simply clarifies the legislation, making their place and role clear. That is vital so that NHS trusts and other responders know exactly what is required of them during and after an emergency. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 67 Minor and consequential amendments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I am sorry, but I did not get the end of that sentence. However, I think the hon. Lady was saying that the Bill essentially abolishes NHS England. Again, as I have said repeatedly, nobody is opposing that. As is well known, the recommendations on the maternity commissioner have come through a separate process. Given the need for public assurance and to earn back the trust of women and families, as well as—I think the hon. Lady said this herself—the shocking revelations that have come through some of this work, Baroness Amos recommended a maternity and neonatal commissioner to drive through these changes and give confidence to the system. That is why we are going to accept her recommendation. Accountability for maternity services obviously remains with the Secretary of State, who will be co-chairing the taskforce. I hope that addresses the comments the hon. Lady made. On new clause 13, we know that the vast majority of births are safe, but the devastating trauma experienced by many through failures in care must be brought to an end. The CQC has an important role in assessing whether patients are receiving safe, effective and high-quality care, and it is essential that it can do that objectively and independent of Government. It is therefore not appropriate to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure particular ratings.

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

  More

  I think that the record will show that I have taken several interventions in recent days, and I will continue to do so. I have been very clear that we have some fundamental disagreements on philosophy and approach. I will desperately try not to veer into the next groups, but it may be tricky. I am sure that you will steer me through, Ms Lewell. I want to pick up on some good, helpful points that have been made. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for the comments he made. I appreciate that certain areas, particularly Mid Staffs, have elicited a lot of debate and concern. I commend him for following that through on behalf of his constituency. I know that other Members in Staffordshire want to understand how the Government’s future plans will address their very real concerns. That is also true of other areas that have experienced shocking scandals, as we call them. I take that very seriously. I will pick up on the question of independence that we veered into before, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. She highlighted her concerns and the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, and I heard what she said. Independence was also raised by the hon. Member for Winchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. We therefore return to that point about independence and, as my hon. Friend said, about being in the room, making those decisions and changing the entire culture of the organisation to do something different. The question is then whether bringing the functions of Healthwatch to the national level is the right method. Again, I commend work on that and the individuals involved in it. Hon. Members mentioned Jacob Lant of National Voices and the King’s Fund, which have worked with us very well to challenge us and try to make this legislation better. I really appreciate their work, and we will continue to talk with them. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon mentioned GIRFT. I cannot help but respond to his point, because he suggested that being inside NHS England has somehow made it less effective, and I could not disagree with him more. It is not because he has left and is here; his presence is obviously missed at GIRFT and welcomed here. To be serious, every meeting I have with NHS England and everything we are attempting to do in reforming outcomes for patients on the ground involves GIRFT. It is now at the very heart of what NHS England does. By coming inside the organisation, it has done exactly some of the things we want to do: drive cultural difference and change inside the organisation, rather than being outside of it. As I said before, this is a slightly philosophical argument and political argument. I appreciate that there are views on either side, but that is absolutely our intention. On the patient experience directorate, we recognise that public trust will be crucial. We need to ensure that there is system learning across the piece. The patient experience directorate has to earn the trust of the public and parliamentarians, so we will design it to operate transparently and sit at the centre of decision making rather than at its margins. Ministers will be accountable for and answerable to Parliament on the work of the patient experience directorate. It has to focus on the voices that are too often overlooked. The central priority of the directorate will be to reach under-represented and seldom heard groups and to ensure that engagement is accessible, inclusive and proactive, so that the experiences of vulnerable people help inform and shape the decisions that affect their lives.