Edward Argar
MP for Melton and Syston · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I have a lot of time for the Minister; I hope this issue is on his radar. On brownfield sites, the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington should not be contentious; it is a sensible approach to draw together all the different strands of work that the previous Government did to push the development of brownfield sites.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is tangible investment to persuade and support local authorities to prioritise brownfield first. The problem in my patch is that the Labour Mayor of Leicester simply did not do it.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak in support of new clause 34, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ exchanges, and I have to say that I do not see what is particularly contentious about my hon. Friend’s proposal.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Take the NHS funding model, for example: in my area, the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care board is having to make in-year savings to live within its financial envelope.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituency has a couple of towns in it and is right on the edge of Leicester, but it goes way up into rural north-east Leicestershire. The reality is that the developments on the edges of the towns or nearer the city often work most effectively, because there are bus routes and there is access to more schools, shops, businesses and e…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That means a significant amount of development on the edges of villages—often with no bus route or only a sparse service, a full village primary school and a GP practice serving a whole range of rural communities—that are unable to meet the needs of the additional development. The pressure on local services is a real challenge.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
6,125 lines on record for Edward Argar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 2 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Lady was right to highlight in her remarks the importance of timely discharge from hospital as a key element of whether we can achieve that flow into hospital beds and have hospital bed capacity to allow an A&E department or emergency department to function. I looked at this issue four years ago, so the situation may well be very different today, but post the pandemic I inherited about 13,000 acute beds across the system occupied by patients who were medically fit for discharge, but whose discharge had been delayed due to a variety of factors. Some were because hospital pharmacies were not open through the night to provide the drugs when patients were signed off to go home; some were because of the unavailability of patient transport; some were because all the necessary clinicians were not present to sign in the appropriate order.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady pre-empts me— I am afraid I have rather a few more remarks to come to. I planned to through the subsections and paragraphs of her new clauses to acknowledge exactly that. For example, in proposed new clause 56(4), she highlights capacity, and in proposed new subsection (5) she mentions Baroness Casey’s independent commission and the need to pay heed to it. All that is important, but my slight fear relates to the drafting. While the new clauses note such factors, they do not necessarily reflect the overall interdependency of all parts of the system. I believe that what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve is perfectly reasonable, but I am not convinced by how the new clauses are drafted. The hon.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend recognise the statistic that between 1997 and 2007, the then Government closed 32,000 hospital beds—more than double the number closed between 2010 and 2022? That is when the big reductions took place, and they failed to put in place an expansion of community beds to match that.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the King’s Fund report from late last year, which covers the years 2010 to 2025. It highlighted that the growth rate was only 5% for managers during those 15 years, but 94% for children’s nurses and 55% for doctors, and other groups had similar increases. We are seeing investment and workforce increases in the right areas. It is right that we acknowledge, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman will, that the one group where we have not seen that same growth is community health visitors and community health workers. Alongside the massive investment and increase in doctors in the past 15 years, that group, and the role it plays, deserves focus from whichever party is in government.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“4, Q2.] We are talking about moving an effective organisation into another organisation which, quite apart from whether the merger is appropriate given their different remits, is—by the review author’s own admission in evidence—basically not in a fit state to receive those new functions. I think that has been tacitly acknowledged by the Minister in saying it will only be done at an appropriate time, when the CQC is ready. Therefore, why make those changes at all? At the moment, it does not look like the CQC will be ready, at least in the near future, based on the evidence we have heard.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before addressing specific concerns about the approach being adopted with the abolition of HSSIB, I want to highlight a real challenge with—even if one accepted the premise, which I do not—where it is proposed the functions are transferred to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out. Dr Dash said in her evidence that the CQC “still has a way to go, and we all need to acknowledge that.” She went on to say: “I would have hoped that, by now, many of those challenges had been addressed. Some of them have been, but some of them have struggled.” –– [ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was asked to focus on six organisations”. –– [ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 5, Q2.] Only six out of 150? That does not ring true. That is not a tidying-up of the landscape but a very narrow focus. When the Minister comes to her concluding remarks, can she answer who specifically determined those six organisations for Dr Dash and told her to look only at those, ignoring the other 144-plus organisations? We all know that what a review comes up with is, to a large degree, determined by the scope set for it. By picking a mere six out of 150-plus organisations, I fear there is a risk that the scope has effectively, to a degree, stacked the outcome of what would be looked at and what would be concluded.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who I always listen to with great interest on these matters, highlighted that patient safety should be at the heart of this legislation. That is absolutely right, but patient safety goes hand in hand with the confidence of those working in the system to speak out and put forward evidence that will improve patient safety. It is not an either/or; one is complementary to the other. It is important that this safe space remains, because that provides the conditions in which patient safety can be improved. In her evidence during the first session of this Committee, Dr Dash stated that she found more than 150 organisations operating in this space when she undertook her review. However, in Hansard , she went on to say: “I was asked by the Department of Health and Social Care to look at that landscape.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The thread running through his remarks, which is particularly important in this context, was trust. People who have had something go wrong and have reported a problem need to trust that it will be looked at independently and dispassionately. I fear that what is proposed here results from a deeply misguided decision, which has at the heart of its logic a fundamental flaw. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, the decision fails to recognise that HSSIB’s role is fundamentally different from the role of CQC. It is an independent investigator; it is not a regulator or an enforcer, yet that somehow seems to be conflated in what the Government are trying to do here. They have simply failed to make a logical case for the change. The hon.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am particularly keen to speak on clauses 59 to 63, because HSSIB was a key part of the Health and Care Act 2022, which I took through as a Minister. At that time, I was grateful for not only the fearless and tough questioning from the now Minister, who was on the Opposition Benches, but for her support. She said: “HSSIB is a really important new body” –– [ Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 564.] She also said that it is a “new and important body, which we are all desperate to ensure works well.” –– [ Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 566.] It is fair to say that it does work well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out clearly in his detailed remarks.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is the NHS itself, its inertia, its unwillingness and the Department’s unwillingness to take them forward in a coherent fashion—to drive the recommendations through and monitor whether they have been delivered on by the NHS.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The crux of some of Dr Dash’s arguments appears to be that there are, as the Minister also alluded to, too many recommendations being made and that it is a complex landscape. Yet HSSIB, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex set out yesterday, has made 56. He went on to say that the 30 or so public inquiries and other investigations have delivered 1,400, so it simply does not follow that HSSIB is the problem in that complex landscape. What was made very clear by, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is that, of course, the concern is not the recommendations. It is not the organisation making the recommendations that is responsible for the fact that they are not implemented.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She went on to say: “As the Bill sets out, the CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether the case matches the criteria and whether it warrants information sharing outside the safe space.” And this is the crux of it: “That person is likely to be the CQC’s chief executive officer.” —[ Official Report , 6 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 147.] That is an inherent conflict. If the person who is the head of the regulatory body is making the decision on whether information should be disclosed by HSSIB in its folded-in form, that will do nothing to inspire confidence in disclosure and the safe space provisions. I fear that drives a coach and horses through some of the arguments being made that there are sufficient safeguards within this merger to ensure HSSIB can continue as it has done thus far.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The CQC, of course, has a legal duty to act on information it receives, but that risks being conflated here. I saw this illustrated last night, for example, in the Adjournment debate, in a comment made by the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), when she was responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. She was talking about the criteria for disclosing protected information outside the investigative function. She said: “Those criteria set a high bar for any disclosure—as high as it is currently with HSSIB—and the CQC will publish further guidance setting out much more detail.” This is the key point.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members have set out, it sadly appears to contain a number of errors and assumptions that are inaccurate, which I will turn to in a moment. The fundamental challenge is to establish a way for people to feel confident and trusting in challenging a culture of denial and blame. We have seen this most recently in the context of maternity failings and scandals. The need for that safe space, and for an organisation able to challenge the institutions, is very clear, and I fear that this change actually weakens the ability to do that. Dr Dash’s review, I fear, fails to fully recognise just how important the safe space concept is—not just in how it is drafted and framed legally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, in how it is perceived by those who need to use it.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is right to highlight, for want of a better way of putting it, the cumulative challenges that will potentially be piled on the CQC, on top of the pre-existing challenges with how that organisation is functioning. I read with great care the Adjournment debate that took place last night in the Chamber, which has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, and I pay tribute to him for his work in this space. I worked closely with him in the context of the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, and I know that the issue of patient safety is fundamental to what he seeks to improve and achieve in this House. I agree with him: I fear the Dash review simply fails to make the case for those changes. Also, as hon.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The challenge so often is that the provider organisations are marking their own homework and are simply not getting to the truth, or being as candid with those who have made the complaint as they have a right to expect.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That Act does not limit HSSIB investigations to individual incidents. If I recall correctly, in some of the debates on the HSSIB clauses in the Bill, we alluded as a Committee to the need for it to be able to look beyond individual incidents and try to draw out common themes. What has been said simply does not accord with my recollection of the purposes of the legislation. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon highlighted this. Recommendation 3 states: “Most investigations into safety incidents should continue to be managed within provider organisations”. That is the real challenge here. HSSIB’s independence is what allows it to range across the piece—to have issues raised with it and look at individual organisations.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do think that the scope of the review, who determined the six organisations and how that was looked at is important, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to clarify that when she makes her concluding remarks. However, there are a couple of other issues that concern me in terms of some of what was in the review, which seems to be the basis on which this is being done. Finding 6 suggests that HSSIB has expanded its “scope of work beyond the original remit.” It goes on to say: “HSSIB was originally established, along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries, to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations.” I have to say, as the Minister who took the Health and Care Act 2022 through, that is simply not the case.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, that safety is patient safety and that has to remain the golden thread that runs through everything we are debating. Whatever difference of perspective we have on this set of clauses, that must remain at the heart of what we are looking for.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady makes her point extremely clearly, and I do agree with exactly the point she makes, because in any organisation it is a big step for an individual employed by or working in the organisation to make a complaint about their organisation or to whistleblow on something that has gone on or that they feel has not been got right. Key to getting people to do that is that they feel safe and empowered to do it in the public interest, and that is exactly what is at the heart of the air accidents investigation branch and the rail accident investigation branch model, so that the information is brought forward and learnings can be driven by it to improve safety for everyone. As the hon.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting the importance of independence, and trust in the independence, of the organisations investigating failures and making recommendations. Does he agree that that is only half of it? Those organisations are not at fault when recommendations are not implemented, so the other half of this is that the NHS and the system need to act on those recommendations when they are made.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I genuinely worry that what we see here is the continuation of a theme that has run throughout other aspects of this legislation—a theme of centralisation, of removing independent external challenge and bringing it inside the system, be it the Department or the NHS. When that happens, my fear is that the people who will lose out will be the patients, whose voice will no longer carry as loudly.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would all be kept in-house in the Department, part of a closed process that would not alter decision making in reality, because that is already happening in the Department. The Department should already be looking at reports from Healthwatch England as part of decision making by Ministers and senior officials. What this simply does is remove the independence. It weakens that voice by making it something that happens within the Department rather than in the public sphere because, quite rightly, those officials will not be able to have their own independent voice out there, irrespective of the leadership of the NHS or the Minister.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is where, for me, the challenge with what is proposed comes in, because a new directorate in the Department, staffed by civil servants, will simply not be able to do that. We all know that those who work in a Department, however excellent they are, report upwards ultimately to the permanent secretary and to Ministers. They are answerable to the political leadership of the Department. Would they be able to decide that something was coming through regularly from patient feedback and publish it independently, without ministerial approval or that of the permanent secretary, or hand it to the media? Would that director be able to champion the patient voice by going on television, irrespective of any ministerial approval? The reality is, of course, that they could not.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will confine my remarks to group 47, conscious that the next group will give us an opportunity to discuss local arrangements, so I will stick to the national ones. We are all aware of the significant role that Healthwatch England plays, as well as its popularity and the trust that many people place in it. As a former Minister in the Department, I was on the receiving end, on occasion, of some sharp—or firm—suggestions from Healthwatch England, but that is what it was there for. It was there to be the grit in the oyster. It often made useful suggestions, and its independence meant that it could put reports not only to me but to the public—it published them. It could give them, for example, to my hon. Friends who served on the Health and Social Care Committee and, if it wished, go to the media to make sure that that voice was heard.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As with my reflections on clause 64, I genuinely fear that in this weakening of patient voice, particularly at a local level, the patient will be the loser because the system will continue to do what it wishes to do. It will do its consultations, and it may have a director of patient experience at an ICB level, but they will be working for the ICB; they will not be there as an independent voice to challenge the ICB—including publicly—on what it is doing. I hope that the Minister reflects further on the real diminution, if not the neutering, of patient voice that comes with some of these arrangements. As always, I look forward to her reflections when she winds up.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But it is not for Healthwatch to take action to fix the issue; it is for the ICBs and the NHS to act on those recommendations. We are proposing to give the bits of the system that have failed to take action and fix the issue not just the responsibility that they already have but the responsibility for reflecting patient voice. The one bit that is working—where patients’ voices are heard—is the bit that we are getting rid of. We are not seeking to fix the bits that have real pressure and genuine levers to compel an ICB to act on those recommendations when they are made independently, rather than simply marking its own homework.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I fear that this is a fragmentation of those links at a local level and the weakening, if not silencing, of a patient voice that can challenge publicly and ensure that what patients need to have said is genuinely said. Being in the room does not mean that that voice is heard or acted on, as shown from the examples I have spoken about: there is a consultation exercise, the view is reflected on, and the ICB does what it was going to do anyway and does not change its position. I have genuine concerns about the loss of an independent patient voice in a local context. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think she made the point in her opening remarks that we have lacked not recommendations and suggestions for changes but action to fix the issue.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that mergers and acquisitions are getting even bigger, ICBs are moving further and further away from what was conceived: for them to have the same geographical footprint as the upper-tier local authority providing social care, to ensure that the two organisations spoke to each other and were better integrated. Removing the representative from the local authority that provides that healthcare from the board, even if they are replaced with a mayor, does not bring about the reconnection with social care provision that is so central. Removing the voice of general practice or primary care from the ICBs again moves that independent challenge away from the system.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My concern is that we will see less grit in the oyster and patient voice, and more managerialism in the NHS ICB system. We heard from the hon. Member for North Shropshire and the shadow Minister about the challenges there would be, even were that patient voice to happen. Given the Government’s 50% cuts to ICB budgets, which are already impacting frontline services, ICBs will not be able to take on additional responsibilities without the funding that they need. That is quite apart from the principle that they should not be marking their own homework. I fear that “system knows best” will become the default. We have also heard about the geographical challenges.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that that voice in the room came from a consultation exercise led by the ICB, it seemingly did not make a jot of difference to the outcome or decision, or to whether the patient was heard. On the impact of local authority scrutiny panels, the NHS ICB in Melton previously recognised the need for increased GP provision in the town due to the increasing size of the town and the long waiting times, but just recently decided to reverse that position and say that it did not see the need for that. Members of the scrutiny committee, across all parties, were absolutely clear that they disagreed with that decision, but did that get listened to or make a jot of difference to the ICB? No—the ICB did what it was going to do anyway and changed its mind.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That measure brings things entirely within the system and removes the independent voice, which is exactly what this clause also does. The ICB is the voice of the NHS system, not the voice of the patient. We need the grit in the oyster that is provided by an independent voice talking to the ICB. Being in the room with an ICB will not mean that the patient voice is heard more loudly or clearly, or that it will be acted on—it is probably more likely to mean that it is not. As an example from my constituency, the ICB did conduct a consultation exercise on the proposed closure of St Mary’s birth centre in Melton Mowbray, the response to which was overwhelming: the patient voice said that they did not want that to happen. That response was fed into the ICB, but the ICB did what I fear it planned to do all along and closed the centre.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 65 and schedule 10 focus on local healthwatch arrangements. As I said when speaking to the previous group of amendments, Healthwatch is respected and trusted at a national level, and that is even more the case at a local level. I fear that the Government seek to remove something that works, that is effective and that ensures a strong patient voice in the system. It simply does not work to have integrated care boards take on those responsibilities, as they will be marking their own homework rather than being the independent patient voice. It is a little like the discussion the Committee had during the previous grouping on HSSIB, in which it turned out that the CQC will be able to investigate itself, but the chief executive of the CQC would decide whether any protected disclosures could be published during that investigation.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although it is important that we have appropriate protections and scrutiny, when we are procuring services and technology for the NHS we should be looking for the most effective and best tools that have those safeguards but can do the job that eminent surgeons and clinicians need them to do in order to do their work for patients.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My questions will be very brief. I am conscious that, given that these are mostly Liberal Democrat new clauses, for once I will be asking the hon. Member for Winchester for a response, not the Minister. New clause 4 would require that contracts be laid before Parliament. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee how many such contracts he thinks would end up being laid before the House in any given year, based on historical data, and therefore how much parliamentary time that would take up. Does he envisage that being handled by an affirmative or negative statutory instrument? What will the process be? I can see what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I have a certain wariness, along the lines of that expressed by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sadly, it is not just Capita that is missing deadlines; it is the Government, too. I raised a constituent’s case in ministerial correspondence in mid-February and received a response from the Parliamentary Secretary only on 30 June, four-and-a-half months later. My constituents want a swift solution. Given that the April deadline has been missed and the June deadline has been missed, what confidence can they or this House have that the August deadline will be hit?”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The design of the record needs to have those technical safeguards strengthened and built in.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The risk is that if they fail to achieve it, they will face financial penalties, which risks compounding the financial challenges they face and potentially reducing the available funds for primary care, mental health and a range of other healthcare services in the vicinity. I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I share the objective, but I have concerns about how it would work in practice and whether it would be overly prescriptive.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“None the less, my concern is that taking a prescriptive approach in primary legislation could further reduce ICBs’ ability to flex in order to address local needs. I can entirely see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and we all want to see primary care—general practice and dentistry—getting the funding it needs to address needs, but I am not convinced that the amendment will not have potential unintended consequences. On amendment 61, I can again see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell are trying to do: give the shift teeth and make sure that ICBs look at it.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend, I also have a slight concern about the effect of amendment 60 on the flexibility to address local circumstances and—for want of a better way of putting it—the discretion available to ICBs in determining the local health priorities. The Bill moves us away from the conception of ICBs in the 2022 Act, under which they were essentially mapped on to an upper-tier local authority geography, so that those delivering social care mapped directly on to the same geography and better integrated with it. With the removal of local authority reps and their potential replacement with representatives of a mayoral authority, and with ICBs covering much larger areas, we see a fracturing of the link with social care provision, and also perhaps a lot of local mapping and a local focus from the ICBs.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) are trying to achieve by kick-starting a shift away from acute settings and towards front-loading—for want of a better way of putting it—people’s treatment in the NHS. As he said, Governments of many different complexions have tried to achieve that shift; what he is trying to do is give it a bit of oomph. I can entirely see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do have some concerns, one of which was articulated well by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which is that the amendments are very much focused on inputs rather than outcomes. With the Health and Care Act 2022, we sought to shift the focus more towards outcomes, and I think the Minister is also seeking to move it towards outcomes rather than purely inputs—she will correct me if I am wrong—so I do worry about that. Like my hon.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for his explanation of amendments 60 and 61. Like my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I entirely understand what he is seeking to achieve, and also how important general practice is. Access to appointments with a general practitioner or at a practice is one of the most significant issues in Melton Mowbray. Despite the fantastic work that doctors are doing to try to manage that, the pressure continues to be intense, which on occasion is causing real anxiety for patients. Equally, I can see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have a genuine opportunity to accept amendment 49, which will help them to bring the people we serve on this journey, and potentially help to realise the benefits and allay people’s concerns. I genuinely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or will commit to take it away, look at it, engage with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and possibly bring back a Government amendment that does exactly this on Report.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“People have genuine questions, and in many cases I am confident that the Minister will be able to allay those concerns or put them to rest, but some campaign of that sort is needed. Such campaigns happen regularly on a range of subjects. The Department of Health and Social Care spends a significant amount of money on public health and awareness campaigns, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs spends a large amount of money on reminding everyone to get their tax returns in on time, in the lead up to that, or to remind them of the penalties if they do not. Government do that day in, day out across a range of services and where major changes are being made.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can entirely see the potential of the single patient record, but I am also conscious of the genuine concern among those of our constituents who are aware of this about what it might mean in practical terms for them and their data—it is important to remember that it is their data. They will have concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out, about who can access it, what safeguards are in place, whether they can opt out, and a range of other legitimate questions about how it will work. I have to say that amendment 49, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is not unreasonable. It would give the Government an opportunity to reassure our constituents and bring them along on this journey, rather than leaving questions unanswered or just addressing them in a Q&A on a Government webpage.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to speak primarily to amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the shadow Minister, and to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has just said. Sadly, there will be a large number of people who do not follow the debates in this House or this Committee in great detail, however fascinating they may be. That is perfectly understandable. The single patient record has genuine potential. It has the potential to put all the different bits of data in one place, so that when, for example, someone is blue-lighted to hospital, their consultant or the doctors treating them in A&E can access the information they need about their medical history and any medications they are on, which could improve clinical outcomes for patients.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That goes beyond the audit process and what happens after something has gone wrong. It is about what can be done to build safeguards into the system to make it much harder for anyone to circumvent their obligations, and to build those technical safeguards into the overall design of the single patient record. That is a reasonable ask, because such incidents, while hopefully rare, as the hon. Member for Ashford alluded to, do happen and understandably cause concern. The challenge is that there is potentially a lot more information in one place, rather than being held in different pots, trusts or GP surgeries. For those inclined to break their legal obligations and behave outside the rules, the potential opportunity to access a wider range of information is more significant.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member for Ashford made his point very clearly about what happens when something goes wrong and someone behaves inappropriately—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has highlighted some very concerning recent incidents—and was right to highlight the ability to follow an audit trail and take action. He is also right to highlight the importance of training. However, taking action once inappropriate access is known, and then following the audit trail, deals essentially with the consequences rather than preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why amendment 48, and particularly proposed new section 250E(4B)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006, is important. It describes the technical controls.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The data must be ringfenced and protected, so that it does not go out of the country and cannot be accessed by those who are technically running or providing the platform. Even within the social care system, there must be very clear and technical restrictions on who can access the records for legitimate purposes, as the hon. Member for Ashford has highlighted. I think that would just reassure people. As I said in response to previous amendments, I think the potential of the single patient record to improve clinical outcomes in care is very significant, but we need to bring people with us. I suspect that if anyone can reassure us on those points, it is the Minister.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗