PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Health Bill (Sixth sitting) - 25 June 2026 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 12, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(4A) Before making regulations under subsection (1)(b) that would alter the range of services or facilities which the Secretary of State is required to commission nationally, the Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare and publish a commissioning transition plan in accordance with subsection (4B),

(b) consult in accordance with subsection (4C), and

(c) lay the commissioning transition plan before Parliament.

(4B) The commissioning transition plan must set out—

(a) a description of each service or facility that the Secretary of State proposes to add to, or remove from, national commissioning responsibility under section 3B(1)(b), and the reasons for each proposed change;

(b) a description of the body or bodies to which commissioning responsibility for each such service or facility would transfer and the basis on which that body is considered capable of commissioning that service or facility effectively;

(c) an assessment of the impact of each proposed change on patients who rely on the affected services or facilities, including—

(i) patients with rare diseases or conditions,

(ii) patients whose needs cannot be met by a single integrated care board area, and

(iii) patients who may face differential impacts on account of a protected characteristic within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010;

(d) the transitional arrangements to be put in place to ensure continuity of service for patients during any transfer of commissioning responsibility;

(e) the workforce and capacity implications for the bodies to which commissioning responsibility would transfer;

(f) the financial arrangements for the transfer of commissioning responsibility, including the funding to be allocated to receiving bodies; and

(g) the proposed timetable for implementation of each change.

(4C) Consultation under this subsection must include—

(a) integrated care boards that would assume commissioning responsibility under the proposed changes;

(b) NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts providing the services or facilities affected by the proposed changes;

(c) patient groups and representative organisations for patients likely to be affected by the proposed changes;

(d) clinicians with expertise in the services or facilities affected; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4D) Consultation under subsection (4C) must—

(a) run for a period of not less than twelve weeks, and

(b) begin no earlier than the date on which the specialised commissioning transition plan is published under subsection (4A)(a).

(4E) Following the consultation period, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the consultation that—

(a) summarises the representations received,

(b) sets out the Secretary of State's response to the key issues raised, and

(c) describes any amendments made to the specialised commissioning transition plan in light of consultation responses.

(4F) No regulations under section 3B(1)(b) that alter the range of nationally commissioned services or facilities may be made until at least 60 days have elapsed after the consultation response required by subsection (4E) has been published.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish and consult on a commissioning transition plan before making any regulations under the new section 3B of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by Clause 12) that would alter which services are commissioned nationally.

In essence, the clause confers the commissioning duties of NHS England on to the Secretary of State, because NHS England is being abolished. In that respect, it is quite straightforward. In the existing National Health Service Act 2006, which is to be amended, section 3 sets out the duties of integrated care boards as to commissioning health services, and section 3A similarly. Section 4 is about NHS England’s responsibility for the provision of high-security psychiatric services. In essence, clause 12 replaces the references to “NHS England” in sections 3 and 3A with “the Secretary of State”. The ICBs now must act consistently with the discharge by the Secretary of State of the section 1 duty to promote a comprehensive health service. That is consistent with the aims of the Bill. I have concerns, which I have expressed previously, about how the Government ensure that the Secretary of State can make those decisions fairly, on the basis of clinical need, rather than because of pressure from a lobby group, a celebrity campaign or such like, but again, that seems consistent.

The clause also replaces entirely section 3B of the 2006 Act. Under the previous section 3B, the Secretary of State could direct NHS England to commission the service nationally; the proposed new section 3B confers a regulation-making power to require the Secretary of State to arrange nationally services for members of the armed forces and their families specifically, as well as such services or facilities as may be prescribed. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what sort of services or facilities might be prescribed under that proposed new section.

In doing that, the Secretary of State must have regard to the number of people needing the service, the cost and the number of possible providers. That reflects a balance. Some services, such as hip replacements, are very common. They occur in all areas of the country, perhaps at different rates, but they are broadly a common service. Accident and emergency is another common service. Some people, however, have the misfortune to have a condition that is rare and requires specialist care, in small numbers. That needs to be commissioned on a more national basis, because of the need for specific expertise among commissioners and health professionals.

In subsection (4), proposed new section 3B(5) modifies section 4 of the 2006 Act so that the duty to arrange high-security psychiatric services transfers from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State gains a new power to direct the providers of those bodies—but only non-public bodies—if he is satisfied that the provider is already licensed under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and would be required by its licence to obey the direction.

In one respect, as I said, it is necessary to transfer powers to Secretary of State, now that NHS England is to be abolished, but I have a couple of questions. NHS England published a direct commissioning update on 2 March, which describes a new commissioning structure. At the moment, NHS England commissions regional NHS England bodies and the ICBs at a more local level. The update suggests that we will have the ICBs commissioning services, and the Secretary of State instead of NHS England, but that each of the seven regions will have an office for pan-ICB commissioning, known as an OPIC, to support ICB commissioning services—both standard commissioning and at-scale commissioning in some instances.

How is that more efficient than the old structure? Are we just going to see the people working in the regions of NHS England get made redundant, at a huge cost to the state, only to be re-employed by the OPIC? What is the estimated cost of that? Is that the intention? We are going to either lose the expertise of the regional advisers in NHS England or end up re-employing them having paid them redundancy. Can the Minister explain which she thinks it is?

There is a hugely long list of specialist nationally commissioned services. Can the Minister guarantee that those services will not be moved locally? The ICBs only have so much capacity. It will be a challenge for an ICB to deal with conditions that may affect only one or two people in its area in a given year, particularly given the 50% budget cut; obviously, it will prioritise things that affect more of its population. People who have the rare conditions that are currently commissioned nationally may be worried that they will not get the same level of service that they are getting at the moment.

The direct commissioning update talks about prisoners and the justice system. At the moment, NHS England works directly with the Ministry of Justice to commission healthcare for those in the justice system. That includes adults in the custodial system, children in secure children’s homes, non-custodial care, sexual assault and abuse centres, and abuse referral centres.

There are eight high-security category A prisons in England. Instead of being specially commissioned as one batch, they are going to be commissioned specially by their local ICBs. Where are the ICBs going to get the advice and expertise to do that? Dealing with category A prisoners is about not only managing the prisoner and providing them with healthcare, but keeping the people providing that healthcare safe while they are working. This is a specialist area. I am interested to understand why the Minister thinks it will be managed best locally. If, under her new system, it is to be managed locally and the prisoner’s home address ICB is different from the prison address ICB, where will the funding move from and to? Will the prison’s ICB be reimbursed by the prisoner’s home ICB or will it bear the brunt locally?

What will happen to the sexual abuse referral centres? It is perfectly possible, particularly in some areas of the country, that an individual is sexually assaulted in one ICB area, lives in another and reports a crime in a third. Will local commissioning have an impact on where the individual needs to go for their pretty intimate examination and assessment? Has the Minister considered that? What is her view?

What happens to healthcare for migrants? That is another area that is dealt with partly by the justice system at the moment. Can the Minister update us on that? There are over 100,000 people in asylum accommodation, including 30,000 in hotels, and many members of her party are keen to welcome even more. Who will be responsible for commissioning their care?

The Government are also delegating the child health information services, which are the record of whether children have been vaccinated and such like. Given that they are planning to have a single patient record and the electronic red book, why do they want the services to be commissioned locally rather than nationally? Do they expect commissioning for a uniform service, such as a screening service, to lead to differential outcomes—and if it does not, what is the rationale for it?

A particular example is blood spot screening. The Minister will be aware that there was a Westminster Hall debate earlier in the week on spinal muscular atrophy, in which blood spot screening was mentioned. Metachromatic leukodystrophy is another condition for which people want blood spot screening. If blood spot screening is to be commissioned on a local ICB level, will ICBs be required to do it in line with Government guidelines, or will they be able to vary the service they provide to those patients?

By delegating more to ICBs, Ministers are creating variation. On one hand, they want local differentiation and variation; on the other hand, they have put in a clause that requires the Secretary of State to limit local variation. Again, there is a tension there. Will the Minister talk about that?

Moving to some technical points, I noticed that “hospital premises” is defined in section 4 of the 2006 Act, but I cannot find it defined in the Bill. Under the original section 3B of that Act, the Secretary of State had to obtain appropriate advice before making regulations about commissioning services; when services were commissioned locally or nationally, the Secretary of State had to take expert advice. That seems like a sensible thing that we want the Secretary of State to do. One would hope that if the Secretary of State were doing his job properly, he would do that, but it seems a little odd that that requirement has been taken out, as though there is an intention for the Secretary of State not to do that. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.

Proposed new section 3B provides that a direction can be given to a person other than a public authority regarding high-security psychiatric services. The Minister knows that high-security psychiatric services are currently provided at Broadmoor, Ashworth and Rampton, which are still stand-alone units run by NHS providers. Does she plan to ask a private provider—someone other than a public authority—to run those facilities? If not, what is the purpose of the clause? There is a secure children’s unit in Sleaford in my constituency. What will happen to those children if it is commissioned locally, and where will the money flow from?

We asked in a previous sitting whether the Minister thought that the new Prime Minister will want to continue with this Bill. When it comes to the OPICs, in essence the Government will be firing staff from one job, paying them redundancy, and rehiring them, potentially on different terms and conditions, to do a similar job in the OPICs. Is the Minister aware that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) used to speak out against firing and rehiring staff, and abolishing and recreating organisations? That is essentially what is happening, so will she have to abandon these changes?

We have heard a few times about Conservative fears about redundancy payments and so on. Why did they not add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order when they had the opportunity to do so? Is the hon. Lady aware of a reason why that did not happen when the Conservatives were in government?

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. The key point is that it is not logical to abolish a three-tier structure and recreate it with taxpayers’ money to do exactly the same thing. If NHS England is replaced by the Secretary of State, the regional NHS England is replaced by the OPICs and the ICBs are at the bottom—the more local tier—what has changed? The middle tier will be doing the same thing.

The modification order is a piece of legislation that is often used in the public sector. It means that when people from a lot of public sector organisations are made redundant and find alternative employment at another state-funded organisation, they are not entitled to a redundancy payment. During their 14 years in power, it would have been entirely possible for the Conservatives to add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order. That would have prevented the costs that the hon. Lady has mentioned several times. It just seems like they did not take the opportunity to do that, and now they are saying that they should have done that when they were in government.

But we were not planning to abolish NHS England, so we had no reason to worry about redundancy. We were not planning a large-scale abolition—the largest that has ever happened in this country.

Amendment 57 would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on commissioning transition plans before making regulations under proposed new section 3B that alter which services are commissioned nationally. It is a very reasonable amendment that would just mean that people get answers. It would mean that vulnerable people with unusually rare or highly complex conditions requiring regional or even national treatment could understand any changes the Government planned to make. We know that some services are delivered in only three or four centres in the UK. If a patient lives far from a centre, and suddenly that centre is closed, that can have huge travel and service implications, which can create huge distress and worry and make care worse.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. In general, the Liberal Democrats support clauses 12 and 13. We think that local decision making and community empowerment in the NHS, including on commissioning decisions, is the right thing to be doing.

However, I echo some of the concerns of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, particularly on specialist commissioning. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the spinal cord injury all-party parliamentary group. We are concerned that expertise in low-volume, very specialist concerns will be lost if the commissioning is pushed out to multiple ICBs. My understanding is that specialist commissioning sat with NHS England in the first place because of concern that multiple commissioning groups would struggle to deal with low-volume, complex issues.

The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned earlier this month that the new commissioning structure lacks mental health experts, with only one senior mental health lead across the seven new regional commissioning hubs taking specialised services from NHS England. Equally, the chief executive of the Derby and Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB cluster has said that it does not look like there will be a requirement for senior mental health expertise in reorganising ICBs. Will the Minister reassure us that when the Department designs which specialist services will be pushed back down to ICBs and which will be retained centrally, it will be minded to listen to representations from experts in the sector?

There are excellent services located geographically by accident—for example, the orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the veterans service that goes with it. Both are highly valued, but they need specialist commissioning at national level to be utilised properly and to provide the best outcomes for patients. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on those points.

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said. Does she therefore support amendment 57, which would ensure that such a consultation takes place?

Yes, we would support the amendment, which is a reasonable way to get there, but an assurance from the Minister that the Department will consider specialist commissioning and really think that through properly before the powers are delegated to ICBs would be sufficient.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Lewell.

It is right that Ministers are ultimately responsible to the House for the performance of the health service and subjected to the scrutiny of Parliament for its execution, but there is an important distinction between accountability and operational control, which I fear the clause risks eroding in some cases. The national health service has over many years developed a structure that seeks to balance political accountability with operational independence, and that balance exists for a reason. Decisions on what services are commissioned, where they are delivered and how resources are allocated are not purely political judgments; they are complex, technical decisions that ought to be guided—primarily, in my view—by clinical evidence, patient need and professional expertise. Transferring commissioning functions directly to the Secretary of State, as the clause will do, risks drawing those operational decisions more directly into the political sphere, even if that would not happen in every case.

The more that Ministers are involved in determining which services are commissioned nationally and which are not, the greater the risk that over time those decisions will be influenced by short-term considerations and short-term pressures rather than long-term patient outcomes. Even when no such influence is intended, the perception that that could occur will be damaging. As I said in discussions on previous clauses, the NHS depends heavily on public trust, and that trust rests in part on the belief that decisions are being made in the best interests of patients and on the basis of evidence, rather than political expediency. We should therefore be cautious about any measure that threatens to blur that line.

Despite the Minister saying that the stated intent in the Bill is to decrease centralisation, the clause appears to move some parts of the system closer towards centralisation, rather than maintain that balance. I do not believe that the Committee should take that step without careful consideration of the potential consequences.

There is also a practical dimension to this issue. Under the clause, the Secretary of State potentially assumes direct responsibility for any and all decisions currently exercised at arm’s length. That raises legitimate questions about capacity and focus. As I said previously, the health service, as we all know, is vast, complex and complicated, and decisions, especially about specialised commissions, are technical and require detailed expertise and understanding. What is not immediately clear from the clause is that such decisions are best taken by the Secretary of State rather than by bodies with dedicated expertise and a degree of operational independence.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, spoke about highly specialised services, where essentially there is a capacity issue and a need to be able to look at the demand as a whole. They both raised the danger that, if those commissioning decisions are taken at local level, those at that level may not have the expertise, the finances or indeed the capacity to truly understand those highly complex, low volume specific needs.

I have some sympathy for the Minister, because the danger that we have seen in the NHS is that everything becomes more and more specialised and the ICBs push it away. I understand why the Government are proposing some of these changes, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must ensure that services continue to be commissioned by experts at the national level if they need to be; and that if they need to be commissioned by experts at ICB level or even more locally, it is done through the neighbourhood health schemes that the Government are pushing, which I support in principle.

For those reasons, if the Committee is minded to support the shift in responsibility, I suggest that we put in place some robust safeguards to ensure we have transparency, consultation and evidence-based justifications for decisions. Without those safeguards, there is a risk that the centralisation of power on the one hand and the devolution of specialist services on the other will unintentionally make a system that is less transparent and less robust.

That is why I support amendment 57 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The powers in clause 12 need to be bounded by checks and balances, because these are not minor administrative changes, but a significant shift in responsibility. We must ensure that decisions to move service commissioning are made as transparently as possible. In those circumstances, it is entirely right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise those decisions.

The amendment would achieve that. Subsection (4A) would require the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to prepare and publish a commissioning transition plan and to lay that before Parliament. Subsection (4B) would require the plan to set out, in detail, the services being changed and the reasons for the changes. It would also require clarity on which bodies will assume the responsibility and why they are considered capable of doing so. That level of transparency is essential if Parliament is to exercise meaningful oversight. Subsection (4C) would establish a formal consultation requirement, and subsection (4E) would require the Secretary of State to publish a response to that consultation, setting out how concerns have been addressed. That is vital, because there is no point having a consultation if the Government just ignore it. Finally, subsection (4F) would ensure that no regulations can be made until a defined period has elapsed after that response, thereby providing a time for proper parliamentary and public scrutiny.

Those of us who sit on Select Committees, especially the Health and Social Care Committee, often receive responses to our recommendations from the Department that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said in evidence, give the veneer of acceptance, but then no meaningful action is taken. The amendment would allow meaningful scrutiny and ensure that the Government actually respond to that request.

Taken together, the provisions would ensure that decisions are not only made, but made openly, transparently and accountably to those who are elected in this place to represent our constituents.

I wish to speak on clause 12 in the context of specialised commissioning. In my parliamentary work, I deal with a great number of rare disease communities and other specialised groups. Specialised commissioning is important to them to ensure that they get the service they need and deserve. Will the Minister explain how we can ensure that there is patient involvement in a more dispersed system of commissioning, and that there is national oversight and clinical leadership for all these things? How will she ensure that specialised commissioning groups are monitored and that effective services are being provided to those in the communities who need them?

Clause 12 inserts new section 3B into the National Health Service Act 2006, re-establishing the responsibility of the Secretary of State to commission services. Although we intend ICBs to commission the vast majority of services, as we discussed this morning, we will use this regulation-making power to set out the small number of specialised services that the Secretary of State will be responsible for. That may include, for example, proton beam therapy, alongside a small number of other specialist services not currently suitable for ICB commissioning, such as gender dysphoria services and clinical genomics. By their nature, those are services to which national commissioning is appropriate because, for example, they have fewer patients or providers, greater or changeable costs, or they require specialist clinical expertise and input. Having a regulation-making power allows us to future-proof the system and update the regulations when new services or treatments emerge, or when services become cheaper or mainstream and therefore sit better with ICBs.

I now turn to amendment 57, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I recognise that any change to the way these services are commissioned matters enormously to the patients who depend on them. The hon. Lady used the word “worried”, and I understand that. Any change must be made with the greatest of care. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State, before any regulations are made that alter the range of nationally commissioned services and regardless of the scale of the change, to publish a transition plan covering seven prescribed matters, to consult five prescribed categories of persons for a minimum of 12 weeks, to publish a response to that consultation and then to wait a minimum of 60 days before the regulations can be made.

As I have said, I understand and share the concern about continuity of care and the careful allocation of responsibility that lies behind it, but the proposals in amendment 57 are not the right way to address that concern. It proposes a fixed sequence of steps with minimum time periods that would apply to every change without exception. Taken together, the prescribed steps would add the better part of half a year to any change, including changes that are minor or technical, or that, for reasons of clinical safety, need to be expedited. That would create delays for patients and uncertainty for the wider system over where commissioning responsibility sits.

I would like to offer assurance on some of the concerns raised today. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, who has spoken to me regularly about her concerns, for the work that she does in this area. I also commend the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, for her work on spinal cord injuries. I have met the chair of the APPG on spinal cord injury to discuss this topic. I would like to thank Bristol Councillor Kelvin Blake, who has a spinal cord injury and who for many years has impressed on me the difficulties faced by people with spinal cord injuries who are wheelchair dependent. I commend the work of people with these conditions who, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, struggle through a system that they should not have to struggle through. We want to make sure that these changes are assured, and I commit to working with hon. Members to do that as the Bill goes through.

I can assure the Committee that any significant change to nationally commissioned services will be accompanied by proportionate and appropriate engagement with patients, clinicians and the bodies affected. Change will always proceed according to appropriate transition arrangements. Each service, as hon. Members know, has very different patient needs and commissioning requirements, and demands different skills to commission effectively. The framework the Government are proposing will enable the Department to manage these processes flexibly and proportionately.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about arrangements for new organisations. In a changing organisation where people are coming forward for redundancy and in a new organisation that is taking shape, it is important that the executive looks at all redundancy requests and changing needs with regard for critical business infrastructure and the retention of skills. That is what we are currently doing.

The hon. Lady also asked about funding. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set out which ICB pays for whom, and there are clear rules for people in prisons and those not registered with a GP currently under the guidance of court, which is called “Who Pays?” There are also long-standing processes for ICBs to pay each other as needed. The hon. Lady also asked about high security mental health services; I can assure her that we have no plans to ask the private sector to provide services. The power to direct has been updated to ensure that directions would bite on non-NHS providers if that changes in future.

Clause 13, which is part of this group, is a technical clause that permits the Secretary of State or an integrated care board to confer on a person discretion in relation to anything that is to be provided under the commissioning arrangement. In practice, this means that they could undertake some activities traditionally carried out by a commissioner, such as reviewing how services are provided for a population and designing the way that those services will be delivered within the parameters set by the commissioner. These activities would be clearly set out and measured under the contract, and the commissioner would retain overall responsibility for the delivery of their functions. Currently, integrated care boards are already permitted to do this, and with the transfer of NHS England’s commissioning powers to the Secretary of State, we propose a similar approach for services that are commissioned nationally.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and that she will withdraw her amendment. I commend clauses 12 and 13 to the Committee.

Unfortunately, the Minister’s reassurances have not convinced me. In relation to change, “significant” means various things to different people. As for “proportionate”, what is “proportionate” to one person is not necessarily “proportionate” to another.

Amendment 57 makes reasonable provision for a situation in which there is a change from national to local commissioning, or from local to—mostly, it is from national to local commissioning. Therefore, I would like to push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Primary care is the front door to the NHS and is critical to delivering our neighbourhood health agenda. The neighbourhood health service will bring care into local communities, ending fragmentation and preventing unnecessary hospital admissions. To support that, alongside clause 14, which I will discuss shortly, we have tabled new clauses 22 and 23 and new schedule 1, to strengthen action in the event of local pharmacy challenges and streamline the appeals process.

On new clause 22, many hon. Members will know how the closure of a local pharmacy can significantly affect a community. Pharmacies close for a range of reasons: voluntary closure, business failure or emergencies affecting the premises or surrounding area. Even where a pharmacy remains open, unforeseen or unexpected events can disrupt access for local people.

The NHS Act 2006 sets out how ICBs should commission pharmaceutical services in normal circumstances and what can be done if those arrangements fail. Section 133 of the Act is intended to deal with exceptional situations where standard commissioning processes are too slow and rapid action is needed to restore provision while long-term solutions are put in place, if required. However, the current wording of section 133 is widely interpreted as applying only to large-scale national emergencies, as it refers to inadequate provision affecting a significant number of people. It is unclear whether that would cover more localised situations, such as a village cut off by flooding following a bridge collapse, or where the only pharmacy serving an area closes unexpectedly, creating an urgent unmet need, as we have seen happen. It is also unclear how the Secretary of State would authorise alternative arrangements.

To address those issues, new clause 22 ensures that ICBs can respond swiftly to exceptional circumstances, regardless of scale. It removes the unnecessary provision for the Secretary of State to make arrangements himself and clarifies that authorisation to ICBs should be given through directions. The directions will be limited to six months, with the possibility to extend further if required. This change maintains appropriate national oversight while preventing misuse of the powers. It is a sensible and proportionate amendment that gives the system the flexibility it needs in exceptional circumstances while retaining proper safeguards.

New clause 23 and new schedule 1 simplify the appeal framework for NHS pharmaceutical services by allowing appeals that are currently split between different routes to be heard by a single appeal authority. At present, where concerns arise about a pharmacy contractor, different appeal routes may apply depending on whether a case is characterised as one of fitness or of performance. In practice, however, that distinction is not always clear and the current system can create unnecessary complexity and duplication.

New clause 23 and new schedule 1 address that problem, providing for such appeals to be heard through a single route, which we intend to designate in regulations as NHS Resolution. It is a practical and proportionate change; NHS Resolution already has substantial experience in handling disputes involving NHS pharmaceutical services and is well placed to provide a clear, consistent and independent route of appeal. Importantly, this measure does not change the position in relation to the fitness to practise of individual pharmacy professions. Cases concerning individual practitioners will continue to be dealt with separately by the General Pharmaceutical Council.

By simplifying the framework, this measure will help to ensure that related issues can be considered more coherently, reduce fragmentation in decision making and support the effective oversight of NHS pharmaceutical services. In short, it aligns the appeal system more closely with operational practice, reduces unnecessary complexity and preserves the appropriate safeguards for individual practitioners.

The remaining Government amendments are consequential on those changes, or are technical changes that have emerged as necessary following drafting of the wider Bill. I will speak to new clause 21 in particular, as it updates section 132 of the 2006 Act so that the legislation reflects current commissioning arrangements for pharmaceutical services. Section 132 currently allows, in addition to retail pharmacy business, arrangements to be made with individual doctors and dentists for the provision of pharmaceutical services.

That wording reflects an early model of care. In practice today, arrangements for primacy medical services are made with GP practices, not individual general practitioners, and patient lists are held at practice level. New clause 21 therefore brings the legislation into line with the way services are already commissioned and delivered. It will mean that, where such arrangements are made with dispensing doctors, they are made with GP practices rather than individual GPs. It also removes provision to make such arrangements with dentists, to reflect the fact that that provision is redundant.

In summary, new clause 21 is a technical amendment, which does not change current practice but simply updates the statute book to reflect modern NHS arrangements. Patients in rural areas eligible to receive medicines from the dispensing doctors will continue to receive that service as they do now.

I have received representations from rural dispensing practices in my constituency about the provision of vaccination services. I understand that dispensing general practitioners are having difficulty securing the funding to provide vaccinations, particularly the new meningitis vaccination for young people. Does the Minister envisage that the change being proposed will have any effect on that arrangement?

The changes here, as I have outlined, are bringing practices in line in terms of the regulation. I think the issue my hon. Friend really addresses is the arrangement between those local practices and the ICB as the commissioner on where the service is provided. Ordinarily a commissioner would seek to make sure that a rural area had provision from somewhere in particular; I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend outside the Committee if there is a problem in his local area.

Clause 14 is very straightforward: it states that schedule 1

“confers functions on integrated care boards in relation to commissioning primary care services…transfers related functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and”—

perhaps most interestingly—

“contains other amendments relating to primary care services.”

Schedule 1 essentially makes the following changes to the NHS Act 2006: it makes ICBs responsible for commissioning pharmacy services instead of NHS England; it amends section 99 to make ICBs responsible for commissioning dental services instead of NHS England; it amends section 83 to make ICBs responsible for commissioning primary medical services such as general practice instead of NHS England; and it amends section 115 to make ICBs responsible for commissioning ophthalmic services.

Largely, this change is formalising existing delegation and the risk of disruption is therefore relatively low. Local commissioners can tailor decisions to local need, and it is better if decisions are taken closer to users. However, there are a few other things in there as well. Paragraph 12(2) amends section 97 of the 2006 Act containing local medical committees, which are statutory committees. The way it is phrased,

“the whole or part of the ICB’s area”,

does not allow for overlap. Is that the Government’s intention? The Government, in a broader sense, talk about the strategic authorities and having the mayoral authority level involved in the ICB. But in Lincolnshire, for example, an area that I represent part of, the local medical committee could not work in conjunction with the mayoral authority under this legislation, as far as I read it, because it essentially covers two ICB areas and two regions.

The mayoral authority is the Greater Lincolnshire mayoral authority. That includes Lincolnshire’s upper-tier area, the Lincolnshire county council area. It also includes the areas around Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Immingham, which fall into the Yorkshire region as opposed to the midlands region, and therefore not a whole or part of any given ICB area. I wonder whether the Minister has any comment on whether that was the intention, because it is also the case with paragraph 24(2) of schedule 1, which amends section 113 of the 2006 Act on local dental committees. Again, although the ambition stated and discussed in the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday by the Minister for Care, who is responsible for primary care, was that ICBs were to be covered at strategic level, that would not be possible for local medical committees or local dental committees under my reading of paragraph 12(2).

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill would have been the perfect time to align health commissioning services with local government structures and that the fact that these structures are being created totally without the new local government structures is not just an oversight, but a potential problem with the whole Bill? Does she also agree—I think that she was outlining this already, but I want to ensure that the Minister is clear on it—that the Government still have a chance to amend the Bill to ensure that the commissioning structures and commissioning areas outlined in the Bill neatly map out to the new local government areas? In relation to, for example, the current Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB, Hampshire is potentially being split up into a number of local government areas. I am against the way it is being split up, but if the Government are pressing ahead with it, this would have been the perfect opportunity to align commissioning with those areas. The problem is that we will now have a situation in which they do not match up, and the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined in her speech thus far will come to the fore.

Of course, my hon. Friend is right. One challenge with the Bill is that although not all the measures are a problem individually, the way they are being brought in is a problem. The planning and organisation that has gone into it has not been coherent. A 50% cut has been made to the budgets of ICBs, which has required many of them to merge, but that has been done before the local government reorganisation has been finished, which means that ICBs have been melded together in a way that is not the same as the local government reorganisation.

Let me again give the example of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire had an excellent ICB, run by chief executive John Turner. That has now merged with Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire form the East Midlands mayoralty, but Lincolnshire ICB, as was, forms part but not all of the Lincolnshire mayoralty—which, as I said, also includes part of what was the Yorkshire region. Because the cuts were done before the local authority reorganisation, and the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, we have ended up with an incoherent pattern, which does not help, particularly for social care services that are delivered by local authorities. We will come back to that when we talk about who is on the ICB. The risk is that we end up spending money doing this twice—being forced to do it at short notice, because of the 50% cuts brought in overnight by Government, and then doing it again to try to sort out the mess and bring things back into line with the new local authorities as and when it is decided what they will be.

Going on to the pharmaceutical arrangements—I should probably declare at this point that my brother is a rural dispensing GP—I share the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in relation to rural dispensing GPs. Let me give the Minister an example from my constituency. The Cliff Villages medical practice was an excellent medical practice. However, there was a doctor retirement and the illness of a doctor, and as a result the service reduced in quality quite substantially.

The ICB was working alongside the surgery and the one remaining practice doctor—not swiftly enough, it must be said. What happened in the end was that the Care Quality Commission came in, found that the service was really not good enough and closed the surgery down overnight, in the middle of the week. It was closed with immediate effect and there were no appointments for any patients in my constituency. Then, because the surgery had been closed, the ICB worked very hard to get a new practice in straightaway, and it got that opened on the Monday, which was pretty quick in the circumstances; but people lost their dispensing GP.

Living in a rural area—I have a dispensing GP myself, living in a rural area—people can go to the doctor’s, see the doctor and, if the doctor perhaps says, “You need some antibiotics,” they can go back to the waiting room and sit there for 10 minutes, be given the antibiotics and then leave. That is significantly more helpful to a rural constituent than having to drive eight or nine miles into the centre of town, park the car, find somewhere to get the prescription and then go all the way home again, which would take much longer. People really value that service—I saw how much when I held a public meeting with the ICB and the new provider to talk about what had happened at the surgery, and 250 people turned up to an evening event in the village hall at short notice. It is hugely important to people.

Will the changes allow the Secretary of State to step in in such circumstances, where the medical contract has been lost due to that cut-off by the CQC? Will that sudden loss of service be able to be replaced with a new dispensing service? Could Ministers have therefore given dispensing rights to the new provider? At the moment, those rights are not transferable, and it means that the only way that my constituents who live in that area and attend that practice can maintain dispensing rights is either to move house—perhaps to next door and back again, but they have to move house—or to change practice immediately, that same day, to another dispensing practice. To be honest, that seems ridiculous. Could the Minister make any comment on how the provisions in the Bill will help that situation and what her views are?

I am confused by new clause 23 and new schedule 1; the Minister has introduced them later than the rest of the Bill, but they seem quite significant. They would move pharmacy appeals from the first-tier tribunal to an NHS body specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State. I presume the regulations are not yet written, so we do not know what form that would take, but the first-tier tribunal is part of an independent judicial system and the appeals will now be under political control, within the Department.

Could the Minister explain why they think that is fair? Why do the Government want to do that? Is it just about saving money? How will the judgments made by that new authority be properly enforceable and give people confidence, given the change from the first-tier tribunal in the judicial system to something more politically controlled?

I move on to new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to establish within six months a scheme to give patients the right to a GP appointment within seven days of seeking one, or 24 hours if urgent. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that and how she thinks it could be achieved.

Modelling by the Health Foundation suggests that 6,500 full-time equivalent GPs—37,800 in total—will be needed by 2030-31 to meet greater clinical need. We have already talked about the doubling of medical school places; I presume the Minister has sought correction since we last spoke on whether the Government have a plan to double those places or not, but the Government are not on track to have that number of GPs. Is it simply that they do not have the resources to deliver it? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

With permission, I will explain to the shadow Minister our votes on amendment 57, which she pressed to a vote. I was reassured by the commitment the Minister made to consult widely on those commissioning changes, so the Liberal Democrats switched our vote from support to abstain.

I move on to new clause 2, our amendment in this group, which the shadow Minister was just discussing. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to ensure patients have the right to see a GP or another appropriate clinician within their GP practice within seven days.

The NHS constitution currently confers rights on patients when they are considered really important. There are, for example, rights within the NHS constitution around receiving cancer diagnoses and treatment. We felt that there was a gap on access to GPs. Given the Government’s stated aim of transferring more care into the community, which we fully support, and given the observation in the Darzi report that more and more money is being spent on secondary rather than primary care, we think it is really important to confer the right on patients to be able to access primary care when they need to.

As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, this measure would require a large number of additional GPs and would therefore not be achievable overnight, but over the course of a Parliament. The Liberal Democrat plan includes recruiting and retaining an extra 8,000 GPs, relieving pressure on the rest of the health service and enabling that shift into the community. When patients—

New clause 2 clearly states that everybody should have a legal right to an appointment with their GP “within seven days”, while the current provision is that patients are entitled to see a GP or other professional within 24 hours or two days for urgent care. Would creating this legal burden on GP practices not reduce their ability to prioritise, meaning that the people who need urgent treatment will be delayed further?

We do not consider the right to achieve a cancer diagnosis and treatment to be burdensome on the secondary care providers of those treatments; we consider that important enough to enshrine that right within the NHS constitution, and this would be a similar level of right. I would not imagine that a GP would be worrying about somebody taking them to court, but it would confer upon the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that primary care is adequately resourced in order to be able to meet that commitment.

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is typically generous with her time. Can I just seek a little clarification in terms of the right to a GP appointment in new clause 2? Is her intention that that is an appointment with the practice—be that any clinically qualified individual within it—or an appointment with a GP, not with a practice nurse? Would, for example, a telephone appointment constitute an “appointment”, rather than specifically an in-person appointment? I just want to understand a little more about what is expected here.

The right hon. Gentleman asks an extremely important question, and I am happy to clarify. It would be an appropriate clinician within the GP practice, and it could obviously be a telephone appointment, because that might be more convenient for the patient. Lots of patients are really happy with telephone appointments and we should be using them wherever that is the patient’s choice, because we want—I think we all do—to see an NHS that is patient-led and not politician-led.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am going to make some progress, actually, because I think I am going to be asked the same questions.

I wanted to ask a different question, but okay.

Well, I will just move on a little bit. The important question is: can this be achieved this overnight? Clearly not; we need additional clinicians in the service. The Liberal Democrat view is that the extra—I think 1,000 or 1,500—GPs that the Government have recruited so far is a welcome step forward, but that does not go far enough over the course of a Parliament.

As I was saying earlier, when patients cannot access their GP surgery, they end up, more often than not, in accident and emergency departments. That is no good for anybody. It overburdens the A&E department, leaves people who genuinely need urgent care getting a substandard level of care, and costs the NHS far more. We think it is really important that we put the resource in the right place.

Just to reiterate what my hon. Friend is saying, in Winchester we are now putting an urgent treatment centre in front of the A&E, staffed by GPs to do the triage, because so many people who turn up are only there because they cannot get a GP appointment. So we now have hospital trusts paying for GPs to provide same-day GP appointments, and that is coming out of the secondary care budget instead of the primary care budget. That is obviously the most expensive place to treat patients for routine things.

That is exactly what new clause 2 seeks to drive at.

We Conservatives share the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that patients get their appointments as soon as they need them to be had, but she is talking about a difference between urgent appointments, within 24 hours, and non-urgent appointments, within a week. Who is going to make the decision about whether the appointment is urgent? Will it be the clinician? Will it be the patient themselves? Has she thought about where that responsibility lies?

Yes, I have thought about where that responsibility lies. It clearly lies with the triaging process within the GP surgery. I do not think any of us envisage somebody phoning up about a child with a cold and saying, “I consider this to be urgent,” and getting an appointment within 24 hours, but I would imagine somebody from the surgery saying, “Please describe the symptoms to me,” and then, if they detected something more serious, saying, “That is urgent and you do need to come in within 24 hours.” The point of new clause 2 is to clarify in the NHS constitution that some services require parity with others. We have already established legal rights under the NHS constitution for certain types of treatment, and this puts GP access on the same level. We think that that is important.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on to new clause 52, which is about dental deserts. Everyone is horrified by dental deserts and by “DIY dentistry”, a phrase that means—let us face it—people using pliers to extract their teeth and super glue to reattach crowns, and cavities filled with household adhesives. More than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025. That is a stark failure. Dental care is as important as care for other parts of the body, in particular when most of what goes wrong in dentistry is preventable. We should absolutely focus on prevention, and that is in line with the Government’s aims to move from sickness to prevention.

New clause 52 is about our £750 million dental rescue plan to guarantee access to an NHS dentist for anyone needing an urgent or emergency appointment, which I hope would end that awful DIY dentistry. The plan needs to be achieved through bringing dentists back from the private sector, fixing the contract, using flexible commissioning wherever necessary and introducing an emergency scheme. For example, the emergency dental scheme in Shropshire, operated by the community dental practice, enables people who have urgent need and cannot register with an NHS dentist to get the care that they need when they need it. I urge the Minister to take our new clauses on board and to ensure that people get the care they need when they need it.

I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, left off, with new clause 52 on dental provision. I have a lot of sympathy for what she is trying to achieve with the new clause. In my own constituency, as far as I can tell, looking earlier today, not a single dental practice is taking new NHS patients for dentistry, whether that be children or adults, and that is extraordinarily concerning.

Even more concerning—this somewhat relates to the changes that the Government are making in the clause through bringing the commissioning of dental services to ICBs—I have a fully equipped and fully functional dental surgery in Haslemere hospital in my constituency, but it has remained entirely unused for a number of years, because it sits within the hospital, which is run by the Royal Surrey NHS trust, but is commissioned by the ICB. That seems like an utter waste of resources. That is something that could be clarified through new clause 52 and, I hope, through the clauses tabled by the Government.

On new clause 2, about GP practices, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for North Shropshire did not want to take my intervention because she will not be able to answer my questions, unless she intervenes on me now, which I hope she will. Again, I sympathise entirely with what she is trying to achieve. We want to ensure that people have timely access to their GPs. I am sure that, like me, she has constituents who cannot get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. They can wait numerous weeks, upwards of five or six weeks, for something that they should be seen about.

A lot of questions are unanswered by new clause 2, however. I will not repeat the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I have some others. For example, the new clause states that the Government must

“establish a scheme to provide every patient with the right to a GP appointment”.

Although the hon. Lady clarified that that could be a telephone consultation, what is not clear is whether that is an appointment at the named GP practice at which the patient is registered, or is just with any GP, through something such as the NHS 111 service.

I would like to clarify that point. We envisage that being at the GP with whom the patient is registered. Our broader policy, which is not included in new clause 2, is to have named GPs for people with complex conditions and complex comorbidities. Absolutely, we would envisage that as being a part of the continuity of care, which is so crucial.

That is a helpful clarification, but it raises a number of other questions. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that named GPs are most appropriate; all the clinical evidence suggests that even for people with non-complex needs, having a named GP whom they can see regularly improves patient outcomes. I therefore support her on that, but does she believe that we currently have sufficient GPs for that to go ahead? Even the six-month lag in her new clause would not be enough time to recruit thousands more GPs. If she does not believe that there are enough GPs at the moment, when does she envisage that they would be in post? How much would that cost? Where would she get the money to fund those extra GPs? Rather than just expressing what I would call “motherhood and apple pie” statements about things that we all want, we in this House have a duty to be honest with our constituents about how we would achieve them—and, if we have to achieve them within six months, what funding and impetus will have to be put in place.

Let me clarify. The new clause is about conferring a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that level of care. It would require a significant number of additional GPs, and that would cost a lot of money. The Liberal Democrats’ 2024 manifesto had a fully costed pledge to recruit and retain an additional 8,000 GPs within the course of a Parliament. I think we can all agree that the world has moved on since then, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this week we proposed a significantly closer relationship with the European Union, which would grow our economy, increase our tax base and pay for a number of these things without having to subject people to additional, onerous tax hikes.

I think that clarifies that there is no real concrete plan for how to fund this new clause. I do not mean in any way to demean what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, because she is trying to achieve something important, and which we all want, but we have to be honest with our constituents about how we can do that, and some ethereal money to come through some ethereal plan at some point in the future—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Let me finish this point. I am not in the mind of the current Prime Minister, and I am certainly not in the mind of the potential next Prime Minister, but even if the hon. Lady is right my understanding is that he—either is probably a he—is unlikely to have changed our relationship with Europe within six months.

Thank you, Ms Lewell. You have certainly saved me from myself, if not anybody else. I think I have belaboured the point; I will leave it there. I sympathise with and indeed support the ambition of new clause 2, but I have a real problem with the lack of detail on how it would be achieved.

I turn quickly to clause 14. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, it has bits that we welcome, but there are some concerns about how the ICB structures fit over the local government structures, and cutting ICB administrative budgets by 50%, while asking them to take on more power and responsibility for commissioning services and many other things, is a real problem.

Likewise, we have welcomed, and I think both sides of the Committee agree, having neighbourhood health—however we want to describe it—and care closer to home, and having commissioning closer to home. It is therefore strange that my best performing ICB, Frimley ICB, has been abolished or merged with a number of other ICBs that have been performing far less well.

If the Government want to have the principle of place-based, locally responsive commissioning, they have to have a real focus on, actually look at, what fits with the current structures and to ensure that those ICBs that are performing best are encouraged and kept and that those that are not are dealt with. I have real concerns about, for example, the superstructure of the new Surrey and Sussex ICB. It is huge and, essentially, entirely antithetical to what the Government were trying to achieve by making stuff local—closer to home.

One thing that my hon. Friend mentions is the Government’s stated intention to bring things closer to home, as opposed to the reality of the Bill as drafted. Does he agree with me that the document that explains what will happen to the commissioning of specialist services, and that talks about seven regions and how ICBs could collaborate within those regions, might imply that the Government are looking forward to having seven areas in which most commissioning takes place? These are even larger areas than have been described in the mergers so far.

It is for the Minister to clarify that point, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is ironic that we seem to be heading back towards the strategic health authorities of an earlier age. Things in the NHS are neither created nor destroyed; they just go round and round and round. I think we may end up being back where we were 15 or 20 years ago, in an ever decreasing cycle of spending money on changes that are perhaps not wanted or needed.

I have touched on dental services, so I will not go any further on that. On pharmaceutical services, I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about dispensing GPs. That is a big issue. And I have touched on the Liberal Democrat new clauses. In conclusion, although Conservative Members support a number of the ambitions in relation to the group that we are debating, the questions that my colleagues and I have raised require more clarification from the Minister.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. My hon. Friends have addressed at some length the Government new clauses and amendments, so the Minister may get a slightly easy ride from me this time, but I want to pick up on new clause 2 and some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon raised.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire knows that I have huge respect for her. I have worked with her, across the health and social care space in this House, on a number of issues, so I can entirely appreciate where she is coming from on this. She raises an issue that is very important to all our constituents, which is access to primary care when people need it. For example, in Melton Mowbray in my constituency, there have been real concerns in recent months about very long waiting times to access primary care services. That has on occasion caused considerable distress for some patients, who have become more and more concerned.

I have to say that the practice has sought to do a lot to address that. It has brought on board a new annexe and additional services and been recruiting more GPs, but the challenges remain and the concerns are very real and would, I suspect, be shared by all our constituents. One of the key things in how the practice has been seeking to address the issue and how other practices locally, both rural ones and ones in some of the towns in my patch, have sought to address it has been a degree of flexibility and of clinical triage as to what is the most appropriate access point to primary care services for the individual, based on their symptoms and needs.

For me, despite the work being done in Melton Mowbray at the moment to improve waiting times, it remains a very significant concern that despite the integrated care board having a few years ago acknowledged publicly the need for additional GP provision in the town, whether a second GP practice or a new satellite service, it said a few months ago—despite the fact that in the intervening period there has been considerable housing development in the town—that it considers that there is no need at the present time for additional GP provision, and so it does not appear to have a plan to expand that provision. That is obviously concerning. All of us in this House will from time to time have these issues in our constituencies and, I suspect, sometimes get frustrated by the fact that ultimately we can press our ICBs and ask questions of the Minister—who, I have to say, always responds in a courteous and measured fashion—but ultimately the decision maker is the integrated care board’s board and it will do what it wishes to do when it comes to commissioning those services. There is a disconnect there.

My challenge with regard to new clause 2, despite my being in agreement with the need to improve access to services, is that there is a lack of clarity about how that will be done and there is the fear that it may raise expectations that are not necessarily deliverable on in the current context. The Liberal Democrat five-year plan for GPs is in their 2024 manifesto, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire alluded to the commitment to 8,000 additional GPs. It is not my usual habit, but I have read the Liberal Democrat website, which sets out the background. I appreciate that this is from 2024 and the hon. Lady may have moved things forward a little bit since then, but it states that the five-year plan

“gives patients the legal right to see a GP within a week or 24 hours if needed urgently”.

The hon. Lady may wish to respond on that.

I am sure the right hon. Member has enjoyed reading the Liberal Democrat website. If he had delved a little further into the policy paper that sits behind that manifesto commitment, he would see that that is with an appropriate clinician and not with a GP. I appreciate that the wording of the new clause says a GP, but it does indicate a GP practice, and would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme that would achieve that. I expect that clarification could be made at that point.

I am grateful for that, and the hon. Lady has that on the record. As we all know with political campaigning, the headline on the front page of the website may sometimes, although not always, contain the “conditions apply” caveat in the small print. The hon. Lady has read her explanation into the record of the House, and I, as always, take her at her word and accept that explanation.

My concern is how this measure would be paid for—8,000 GPs, of which half were to be new recruits and half were either through retention or by encouraging returners to the profession, with a costing of about £1 billion. That works out at about £125,000 a head, so it is not outside the realms of possibility. That was not going to be paid for through closer ties with the European Union; if I recall correctly, I think it was tagged against hikes in capital gains tax with three new bandings, rather than EU links.

I am happy to clarify. Clearly, the world has moved on since July 2024 when we put together our manifesto, but this was a fully costed plan with a number of different changes to tax regimes, including a tweak to capital gains tax and changes to the way that banks were taxed and digital services tax. Since then, we have proposed a number of other alternatives, but the principle of changes to capital gains tax, to the way that windfall profits of the big banks are taxed and to digital services taxes still stands. Plus, we also have a fully fleshed-out plan to actually grow our economy and deal with this problem in the long term.

I am grateful for that clarification. I am conscious that we have to finish at 1 pm, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.

We can all see the intent behind new clause 2; we can all feel that intent in correspondence we get from constituents. Having taken legislation through the House, my concern is that often the challenge is in the drafting of such clauses: while the objective may be honourable, the opacity of them, or the lack of some detail, can risk creating an expectation while not actually setting out how that can realistically be met. My worry here is about the practicalities, in an era where expectations are being set and dashed and that is causing challenges for our democracy.

Even when the right hon. Gentleman criticises, he does so in a charming way.

None of this is moving the discussion to how we keep people healthy and treat them early. He may criticise our funding models and challenge the detail for achieving this measure, but if we flip that round, the previous Government promised 40 new hospitals, which were not hospitals and did not materialise. The entire focus of healthcare has been on treating people once they are sick, while people cannot get GP appointments.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the thrust of the argument is to try to keep people healthy and treat them early, before they end up needing hospital treatment, and that that is what we should all be focusing on. If he wants to help with the details in order to get 8,000 GPs by the end of this Parliament, he can submit his suggestions to the Liberal Democrat website.

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a typically reasonable way. Of course, he is right to talk about the need to shift, where we can, from acute settings to either community settings or, ideally, a preventive setting or focus. The Minister may well disagree with me, but I think that is a desire or thread that, however well implemented or otherwise, runs consistently through Governments. It ran through the Blair-Brown Government, the previous Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition, the Conservative Government and into what the previous Secretary of State announced and what the Minister today is seeking to achieve. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. We will always need those acute settings for particular treatments and cases, as well as for those very specialist pieces of work or for people with significant illnesses.

There has always been a desire to push the care into the local community. GPS are a central part of that, as are—to address the points raised by my hon. Friends earlier—our community pharmacists and other pharmacists. Pharmacies remain an improving but underused resource as part of that preventive picture. I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Winchester in that, but one can agree with the objective, but nonetheless gently push a little on the detail. As we know, the devil is in the detail, and people will want to see a deliverable plan.

That is one of the challenges that I have had in Melton Mowbray, where the ICB says it will do one thing and then says, “Actually, no, we can’t do that anymore.” Expectations go up and down and people are understandably frustrated. When we put such proposals forward we need to be robust in how we are going to achieve them and in their practicalities. The Minister may wish to make further observations.

I have enjoyed the “back to the good old days” of the Lib Dem-Tories. They tell us we live in fractured political parties, but I quite like the old days.

On new clause 2, I understand the intention that GP provision is important to us all and to our constituents. We have recruited over 2,000 more GPs since 2024—the highest number of qualified GPs since 2015—and there is provision to ringfence money for even more. We all know the importance of timely access to general practice, and patients need to be confident that they can get that care urgently and receive it promptly.

We are seeing improving signs. According to the ONS, the number of people who say it is now easy to contact their GP practice is up 14% since 2024, and that satisfaction is rising. Importantly, 69% of patients are seen within seven days and 44% are seen within the one day that they have requested an appointment, irrespective of urgency. That is the progress that we are encouraging, but we are not complacent; we recognise that there is more to do.

We also recognise that not everyone not seen within seven days is experiencing an unnecessary delay. Not every patient requires an appointment within seven days, and many people book appointments in advance for routine reviews, medication checks, to ensure that they see their preferred clinician or to fit around work and other life responsibilities. The new clause would cut across that flexibility by imposing a more rigid approach to appointment allocation, weakening both clinical judgment and patient preference. We do not believe that would be the best for patients or safe care. We must protect both clinical judgment and patient choice. We therefore cannot support the new clause.

We are clear that if someone is unwell and a doctor needs to see them urgently, they should be seen that same day. NHS England’s medium-term planning framework, which was published in October 2025, sets out an ambition for all clinically urgent appointments to be delivered on the same day, ensuring that patients assessed as needing urgent care are prioritised appropriately. We have made changes to regulations to require clinically urgent requests to be dealt with on the same day to support that ambition within the 2026-27 GP contract. We will publish data on that progress soon.

On new clause 52, we know that dentistry is broken and that we need to rebuild it. That includes ensuring an urgent care safety net across the country by reforming the dental contract and developing the 10-year workforce plan This new clause is unnecessary; we have delivered 1.8 million more dental treatments, and from April we began introducing a package of reforms to address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will prioritise those with the greatest need, shifting care away from clinically unnecessary check-ups. We are also including dental school places, and we will make more provision in our upcoming workforce plan.

The Government are committed to more fundamental contract reform by the end of this Parliament, which will include publicly consulting on future proposals. I make no apologies for taking the time to get that right. The issues are complex; this has not been done for a long time and there is no consensus on the perfect approach. On that basis, I commend clause 14 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Conferral of primary care functions on integrated care boards etc

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 1, page 60, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

This is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 60, line 26, leave out “(a), (b), (c) and”.

This is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 60, line 36, leave out paragraph 46.

This is consequential on NC22.

Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 65, line 5, leave out paragraph 65.

This is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 75, line 1, at end insert—

“(4) In subsection (5), in the definition of ‘relevant area’, after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) in relation to an integrated care board, in a case where a person has at any time provided or performed services by arrangement or contract with the board, means the prescribed area (at the prescribed time).’”—(Karin Smyth.)

This adds an amendment to section 259 of the NHS Act 2006 that is consequential on the transfer to integrated care boards of NHS England’s commissioning functions in respect of primary care.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)