← Back to House of Commons Debates
Health and Care Bill - Schedule 12 - Minor and consequential amendments
08 September 2026
Lead MP
Karin Smyth
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Parliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 25
At a Glance
Karin Smyth raised concerns about health and care bill - schedule 12 - minor and consequential amendments in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The amendment aims to make minor and consequential changes to ensure the smooth implementation of the Health and Care Bill. These changes are necessary to align with existing regulations and to clarify certain provisions for better operational efficiency in the healthcare sector.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
The amendment seeks to make minor and consequential changes to the Health and Care Bill. This is essential for aligning the bill with existing regulations and ensuring clarity in operational practices. It is a technical amendment that will not alter the fundamental principles of the bill but will enhance its effectiveness.
Jim Allister
Con
North Antrim
Jim Allister intervened to question the compatibility of new clause 94 with section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, arguing that the licensing programme imposed by new clause 94 would impact intra-UK trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain negatively.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Bernard Jenkin requested to intervene but the text does not provide further details of his intervention.
Judith Cummins
Lab
Bradford South
Intervened to question the Minister on the potential conflict of interest in the CQC leadership's access to safe space information, raising concerns about public confidence and the integrity of the CQC inspection process.
Grahame Morris
Lab
Easington
Supports the new clauses, emphasising the need for a national framework of metrics, annual reporting, and a review of radiotherapy access and waiting times. Highlights the current disparity in access to radiotherapy and the need for cross-party consensus to address health inequalities.
Intervened to suggest including ethnic inequalities in the review proposed by the new clauses, emphasising the importance of addressing disparities in cancer outcomes and access to treatment.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Intervened to add that in Lancashire and south Cumbria, only 29% of cancer patients get access to radiotherapy and that only 41% of patients are treated within the 62-day target. Stressed the need for the Government to accept new clause 114 to mandate treatment within two months for better survival rates.
Helen Morgan
Lab
Torfaen
Morgan is for the amendments and highlights the importance of restoring Healthwatch and Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) to prevent patient safety issues. She also supports new clauses 9 and 10 for stronger whistleblowing measures and new clause 140 to address the corridor care crisis. She criticises the Government for not taking action on corridor care and demands an independent inquiry. She is unable to support new clauses 142 and 143 due to their inappropriate politicisation and lack of clarity.
Edward Morello interjected briefly to ask Helen Morgan a question but his position and contribution are not detailed in the provided text.
Liz Twist
Lab
Blaydon
Liz Twist supports new clause 159, which seeks to address the long-standing legislative omission in mental health service parity. She emphasises the need for national waiting time standards for mental health services and the importance of transparently linking funding to patient outcomes. She highlights the severe consequences of the current division between physical and mental health services and urges the Government to consider new clause 159 seriously.
Gosport
Proposes new clause 41 to regulate funeral directors and other relevant businesses by extending the Human Tissue Authority's remit, addressing the lack of oversight and transparency in the funeral sector. Cites examples of bodies left decomposing and misidentified ashes due to inadequate regulation.
Supports Caroline Dinenage's proposal, emphasising that reputable funeral directors need robust regulation to maintain their integrity and avoid the actions of rogue businesses.
Stuart Andrew
Con
Pudsey
References Donna Ockenden’s report to support Caroline Dinenage's proposal, highlighting the need for robust regulation to prevent the recurrence of gruesome cases such as those involving Robert Bush.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Bernard Jenkin supports amendments 1 to 4, which aim to remove the abolition of HSSIB (Health Service Safety Investigations Bill) from the Bill. He criticises the Government for failing to make a case for removing this crucial safety investigation function and suspects the reason for its removal is due to a lack of support from the health system for an independent investigative body.
Jeff Smith
Lab
Manchester, Withington
Jeff Smith proposes new clauses 86 and 87 to promote psychedelic-assisted therapy treatments involving schedule 1 controlled substances. He highlights the growing evidence of successful treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, trauma, mental health issues, and end-of-life distress using these drugs. He argues that the current system's barriers restrict research and delays the implementation of these treatments, urging the Government to facilitate research and compassionate access to treatment.
Anna Sabine speaks to new clauses 116 and 117. She shares the story of Clover Carkeet, who benefits from medical cannabis and highlights the challenges faced by families when this treatment is not routinely available on the NHS. She also discusses her own experience with vocal cord paralysis, emphasising the need for improved access to speech and language therapy, which is currently determined by a postcode lottery.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Argued for integrating Healthwatch functions into the NHS to ensure patient voices are heard and used effectively in decision-making processes. Suggested reviewing provisions to ensure they empower and devolve to local populations effectively. Stressed the importance of addressing health inequalities and improving access to care for all patients. Emphasised the commitment to reducing waiting lists and improving patient flow.
Asked whether the Government may be reviewing their plans to scrap Healthwatch, citing concerns from the CEO of Healthwatch Norfolk about patient safety and scrutiny.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Asked for clarification or additional information from the minister.
Asked for clarification or additional information from the minister.
Complimented the minister's work and agreed that the changes proposed will help reduce waiting lists and address corridor care issues.
Asked for clarification or additional information from the minister.
Asked whether the minister acknowledges that the Prime Minister stated the funeral sector needed regulation and that this remains a priority for the Government.
Jim Dickson intervened to support the amendment suggested by the Alzheimer’s Society, which aims to centralise dementia data to improve early diagnosis and treatment. He highlighted dementia as the most common cause of death in the UK and emphasised the importance of this priority for the Government.
Damian Hinds
Con
East Hampshire
Damian Hinds welcomed the Secretary of State back to the Department but expressed concern about the lack of detail in the Bill regarding a large IT project. He criticised the Bill for taking oversight away from the body meant to oversee things and removing patient voices. He also pointed out that there have been 10 top-down reorganisations of the NHS since 1974, suggesting that this reorganisation may not be the solution to the NHS's problems.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.