The single patient record — our coverage
- Our position — what the clause does, what it leaves out, and what we ask
- A fine gets an appeal. A child gets ‘have regard to.’ — the argument in full
- In the House of Commons — what we filed as the Bill passed through the Commons (you are here)
- In the House of Lords — the work under way now
HEALTH BILL · HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Health Bill began in the House of Commons. This page records what we filed there on the single patient record, and what happened to it. The gap in the clause was not resolved in the Commons — and at the final Commons stage it was not reached at all. The Bill left the Commons genuinely open.
Written evidence to the Public Bill Committee (HB130)
Filed: 13 July 2026 · To: House of Commons Public Bill Committee · Status: Published on the parliamentary record
We submitted written evidence on the single patient record clause — then clause 47 as introduced, and now clause 51 as amended in Committee, inserting new sections 250E and 250F of the National Health Service Act 2006. The evidence sets out the confidentiality and access gap and, at paragraph 17, provides drafted clause text giving effect to the safeguards, offered as policy drafting for whoever might take it forward. Read HB130 on the parliamentary record →
The argument, in public
We published the case alongside the evidence, so it did not sit only in a committee inbox.
A fine gets an appeal. A child gets ‘have regard to.’ reads the two halves of the clause next to each other: the enforceable, fully specified procedure given to a person facing a financial penalty, and the single “have regard to” duty given to a patient facing disclosure of their most sensitive information.
What happened at Committee and Report
The National Data Guardian — the statutory office-holder for patient confidentiality — told the Committee that the power to set aside the duty of confidence should be removed, or narrowed so that it lifts the duty only for the supply of information into the record. An amendment reflecting that concern was tabled but was not put to a decision before the clause was agreed, and the clause left Committee unchanged.
At Report stage the new clauses and amendments on the record’s confidentiality and access safeguards were not reached. The day’s time was taken by the abolition of NHS England, and by maternity, dentistry and workforce, and the data provisions fell away undebated. This is the important point for what follows: the safeguards gap is not something the elected House weighed and rejected. It is something the Commons had no time to weigh at all — which is why it now falls to the House of Lords.
Continue: in the House of Lords →
Eden Openly is an independent clinical health-education publication. It receives no funding from, and has no commercial relationship with, any provider of gender-related healthcare, any pharmaceutical company, or any supplier of NHS digital systems. See our statement of independence. Statutory text checked against the Health Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 131), new sections 250E and 250F of the National Health Service Act 2006. Corrections and queries: [email protected].