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
- In the House of Lords — the work under way now (you are here)
HEALTH BILL · HOUSE OF LORDS
The Health Bill received its First Reading in the House of Lords on 9 September 2026 and its Second Reading on 13 October. Because the safeguards gap was never reached in the Commons, it reached the Lords genuinely open — the classic work of the second chamber. This page collects what we have filed, and records the Bill’s progress through the House.
Submission to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
Filed: 27 September 2026 · Status: With the Committee
The clause leaves the entire access-and-confidentiality regime to regulations, with only a duty to “have regard to” adequate safeguards on the face of the Bill. Our submission argues that the principle of patient access control is stable and belongs in primary legislation even where its implementation is left to regulations; and that the affirmative procedure — under which Parliament may approve or reject regulations as a whole but never amend them — is not an adequate substitute. It engages the Department’s own delegated powers memorandum directly. Read the submission in full →
Briefing for peers, ahead of Second Reading
Stage: Second Reading, 13 October 2026 · Status: Members briefed
We have briefed members of the House of Lords on the gap and on the amendment we are asking be moved at Committee stage. The briefing sets out why the record’s central safeguards — who may see it, what a patient may restrict — should sit on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations Parliament has not seen and cannot amend, and it carries the drafted amendment in full. Read the briefing →
At Second Reading
The Bill was debated at Second Reading on 13 October 2026. The confidentiality of the single patient record was raised by peers from across the House, including concern for information patients have particular reason to protect, such as maternity and mental-health data. Lord Patel (crossbench) told the House that he intends to bring forward an amendment to reinstate the common-law duty of confidentiality, so that it continues to apply to those who share patient data. Ministers pointed to assurances that the record would operate with strict safeguards and clear controls over access.
This note is drawn from the uncorrected rolling transcript of the debate (Hansard, House of Lords, 13 October 2026) and will be refined against the corrected record.
What comes next
Amendments are moved at Committee stage, which follows Second Reading. We will record what happens at each stage here.
Changes to this page
14 October 2026 — Updated after the Bill’s Second Reading in the Lords on 13 October: added a factual note of the debate, drawn from the uncorrected rolling Hansard pending the corrected record.
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].