The Health Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 1 June 2026. The debate covered a wide range of issues, including the abolition of NHS England, changes to patient voice structures, Integrated Care Board accountability, patient safety, health inequalities and the proposed Single Patient Record.

For CASPA members, the most relevant elements were the Government’s plans for the Single Patient Record, the level of parliamentary concern about data governance, and the repeated emphasis on the need to connect records across health and care settings.
Government framing.

The debate was opened by James Murray MP, Labour (Co-op), Ealing North, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

The Secretary of State presented the Bill as part of a wider programme to modernise the NHS, reduce bureaucracy and make better use of technology, digitisation and artificial intelligence. He framed the Single Patient Record as a response to fragmented information systems across the NHS, arguing that current records too often follow the institution rather than the individual.

The Government’s core argument was that incomplete or inaccessible records are not simply an administrative inconvenience, but a patient safety risk. Ministers repeatedly used examples of patients having to repeat their medical history, clinicians being unable to access relevant information, and emergency teams not having the full picture when making decisions.

The Secretary of State also made clear that the Government does not describe the Single Patient Record as a new central database. His stated position was that data would remain in existing systems, such as GP and hospital systems, but be linked so that relevant information can be viewed by authorised users. He said that the Single Patient Record would bring together health and social care records digitally, securely and conveniently, and make them available to patients through the NHS App.

Parliamentary sentiment

There was broad support across the House for the principle that health and care records need to be better connected. MPs from several parties described the current position as outdated, unsafe and frustrating for patients and professionals.
The strongest positive sentiment focused on patient safety, continuity of care and reducing the burden on patients and carers. MPs spoke about people with complex conditions, allergies, dementia, mental health needs, rare conditions, cancer and military families who are particularly affected when records do not move with them or cannot be accessed by professionals involved in their care.

However, support for the ambition was accompanied by significant scrutiny of how the Single Patient Record will be delivered. The debate was not divided between those who support information sharing and those who oppose it. Instead, the main questions were about architecture, governance, safeguards and public trust.

MPs raised five main categories of concern:

1. First, there were questions about privacy, consent and access. MPs asked who would be able to view records, how access would be controlled, how children’s data would be protected, whether patients would be able to control when and how their data is seen, and how inappropriate access would be prevented. Sarah Champion MP, Labour, Rotherham, raised the scale of access implied by the explanatory notes, which refer to patients’ relevant health and social care providers, including GPs, hospital doctors, social care workers and others involved in direct care. Her question focused particularly on safeguards for children’s care data.
2. Second, MPs raised questions about data controller responsibilities. Dr Luke Evans MP, Conservative, Hinckley and Bosworth, asked about the implications of the Secretary of State becoming a data controller for information shared through the Single Patient Record.
3. Third, there were questions about Palantir, procurement and vendor lock-in. Dame Chi Onwurah MP, Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, raised concerns about data management, data hygiene and vendor lock-in, and asked whether the Government would build on existing records such as the Great North Care Record rather than allowing critical infrastructure to be captured by a single provider such as Palantir. Kim Johnson MP, Labour, Liverpool Riverside, also challenged the Government on whether Palantir could be awarded work relating to the Single Patient Record, given criticism of its role in the Federated Data Platform.
4. Fourth, MPs questioned whether the Government should build on existing shared care record and interoperability models rather than create a new centralised approach. Martin Wrigley MP, Liberal Democrat, Newton Abbot, argued that the Single Patient Record already exists in a federated model in places such as Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Shropshire, where interoperable access is already operating between care services, GPs and hospitals. His concern was that the Bill could move towards an over-centralised approach rather than a distributed interoperable solution.
5. Fifth, there were wider concerns about local accountability, Healthwatch, patient voice and the abolition of NHS England. While not directly about the Single Patient Record, these concerns matter because they shaped the wider mood of the debate. Many MPs were supportive of reducing bureaucracy but cautious about whether the Bill centralises too much power in the Department of Health and Social Care while weakening independent local scrutiny.

Government response

The Government response came in two stages.

James Murray MP, Labour (Co-op), Ealing North, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, responded to many of the key points during his opening speech and interventions:

• On architecture, he said that the Single Patient Record would not move data from existing systems into one new system. Instead, data would remain in GP, hospital and other systems, with links built between them so that a clinician or patient could see relevant data together.
• On Palantir, he said that the Single Patient Record is different from the Federated Data Platform and is likely to be delivered through a series of contracts to reduce delivery risk. He also confirmed that the Palantir Federated Data Platform contract is being reviewed ahead of a possible break clause in 2027.
• On privacy and security, he said that access would be limited to authorised individuals, supported by audit trails, cyber security protections and existing NHS governance and legislative safeguards.
• On data controller responsibilities, he said that where data is held by a GP surgery or NHS hospital trust, those organisations would remain information controllers. Where information is shared through the Single Patient Record, the Department of Health and the Secretary of State would also take on a data controller role.
• On social care, the Secretary of State explicitly said that the Single Patient Record would bring together health and social care records. He also said that Integrated Care Boards would be at the heart of integrating health and social care.

Karin Smyth MP, Labour, Bristol South, Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, closed the debate for the Government:

• She reiterated that the Bill establishes the legal framework for the Single Patient Record, with much of the detail to follow in secondary legislation. She said Parliament would have further opportunities to scrutinise the regulations.
• She confirmed the Government’s position that the Single Patient Record would be treated as critical national infrastructure, with high standards of cyber security and information governance. She said only the right people should access the right information at the right time and for the right reasons, with audit trails recording access. She also stated that UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 would continue to apply.
• On secondary uses of data, she said the Bill does not create new legal gateways for purposes other than direct care. She said data may be used for research, population analysis and service improvement only where there is a separate legal basis.

Social care and SCIP

Social care was referenced in the debate, but it was not explored in proportion to its importance for implementation.

The Government explicitly stated that the Single Patient Record is intended to bring together health and social care records. MPs also referred to social care workers and care services in the context of access to relevant information for direct care. However, there was no reference to the Social Care Interoperability Platform (SCIP), despite its direct relevance.

This is important for CASPA members as the debate repeatedly returned to questions of interoperability, federated access and how existing systems should be linked which is exactly the space in which SCIP sits. SCIP should therefore be understood as a key enabler of the Government’s ambition for health and social care interoperability. If the Single Patient Record is to work in practice, it cannot be designed only around NHS systems. It must connect safely and effectively with the digital systems used by adult social care providers.

For CASPA members, the key point is that social care should not be treated as a passive recipient of NHS information or as an afterthought in national data architecture. Social care software systems hold essential information about people’s needs, risks, daily care, medication, observations, outcomes and support arrangements. These systems need to be part of the interoperability model from the start.

Implications for CASPA members

The debate confirms that there is strong political momentum behind the Single Patient Record and a clear expectation that health and care information should be more joined up.

It also shows that Parliament is alert to the risks. MPs are likely to continue scrutinising privacy, procurement, access controls, supplier lock-in, secondary uses of data and whether the Government is building on existing interoperable infrastructure.
For social care technology suppliers, this creates both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity is that the Government’s stated model depends on connecting existing systems rather than replacing them. That aligns with the principle of interoperability and supports the case for SCIP as the route through which social care systems can participate in the wider health and care data ecosystem. The risk is that national debate may continue to focus on NHS systems and the NHS App, while social care implementation is left underdeveloped. CASPA should continue to make the case that the Single Patient Record will only deliver true health and social care integration if social care suppliers, providers and standards are included in the design, governance and implementation from the outset.