Contribution
I rise to speak to new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley).
Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me about Palantir Technologies, telling me their concerns about the company’s involvement with Israel’s military and Trump’s ICE. Over 35 Members from across the House have signed my early-day motion calling on the Government to activate the break clause in the NHS federated data platform contract. The objection is not just about Palantir’s ethics, but about its operations under that contract. I share the concerns of many, including the National Data Guardian, about whether data identifiable to individual patients may be accessible by Palantir.
The potential success of the proposals on the single patient record and whether it manages to gain the confidence of the British public depends on the Government listening to these concerns, and making sure that issues around data access and limits, patient opt-outs and the data controller are resolved. I note that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has tabled a number of other amendments related to data safety, which I support.
I also wish to speak in support of amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on ICB financing. I am deeply concerned by the introduction of a duty under clause 48 for each of the constituent bodies of the ICB to achieve financial balance. In east London, we are currently fighting against massive, eight-figure cuts to the East London NHS foundation trust, where workers have been on strike amid cuts to jobs in much-needed mental health services, all of which are being justified by reference to new requirements for financial balance across the trust. Under the provisions of clause 48, matters will be made much worse and the ability to shift and adapt capacity across the system will be rendered impossible. One of the reasons that this is so regrettable, particularly in an area like east London, where the need for mental health services is acute and rising, is that cuts to these services will simply lead to greater costs arising elsewhere. For that reason, I also support amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, to place ICB spending on mental health services on a statutory footing.
I also support amendment 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because I am concerned, as others are, about provisions in the Bill for the reorganisation of ICBs. The changes are among many aspects of this Bill that regrettably point towards a revival of marketisation policies from prior decades—policies that have now been largely discredited. To tackle the biggest health challenges that we face, we require partnership working, joined-up decision making between the NHS, local authorities and expert voices—a dialogue between providers and commissioners. Removing the potential for this type of dialogue appears to be a significant misstep, particularly for integrated care.
Turning ICBs into purchasers alone appears to be being done for the benefit of reinforcing a purchaser-provider split—a split that experts have said time and again does not work, and does not deliver improved performance and outcomes, or even value for money. While I am relieved that the Government are tabling their own amendment 60 to reverse the scrapping of local authority ICB membership, I remain in full support of amendment 45 in order to ensure that NHS trusts, and foundation trusts too, retain their voice in commissioning and public health decisions.
To conclude, the fundamental problem in the Bill lies in its adherence to a logic of marketisation. It is deeply regrettable that the Government are returning to the harmful public-private partnership model for capital investment and a rehashing of the private finance initiative disaster, the negative effects of which are still being felt across my east London constituency.