Health Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon]

I worked as a civil servant for the coalition Government, and I saw at first hand some of the duplication and confusion caused when NHS England was set up, so I welcome this Bill and the decision to abolish NHS England. However, reversing the fragmentation caused by the Tories’ failed reforms of the NHS will not on its own create a more integrated and joined-up service for patients and carers. That is why I have tabled new clause 106, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months of the Act passing on how well NHS bodies and local authorities are working together to integrate health and social care in England.

Having worked in the health and care sector, I know how vital it is to have integrated services, and I know as an MP, as I am sure do others, and from personal experience how devastating unco-ordinated care can be for patients, their families and our NHS. One of my constituents, Ellerie Carroll, was diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, an inoperable brain tumour, in September 2024. Very sadly, she died in May this year, aged just nine. Ellerie and her parents, Freya and Christian, suffered in ways that are unimaginable, but it was a lack of co-operation between services that added to their suffering. To give just one example, after going for a MRI scan at Great Ormond Street hospital, Ellerie had to endure a repeated scan at Leeds General Infirmary in Leeds due to an inability to share results between hospitals. I hope that the single patient record, which the Bill also creates, will help to join up systems and reduce such problems.

We see disjointed care within the NHS between hospital and community services, but also between health and social care. Another constituent, Roger, in his 90s, had a fall and serious head injury last year. After the acute hospital treatment in Leeds, there was a failure in the NHS to join up his care with Bradford social services, resulting in delays to his discharge. He developed infections and delirium. After nine months of being moved from one hospital to another, and despite his wife fighting to get him home with support, he died in hospital. These are the consequences when our health and care systems are not integrated. It is also expensive. Around one in 10 hospital beds in England are occupied by someone who does not need to be there, often because community care or social care are not available.

Any reform of the NHS will ultimately fail unless we simultaneously reform adult social care. That is why I welcome the priority given to this issue by the Prime Minister and the commitment he made to bring forward the conclusion of the Casey commission. But even if we build a national care service, which we must, there is a risk if it does not work in sync with our national health service. It is essential that we place very clear obligations on all parts of the NHS to co-operate and integrate with social care.

I ask the Minister to set out in her closing remarks how she and the Secretary of State will monitor the Bill’s impact on integration, and how they will ensure co-operation remains a critical priority for the NHS—not just on paper, not just in law, but in the way that we all experience health and care in a joined-up way.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation.

What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost.

Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB.

That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement.

The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is giving a typically punchy speech. Does he agree that every signal suggests that this measure has not been thought through? While the Government have conceded by saying, “Oh we’re going to have local government coming back onboard,” how could they have conceived of health and social care without local government being engaged? On every front, it looks as if they have not thought it through, abolishing everything from the safety inspectorate to Healthwatch England. We have a Government that are out of control, spending tens if not hundreds of millions on redundancies with no clear end destination in view, wasting a huge opportunity.

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government are spending millions of pounds and there is no plan. The measure was announced without working that out, it came as a surprise to many within the system, and it has had a chilling effect on many decisions.

That is not isolated. Just today, we had the complete shambles of local government reorganisation. On the last day before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State rushed to the House to push through an announcement, which the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reversing, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is contradicting her by saying that the Government want to have a higher legal appetite for risk and fewer consultations. There is confusion across Departments, and the issues with clause 1, which a number of Members have spoken to, illustrate that.

Given the time limit, I will turn to clause 6. I do not doubt for a minute that the Health Minister and the Secretary of State—anyone in the Department—want to promote innovation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) spoke a lot about capital to revenue switches in his book, and the pressure that takes away from innovation. As Health Secretary, I used to have a wry smile at the battles I had with him, when I was pushed by the Treasury to do exactly the same thing. The issue is not the lack of will; the issue is the alignment between procurement, regulation and clinical leadership, particularly in the colleges, as well as the ability to scale innovation—it is not about having more ministerial pilots.

Finally, because I am almost out of time, I will pick up on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s good points around data. When I was in the Department, my frustration was that I often had to go on open-source dashboards to get information that should have been available to me as a Minister, and I suspect that that is still the case. We should make data dashboards a common theme—the CSV files that the Department publishes are extremely difficult to access. Make data more transparent; it will help the debate in Parliament and, I dare say, it will help Ministers get more support.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the Bill. I put it on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia. I rise to speak to new clause 162. It is well known that the NHS commissions specialised services unevenly across England. I am confident that this Government’s ambition is to end the postcode lottery of specialised services, and I would like to hear more about that. New clause 162 is designed to do something simple: to ensure that Parliament can identify where inequalities exist, measure where they are improving and hold the Secretary of State to account when they are not.

I will make the case for the provision through the experience of people who live with sickle cell. Sickle cell disorder is the fastest growing serious genetic condition in England. It causes episodes of serious chronic pain, spasms and a crisis that will continue if left untreated. It can damage organs and frequently requires hospital care. When the crisis strikes, patients have to attend A&E and wait for hours, often only to be seen by medical staff who may have little or no familiarity with their condition. Due to past experiences, many sufferers do not trust the NHS to meet their needs, and stories of sufferers who have died in hospital due to complications, such as Evan Nathan Smith, are well known.

In 2021, the “No One’s Listening” report demonstrated that people with sickle cell need to be listened to. That report prompted NHS England to act. It initiated the sick cell and thalassaemia quality improvement programme, from which came seven pilot emergency department bypass units. These dedicated facilities allow sickle cell patients to avoid A&E and receive immediate care to bring a crisis under control. The service works, but there is a problem, which brings me to the new clause. When the APPG met last week, we heard from stakeholders that this progress is fragile. There are only seven bypass units across the country, and with the transfer of commissioning responsibilities under the Bill, there is a real and legitimate fear that what has just begun to be built will not be protected to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I will not. We have heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make some clear points to the House this evening.

We have heard a great deal of discussion about commercial processes, and Members—including the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley)—have raised important points about data security, governance and ethical standards of contracts, and support for domestic suppliers and for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. Contracts involving NHS data and digital services must be subject to proper scrutiny. The Government’s approach is to assess risks on the basis of the nature of the data, service and supplier access. Crucially, we already have the tools that we need to carry out appropriate due diligence through legal powers and robust contractual provisions.

I agree with the spirit of new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the NHS does not inadvertently support exploitation or rights abuses. UK legislation already incorporates some international laws: for example, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European convention on human rights into UK law. Similarly, we can use existing legislation and guidance to exclude suppliers from NHS procurements. Both the Procurement Act 2023 and the provider selection regime allow us to exclude providers when there has been serious misconduct or illegality. For instance, we could exclude a supplier under the Procurement Act for breaches of modern slavery and/or human trafficking laws. We have very high standards and expect all suppliers —including whichever companies go on to provide the single patient record—to meet them.

On a related note, the Chancellor has already written to the Secretary of State to ask that the NHS procurement better support British industry. In the light of that, the Secretary of State has commissioned, within the health family, a review of strategic procurement pipelines to find opportunities for the new social value model to support more British jobs, skills and innovation. The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is leading work on procurement across Government, would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby as part of this important work as it progresses, and I can assure him that the actions that we take will be fully in line with the principle of international law.

[Steve Barclay]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher)—with his example of the sore throat—for his help in driving down demand for healthcare. Indeed, I thank Members in all parts of the House for their contributions to what has been an interesting and helpful discussion. Their expertise and their scrutiny will continue to strengthen the Bill.

[Steve Barclay]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will not. The right hon. Member was Secretary of State for Health twice, so he had his chance to put all the right things into legislation. [Interruption.] I am not helping my own sore throat.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Bill is about returning that democratic accountability directly to the Secretary of State. We have had a lot of pushback in different places, but that is what this Bill does. It returns accountability to the Secretary of State, it devolves that responsibility for delivering on the ground to NHS organisations, and, crucially, it empowers patients. Our new clause strengthens the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 96 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 97

Care and support: involvement of others and visitors

“In section 1 of the Care Act 2014 (promoting individual well-being), in subsection (3)—

(a) after paragraph (e) insert—

“(ea) the importance of the individual being able to involve other people in such decisions and of those people receiving the information and support necessary to facilitate that involvement;”;

(b) after paragraph (f) insert—

“(fa) the importance of the individual having appropriate opportunities to receive visitors;

(fb) in the case of a person who is provided with accommodation in a care home, the importance of them having appropriate opportunities to take trips outside of the care home;”.”—(Karin Smyth.)

Section 1(3) of the Care Act 2014 lists matters to which local authorities must have regard when exercising functions under Part 1 of that Act. The amendments refer to the importance of an individual being able to involve other people in decisions and to receive visitors etc.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

General Medical Council

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

A nine-year-old constituent of mine, Jack Moate, died in 2015, two months after an operation was carried out on his hips by an orthopaedic consultant at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge. Jack’s mother, Elizabeth, said he spent his final weeks in “constant agonising pain”. At the time, she had been told that his treatment had been properly reviewed and that no concerns had been identified, but an independent clinical review later found

“evidence that fatal physical harm was caused”.

A nine-year-old boy in constant, agonising pain.

As the case has been referred to the coroner, I am restricted by the sub judice rule under which we operate in commenting further on the details of Jack’s case at this stage. It is, of course, vital that the inquest can ensure that the full truth is established.

One of the key things I want to achieve through this Adjournment debate, on behalf of Elizabeth, is to encourage the Minister, who is respected across the House, to ask for a full briefing from her officials on the full aspects of this case. It is not constrained by the sub judice rule, so she is able to get that briefing from her officials. I therefore hope that she will be fully sighted on the issues that it gives rise to.

What I can talk about at this stage is the wider regulatory landscape regarding clinicians, and specifically the role of the GMC, on which there is currently a live consultation titled, “Reforming the General Medical Council legislative council”. As the Minister will know, that consultation is open until 23 June, so this Adjournment debate is timely.

The issues at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS foundation trust raise serious wider patient safety concerns in the context of the consultation, specifically where concerns are raised but a trust does not act, where a trust does not act even after a whistleblower has raised concerns, and where other clinicians fail to intervene, and where the regulatory oversight does not kick in. It is vital, in the context of that consultation, that the GMC takes the opportunity to review expeditiously how it reforms medical practices that are problematic, and to ensure that they are not strung out over a period of many years, as I will come on to highlight.

Where shortcomings in medical practice are discovered, the GMC should act immediately to protect patients, rather than waiting for the outcome of a coroner’s process, which may take many years to conclude, during which time further harm could be caused. I hope the House will revisit the circumstances of Jack’s case once the coroner’s process has been concluded, and I hope the Minister will commit to returning to the House to make a statement at that point, so that the issues that cannot be raised today can be debated without restriction.

Alongside that issue with the GMC, I want to raise two further points. My second point relates to the GMC’s judgment, and specifically its poor judgment in relation to antisemitism. The Minister will have noticed her own Department’s response just this morning to Lord Mann’s recommendations to tackle what he describes as

“routine ostracism of Jewish people”

in the NHS—that is the description from the Government’s adviser. Indeed, Ministers quite rightly have said that all racism in the NHS is abhorrent, yet current GMC practice, to me, falls significantly below the expectations set out in Lord Mann’s report. Given that his recommendations have been welcomed and accepted by the Government in full, there must be an expectation that the consultation, and indeed reform of the GMC, will reflect that. Will Health Ministers require the GMC to change the current threshold for what it sees as a standard compatible with an NHS clinician?

Let me give a specific example that illustrates the current gap between the GMC and what I see as the Government’s response to Lord Mann’s report. Just a few weeks ago, the NHS clinician Dr Martin Whyte was seen as fit by the GMC to join the GMC specialist register—a senior role within the NHS. Yet when I was Secretary of State for Health, I reported Dr Martin Whyte to the GMC following abhorrent social media comments. While it is distressing to read them out, I think it is important for the House to hear exactly what this doctor—who has just been put on the GMC specialist register—had to say. For example, he said:

“hahaha zeig heil hahaha gas the jews hahaha just kidding but have you seen these youtube videos about the holohoax they’re pretty convincing imo”.

That is from a doctor. In another tweet, he said:

“Ahaha you thin skinned babyman. How are you still so prominent at the BBC? Did you and Tony Hall kill a prostitute together or something?”

Another tweet talked of “Jew banker goblins”—that gives a sense of the character we are dealing with.

Obviously, I had a sometimes challenging relationship with the British Medical Association during my time as Health Secretary, but interestingly even it, which Dr Whyte unsuccessfully tried to sue, said that he was someone who could never return to represent it in any elected office. The BMA found him unpalatable—but not, it seems, the GMC.

That is not an isolated case. The Campaign Against Antisemitism has said:

“Britain’s regulatory bodies are failing the Jewish community. Time and again doctors who spew antisemitic bile online and in the streets are being allowed to continue practising medicine”.

Again, that is a flavour of Lord Mann’s report from this morning.

There are other examples. I will not go through them all, but I will give just one example. Dr Rehiana Ali, a consultant neurologist who was reinstated just last year, said that the architect of the 7 October attacks was a “legend”, called for Israel to be “dismantled” and claimed that 9/11 was conducted by Mossad.

I have no doubt that such examples horrify the Minister, given her good reputation in the House, as well as Members on all Benches. But they do point to why the consultation is timely and why, in response to Lord Mann’s report, we need to see action in respect of the GMC.

The third issue that I want to highlight regards the wider poor performance of the GMC. This is an organisation that spends north of £100 million on staff costs—it has got more than 1,700 staff—yet doctors’ fitness to practise hearings are taking, on average, almost two years to process, with a recent increase in cases open for three years or more. That time matters because the NHS must continue to pay suspended doctors in full until they are formally found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetence. It just adds to the grievance that families feel when they see a doctor being paid for years even though there are very serious concerns regarding their fitness to practise—never mind the fact that if they do continue to practise during that time, there may be ongoing risk to patients.

Further, in October last year it came to light that the GMC had allowed doctors with restrictions regarding their overseas practice to practise without restrictions here, which clearly can put patients at risk. It is notable that even the Medical Defence Union has called for new legislation so that the GMC can overhaul its processes. Will the Minister use the Health Bill as an opportunity to table amendments for that? If not, which legislation will she use to address some of these issues regarding the GMC?

In a spirit of balance, when dealing with regulatory bodies I want to be clear about the important distinction to draw between the sort of cases I have highlighted and those of medics who have made a genuine mistake—often in a highly pressured environment—where indeed we want to encourage a culture of openness and learning. Indeed, I think back to the 2011 case of Dr Bawa-Garba, where I think a lot of the backlash to that and concerns of the wider profession were about the sense that clinical reflections made in good faith as part of learning were being used in legal proceedings, as well as the extent to which a trainee was possibly being scapegoated.

I hope the House can see the marked distinction between the grave cases that I have highlighted today and the case of a clinician who, in the heat of a high pressure situation, made a genuine mistake and where the case is addressed in a spirit of openness and transparency. I am sure the Minister can draw that distinction.

I hope that I am correct in my understanding that Ministers are minded to give the Professional Standards Authority greater powers, including to ensure that it has the information necessary to make decisions on exercising its right to appeal fitness to practise decisions, and to enable a more agile approach to regulatory performance monitoring. If the Minister confirms that in her response, I would welcome that.

How we protect patients better is a long-running issue. I know a number of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Health were focused on this—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) worked extensively on patient safety when I was his deputy in the Department. For my part, I focused on giving families a stronger voice in the NHS—through Martha’s rule, for example, and increasing data transparency. It is clear from the Government’s response this morning that the current ministerial team is also focused sincerely on how to enhance patient safety, but that does require a regulator that is fit for purpose, and there are significant concerns about the GMC. I hope that the Minister will use legislation before the House, alongside the current consultation, to address some of the concerns I have raised today.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

It is one thing for the BMA to have rejected the offer we made; it is quite something else to have done that following a 28.9% pay rise—but we are where we are. The thing that I find utterly inexplicable and indefensible about the BMA’s position is that we offered it the chance to extend its strike mandate to the beginning of February, in order that strikes could be delayed into January, to give the NHS a clear run at an extremely difficult and challenging winter and the most challenging time of the year for the NHS. The only reason the BMA is choosing this week to strike is that it knows it will inflict maximum damage on the NHS, but in doing so it risks avoidable harm to patients. That is unconscionable, indefensible and unnecessary, and I ask ordinary members of the BMA, whatever their views on the offer or this Government, to bear that in mind when deciding whether or not to leave their patients this week.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Given the pressures from flu and strikes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the evidence he gave to the pay review body remains correct—that any pay rises must be funded from within his Department? If so, given that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that inflation next year will be 3.5% and he has offered 2.5% across the NHS, and said that a 1% increase would cost £1.5 billion, does he intend to give NHS staff a real-terms pay cut, or to take £1.5 billion from headline Government commitments?

UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful for that very helpful intervention, because the hon. Gentleman points out the co-location of DSTL and the UKHSA at Porton, and that is a really important fact. The possibility of sharing category 4 facilities—something that has been resisted sometimes by one party or the other—is a material consideration when trying to mitigate excessive costs.

Last year’s NAO report set out that in February 2022, the programme had a staff team of 92 full-time equivalents based across multiple sites including Porton Down, London and other regional UKHSA centres, working across programme operations, management, delivery and capability, in addition to construction, finance and commercial and leadership teams. In November 2023, there were 69 FTE staff on the programme. The programme team is made up of civil servants and service providers, and has input from colleagues from other parts of the UKHSA.

It is very ironic to me that as I read over about 13 mentions of Porton Down that I have made in this Chamber over the last 15 years, so many of the Ministers who responded are now either retired, deposed or in the other place. I am concerned that the civil service people, for whom I have great respect having worked closely with lots of civil servants, have been blissfully unaccountable to any enduring authority or direction on this, while all of this work has been going on in the background. That just cannot be right.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As one of the ex-Ministers who is still here, perhaps I can contribute in a spirit of helpfulness to the current Minister. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue many times. I was so concerned by this proposal as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that I visited Porton Down and gave a very clear steer—not least when I found, to my huge surprise, that the nursery was being closed, which I thought was the wrong decision. He, like me, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I gave a very clear steer that I was concerned that this move did not represent value for money, that times had changed and that the proposal was in error. I wonder whether the case study that is being presented to officials and the information that comes to Ministers properly reflects known concerns raised by Ministers, which appear to have been routinely ignored.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend; I recall the many conversations that we had on this matter.

How can we be in a situation where £530 million—Public Health England’s initial estimated cost for the whole programme in 2015—became an estimated £3.2 billion in 2023? I am not sure if that is the very latest figure. Of even greater concern to me is the fact that it was estimated in 2015 that the project would be completed by 2021, yet the best estimate now is that it will not be fully operational until 2036 at the earliest, which is 11 years away. That is if the programme remains at Harlow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that all considerations will be taken into account when this decision is made. As I have said, the Government are thoroughly assessing options, including all those that have been raised. Two main options are under consideration: to rebuild and refurbish some facilities at Porton Down and its sister site at Colindale in north London, or to build an entirely new facility in Harlow, Essex. In either event, the staff working in the defence, science and technology laboratory at Porton Down will remain there, and even when a decision is made on those options, nothing will happen overnight. Complexity and rigorous scientific requirements mean that completion will take more than a decade, which is why we continue to invest in maintaining our current site and facilities at Porton Down, with £38.1 million allocated for capital investment in the recent spending review.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we retain the ability to carry out the vital functions of UKHSA Porton Down. Members, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all advocated for an urgent decision, but identifying the right site that delivers on this mission, while ensuring best value for money, is a complex decision and one that we must get right. I can assure the House that extensive discussions are taking place between UKHSA, the Department of Health and Social Care and His Majesty’s Treasury to inform a decision, and I can confirm that this decision will be taken as part of the spending review, which will conclude next month.

[Steve Barclay]

Having had the opportunity to be involved in spending reviews, I would be interested to know the current provision for this scheme in the budget over the next three years, because alongside assessing the benefits, there will be the simple question of what is affordable. The NAO has set out an estimate of over £3 billion for the overall cost, but what has the Department provisioned for the spending review period?

[Ashley Dalton]

I do not currently have the detail on that, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman following this debate. I can confirm that he knows as much as I do about what might be in the spending review, because those decisions have yet to be made, but more information will be made available as soon as possible.

As the Secretary of State said earlier this year,

“The worst decision is indecision”,—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1295.]

and this Government are committed to sorting out this issue once and for all. A decision will be made in a matter of weeks. In anticipation of that decision, UKHSA is taking steps to prepare to remobilise the programme at pace. It recently invited the Government Internal Audit Agency to conduct a short review of its remobilisation plans as part of its commitment to ensure that there is maximum transparency and rigorous assessment of the programme. The agency has also obtained advice from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.

I am sure that colleagues from across the House share my view that the work conducted at Porton Down is critical to protect the country. The recent pandemic put into sharp focus how this work is fundamental to keeping us all safe. Although there is still the outstanding question of how we can best preserve the facilities for the country, whatever decision we take will be made in full consultation with the staff at Porton Down, whose critical skills are highly valued by us all.

I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury again for raising this vital issue, and all Members who have intervened in the debate. I commit to updating him on progress once a decision is made.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 General Committees

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members for their support for the regulations. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point regarding care at sporting and temporary cultural events. We all remember the awful events at Manchester Arena and the lessons to be learnt from there. Although there is some good practice in healthcare provided at some of these events, there remain examples of poor, unregulated healthcare that does not sufficiently protect members of the public, so it is right that the CQC has oversight of the sector.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points about proportionality—that is essentially the word I would ascribe to these measures. People need to be assured that there is safety and some proportionality, and I think those points should be taken on board for the next phase of this work. If we need to come back to him specifically on that or write to him about how it proceeds, we will absolutely do that. We all want to support events in our communities and support the volunteers and people who come forward for such things. They are a really important part of the fabric of our lives, so I think it is very important that people have assurances around that.

I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the further questions that the he asked about the CQC and the fit and proper persons test. As he rightly says, they are not a matter for this SI, but as the work goes on and as we listen to our colleagues in the other House, and their debate about the Mental Health Act in particular, there will be a number of issues that we want to make sure are dealt with properly and that will come into the next phase. We will endeavour to make sure we update him on progress with that work as well.

Patient safety is a top priority for us, and the CQC plays an important role in ensuring that providers meet the standards of care that we expect for the public—patients, carers, and families and loved ones. Its purpose is to monitor, inspect and regulate health and care services and make sure that providers meet the fundamental standards of quality and safety.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister quite rightly raised the important issue of patient safety. In October, the Government appointed a new boss of the CQC. The Minister will be aware that, in January, following a BBC investigation and whistleblower evidence, families alleged serious wrongdoing regarding a number of baby deaths at the hospital of which the new CQC boss had been chief executive for the past 10 years. Can the Minister say how that has been factored into the appointment of the new CQC boss or whether the families, in the view of the Minister, were wrong in the concerns they raised?

[Karin Smyth]

In appointing Sir Julian Hartley, proper processes were conducted. He was seen to be fit and proper to lead the CQC, and we have confidence in his ability to do so.

[Steve Barclay]

He was appointed in October. Whistleblowers, the BBC investigation and families have raised concerns regarding maternity services at Leeds. The Minister will be aware that there is renewed scrutiny of maternity safety and rightly so. That is a key issue for the CQC. Were the families wrong in their concerns? What has the Minister done to investigate them? Quite rightly, she highlighted the point of patient safety.

[Karin Smyth]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about maternity care, which is very sadly an issue of concern in many places across the country. Of course, those patients and families are absolutely right to call out poor care where they have seen it. It is absolutely right that that is fully investigated, and that is what we would expect at Leeds and in other places around the country.

The CQC’s leadership in ensuring that we have safety and confidence is critical for the role. On that basis, we would like to move forward with this SI to remove the expiry date in the 2014 regulations, to amend the five-year period and to ensure that health and care providers continue to be required to register with the CQC and comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations after 31 March this year. We also want to make sure that services continue to be required to provide a safe and high quality standard of care.

Question put and agreed to.