Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

I think it is about balance. I agree that we need to ensure that the data is kept safely. Using British technology where we can is a good thing, but we have to be reasonable about it. For example, there are alternatives to Microsoft Outlook, but how much more would that cost the NHS and how much would it affect patient care? There is a balance to be struck. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in protecting our data. That is an extremely important issue, and I am sure the Minister will tell us about the work she is doing to ensure our data is kept safe.

New clause 43, in my name, is about private providers’ data. We often do freedom of information requests about, for example, surgical procedures, but one in 10 procedures are performed in private settings and are not subject to FOI, which means that less data is available to the public. Data from private independent providers is less transparent than that of standard NHS provision. This is a probing amendment to find out the Minister’s thoughts about how to ensure people can access transparent data on operations performed in local independent hospitals, particularly as the Government have signalled their intention towards more and more of those being provided.

[Edward Argar]

My questions will be very brief. I am conscious that, given that these are mostly Liberal Democrat new clauses, for once I will be asking the hon. Member for Winchester for a response, not the Minister.

New clause 4 would require that contracts be laid before Parliament. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee how many such contracts he thinks would end up being laid before the House in any given year, based on historical data, and therefore how much parliamentary time that would take up. Does he envisage that being handled by an affirmative or negative statutory instrument? What will the process be?

I can see what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I have a certain wariness, along the lines of that expressed by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. Although it is important that we have appropriate protections and scrutiny, when we are procuring services and technology for the NHS we should be looking for the most effective and best tools that have those safeguards but can do the job that eminent surgeons and clinicians need them to do in order to do their work for patients.

Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am particularly keen to speak on clauses 59 to 63, because HSSIB was a key part of the Health and Care Act 2022, which I took through as a Minister. At that time, I was grateful for not only the fearless and tough questioning from the now Minister, who was on the Opposition Benches, but for her support. She said:

“HSSIB is a really important new body”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 564.]

She also said that it is a

“new and important body, which we are all desperate to ensure works well.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2021; c. 566.]

It is fair to say that it does work well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out clearly in his detailed remarks. The thread running through his remarks, which is particularly important in this context, was trust. People who have had something go wrong and have reported a problem need to trust that it will be looked at independently and dispassionately.

I fear that what is proposed here results from a deeply misguided decision, which has at the heart of its logic a fundamental flaw. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, the decision fails to recognise that HSSIB’s role is fundamentally different from the role of CQC. It is an independent investigator; it is not a regulator or an enforcer, yet that somehow seems to be conflated in what the Government are trying to do here. They have simply failed to make a logical case for the change.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who I always listen to with great interest on these matters, highlighted that patient safety should be at the heart of this legislation. That is absolutely right, but patient safety goes hand in hand with the confidence of those working in the system to speak out and put forward evidence that will improve patient safety. It is not an either/or; one is complementary to the other. It is important that this safe space remains, because that provides the conditions in which patient safety can be improved.

In her evidence during the first session of this Committee, Dr Dash stated that she found more than 150 organisations operating in this space when she undertook her review. However, in Hansard, she went on to say:

“I was asked by the Department of Health and Social Care to look at that landscape. I was asked to focus on six organisations”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 5, Q2.]

Only six out of 150? That does not ring true. That is not a tidying-up of the landscape but a very narrow focus. When the Minister comes to her concluding remarks, can she answer who specifically determined those six organisations for Dr Dash and told her to look only at those, ignoring the other 144-plus organisations? We all know that what a review comes up with is, to a large degree, determined by the scope set for it. By picking a mere six out of 150-plus organisations, I fear there is a risk that the scope has effectively, to a degree, stacked the outcome of what would be looked at and what would be concluded.

Before addressing specific concerns about the approach being adopted with the abolition of HSSIB, I want to highlight a real challenge with—even if one accepted the premise, which I do not—where it is proposed the functions are transferred to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out.

Dr Dash said in her evidence that the CQC

“still has a way to go, and we all need to acknowledge that.”

She went on to say:

“I would have hoped that, by now, many of those challenges had been addressed. Some of them have been, but some of them have struggled.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 4, Q2.]

We are talking about moving an effective organisation into another organisation which, quite apart from whether the merger is appropriate given their different remits, is—by the review author’s own admission in evidence—basically not in a fit state to receive those new functions. I think that has been tacitly acknowledged by the Minister in saying it will only be done at an appropriate time, when the CQC is ready. Therefore, why make those changes at all? At the moment, it does not look like the CQC will be ready, at least in the near future, based on the evidence we have heard.

[Dr Johnson]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is not the only thing that the CQC is being asked to take on. It is also being asked to take on the regulation of event healthcare, which is another new function for the CQC, all at a time when, as he says, it has its own difficulties to manage.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is right to highlight, for want of a better way of putting it, the cumulative challenges that will potentially be piled on the CQC, on top of the pre-existing challenges with how that organisation is functioning.

I read with great care the Adjournment debate that took place last night in the Chamber, which has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, and I pay tribute to him for his work in this space. I worked closely with him in the context of the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, and I know that the issue of patient safety is fundamental to what he seeks to improve and achieve in this House. I agree with him: I fear the Dash review simply fails to make the case for those changes. Also, as hon. Members have set out, it sadly appears to contain a number of errors and assumptions that are inaccurate, which I will turn to in a moment.

The fundamental challenge is to establish a way for people to feel confident and trusting in challenging a culture of denial and blame. We have seen this most recently in the context of maternity failings and scandals. The need for that safe space, and for an organisation able to challenge the institutions, is very clear, and I fear that this change actually weakens the ability to do that. Dr Dash’s review, I fear, fails to fully recognise just how important the safe space concept is—not just in how it is drafted and framed legally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, in how it is perceived by those who need to use it. The CQC, of course, has a legal duty to act on information it receives, but that risks being conflated here.

I saw this illustrated last night, for example, in the Adjournment debate, in a comment made by the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), when she was responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. She was talking about the criteria for disclosing protected information outside the investigative function. She said:

“Those criteria set a high bar for any disclosure—as high as it is currently with HSSIB—and the CQC will publish further guidance setting out much more detail.”

This is the key point. She went on to say:

“As the Bill sets out, the CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether the case matches the criteria and whether it warrants information sharing outside the safe space.”

And this is the crux of it:

“That person is likely to be the CQC’s chief executive officer.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 147.]

That is an inherent conflict. If the person who is the head of the regulatory body is making the decision on whether information should be disclosed by HSSIB in its folded-in form, that will do nothing to inspire confidence in disclosure and the safe space provisions. I fear that drives a coach and horses through some of the arguments being made that there are sufficient safeguards within this merger to ensure HSSIB can continue as it has done thus far.

The crux of some of Dr Dash’s arguments appears to be that there are, as the Minister also alluded to, too many recommendations being made and that it is a complex landscape. Yet HSSIB, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex set out yesterday, has made 56. He went on to say that the 30 or so public inquiries and other investigations have delivered 1,400, so it simply does not follow that HSSIB is the problem in that complex landscape.

What was made very clear by, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is that, of course, the concern is not the recommendations. It is not the organisation making the recommendations that is responsible for the fact that they are not implemented. It is the NHS itself, its inertia, its unwillingness and the Department’s unwillingness to take them forward in a coherent fashion—to drive the recommendations through and monitor whether they have been delivered on by the NHS.

[Dr Johnson]

On pages 8 and 9 of the Dash review, Dr Dash talks about this. She states:

“Recommendations are…focused on inputs, rather than outputs or outcomes, and fail to…balance…risks within organisations and across systems…the existence of so many recommendations causes considerable confusion for staff. They result in more clinical staff moving into supervisory roles to check that other…staff are adhering to the recommendations. The overwhelming majority of recommendations lack data as to the cost of implementation or the expected impact.”

She recognised, did she not, that there was a problem with people being asked to check up on one another’s work and check up on their work? But the recommendations do not deal with that, perhaps because the scope, as my right hon. Friend has described, is so narrow.

Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I want to speak primarily to amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the shadow Minister, and to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has just said. Sadly, there will be a large number of people who do not follow the debates in this House or this Committee in great detail, however fascinating they may be. That is perfectly understandable.

The single patient record has genuine potential. It has the potential to put all the different bits of data in one place, so that when, for example, someone is blue-lighted to hospital, their consultant or the doctors treating them in A&E can access the information they need about their medical history and any medications they are on, which could improve clinical outcomes for patients.

I can entirely see the potential of the single patient record, but I am also conscious of the genuine concern among those of our constituents who are aware of this about what it might mean in practical terms for them and their data—it is important to remember that it is their data. They will have concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out, about who can access it, what safeguards are in place, whether they can opt out, and a range of other legitimate questions about how it will work.

I have to say that amendment 49, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is not unreasonable. It would give the Government an opportunity to reassure our constituents and bring them along on this journey, rather than leaving questions unanswered or just addressing them in a Q&A on a Government webpage. People have genuine questions, and in many cases I am confident that the Minister will be able to allay those concerns or put them to rest, but some campaign of that sort is needed.

Such campaigns happen regularly on a range of subjects. The Department of Health and Social Care spends a significant amount of money on public health and awareness campaigns, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs spends a large amount of money on reminding everyone to get their tax returns in on time, in the lead up to that, or to remind them of the penalties if they do not. Government do that day in, day out across a range of services and where major changes are being made.

The Government have a genuine opportunity to accept amendment 49, which will help them to bring the people we serve on this journey, and potentially help to realise the benefits and allay people’s concerns. I genuinely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or will commit to take it away, look at it, engage with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and possibly bring back a Government amendment that does exactly this on Report.

[Dr Johnson]

I am advised to declare that, although I am not a licence holder of a shotgun or a rifle, my husband has both a shotgun and a firearms licence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Member for Ashford made his point very clearly about what happens when something goes wrong and someone behaves inappropriately—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has highlighted some very concerning recent incidents—and was right to highlight the ability to follow an audit trail and take action. He is also right to highlight the importance of training.

However, taking action once inappropriate access is known, and then following the audit trail, deals essentially with the consequences rather than preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why amendment 48, and particularly proposed new section 250E(4B)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006, is important. It describes the technical controls. That goes beyond the audit process and what happens after something has gone wrong. It is about what can be done to build safeguards into the system to make it much harder for anyone to circumvent their obligations, and to build those technical safeguards into the overall design of the single patient record. That is a reasonable ask, because such incidents, while hopefully rare, as the hon. Member for Ashford alluded to, do happen and understandably cause concern.

The challenge is that there is potentially a lot more information in one place, rather than being held in different pots, trusts or GP surgeries. For those inclined to break their legal obligations and behave outside the rules, the potential opportunity to access a wider range of information is more significant. The design of the record needs to have those technical safeguards strengthened and built in.

[Dr Johnson]

If we use the example of Southport, the people who could access those records worked in the Liverpool trust, because that is where the records were stored. With the single patient record, as planned, people would be able to access those records from across the country, if they had a clinical reason to do so. However, someone behaving badly could also potentially do so, even if they did not have a reason.

[Edward Argar]

That is the challenge. The Minister knows her brief very well—if I may say, I hope that whatever happens in a few weeks’ time, she retains it. She is that rare thing among Ministers in Government: someone who comes to their position with a hinterland of knowledge, experience and interest, which she has demonstrated through her period in office thus far. I hope that she retains her role, because continuity of Ministers in Government is a good thing.

Can the Minister reassure us on the shadow Minister’s point, which is one that I have been seeking to make? Can she reassure us that the system will include barriers to prevent whoever builds and operates it—whether a third party or someone internal—from having inappropriate access to the records? The data must be ringfenced and protected, so that it does not go out of the country and cannot be accessed by those who are technically running or providing the platform. Even within the social care system, there must be very clear and technical restrictions on who can access the records for legitimate purposes, as the hon. Member for Ashford has highlighted. I think that would just reassure people.

As I said in response to previous amendments, I think the potential of the single patient record to improve clinical outcomes in care is very significant, but we need to bring people with us. I suspect that if anyone can reassure us on those points, it is the Minister.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The amendments would introduce a primary care investment standard, requiring the ICBs to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of the total funding that they receive. The Secretary of State would be able to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply.

As the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not need to talk about the importance of primary care, because we all know it is very important and quite efficient. The Darzi report said that primary care is one of the most financially efficient parts of the NHS. The challenge is that demand is increasing across the whole system, and unless overall funding is increased, then giving primary care a bigger share must mean giving somebody else a smaller one.

My other concern is about how the hon. Gentleman thinks this will be measured. Is measuring inputs rather than outputs really the right way to run the health service? We have tested almost to destruction the idea of just giving more and more money, which I suppose is why the Government have introduced this Bill: to try to reform things and make them more efficient. We can argue about whether they are doing that well or not, but that is the thrust of what they are trying to do.

I think the idea behind the amendments is interesting, but I would be interested to hear more about how the hon. Member thinks the standard would work, and in particular whether he thinks it could be justified if there was huge unmet demand in the secondary care or mental health sector. The balance of need may change over time, and if it does, then legislating for a set proportion to go on this or that type of care, rather than on delivering this or that type of outcome, might not be the right approach.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for his explanation of amendments 60 and 61. Like my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I entirely understand what he is seeking to achieve, and also how important general practice is. Access to appointments with a general practitioner or at a practice is one of the most significant issues in Melton Mowbray. Despite the fantastic work that doctors are doing to try to manage that, the pressure continues to be intense, which on occasion is causing real anxiety for patients. Equally, I can see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) are trying to achieve by kick-starting a shift away from acute settings and towards front-loading—for want of a better way of putting it—people’s treatment in the NHS. As he said, Governments of many different complexions have tried to achieve that shift; what he is trying to do is give it a bit of oomph.

I can entirely see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do have some concerns, one of which was articulated well by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which is that the amendments are very much focused on inputs rather than outcomes. With the Health and Care Act 2022, we sought to shift the focus more towards outcomes, and I think the Minister is also seeking to move it towards outcomes rather than purely inputs—she will correct me if I am wrong—so I do worry about that.

Like my hon. Friend, I also have a slight concern about the effect of amendment 60 on the flexibility to address local circumstances and—for want of a better way of putting it—the discretion available to ICBs in determining the local health priorities. The Bill moves us away from the conception of ICBs in the 2022 Act, under which they were essentially mapped on to an upper-tier local authority geography, so that those delivering social care mapped directly on to the same geography and better integrated with it. With the removal of local authority reps and their potential replacement with representatives of a mayoral authority, and with ICBs covering much larger areas, we see a fracturing of the link with social care provision, and also perhaps a lot of local mapping and a local focus from the ICBs. None the less, my concern is that taking a prescriptive approach in primary legislation could further reduce ICBs’ ability to flex in order to address local needs. I can entirely see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and we all want to see primary care—general practice and dentistry—getting the funding it needs to address needs, but I am not convinced that the amendment will not have potential unintended consequences.

On amendment 61, I can again see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell are trying to do: give the shift teeth and make sure that ICBs look at it. The risk is that if they fail to achieve it, they will face financial penalties, which risks compounding the financial challenges they face and potentially reducing the available funds for primary care, mental health and a range of other healthcare services in the vicinity. I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I share the objective, but I have concerns about how it would work in practice and whether it would be overly prescriptive.

Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Thursday 25th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend comes to this with significant knowledge from his work on the Health and Social Care Committee. He is absolutely right, but that is a tension and a balance that I fear runs as a thread throughout this legislation, between local decision making and tailoring and the genuine need for a Secretary of State to have effective powers. We lobby Secretaries of State; on occasion I have lobbied the Minister, and she has always been very responsive—she does not always agree with me, but she has always been very responsive to me. As Members of Parliament, we do that on behalf of our communities.

My argument is that ICBs need to be more responsive, even when they do consult, to make it clear that the decision is not predetermined by the board and that they are going through the process. In the context of this clause, that also needs to be true of the Secretary of State: it needs to be not simply a formulaic approach but a genuine engagement and consultation. My question for the Minister, in that context, is about how we make sure of what she is seeking to do in the clause. The Secretary of State or those undertaking commissioning on their behalf must pay heed to something, but how do we make sure that that consultation, engagement and feedback genuinely have some teeth in what emerges in the final decision?

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon have covered my points so effectively that I will be very brief indeed. How do we ensure that the consultation is not just well meaning and ticking the legal boxes, but actually listened to, so that people’s voices are incorporated into the plans? Also, I appreciate that amendment 28 is a well-meaning intervention, but how do we ensure that all voices are heard in a co-production, not just those who are the most articulate or the most able to engage with a process that they see online?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Member for North Shropshire makes the point very well. Back when I was a Minister, and subsequently shadow Secretary of State, she raised that point with me. The clause is sensible. The Minister articulated concisely and reasonably why it is necessary. It is the nature of any devolution arrangements that a little bit of cross-border co-operation is required along the border to make sure that services work effectively for people. This may have changed, but in my experience the majority of those crossing the border were people from Wales coming for secondary care services in a hospital on the English side of the border, so I think the clause is entirely reasonable.

I echo the hon. Lady’s request: I would be grateful if the Minister updated the Committee on what conversations she has had, particularly with the Welsh Government, but also with the Scottish Government, to ensure that there is reciprocity and that they will put an equivalent provision into their laws to ensure that patients in England are taken into consideration in their healthcare planning.

[Dr Johnson]

The clause imposes a duty on ICBs to have regard to the likely impact of their commissioning decisions on areas of Wales and Scotland close to the border. In some respects, this is like other parts of the Bill—a statement of the obvious regarding a person’s job. Are we suggesting that the Secretary of State, and in particular ICBs, would not consider the effect of their decisions? I hope that they would, but, given that the clause is there, what teeth does it have? What if they do not? Is there any consequence in the Bill if they do not? As others have said, will the Minister confirm whether there is a reciprocal agreement with Wales and Scotland? If there is not, what negotiations has she entered into and what progress are they making?

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to deal with clauses one and two together.

Secure schools are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people, which the 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to trialling. Essentially, they will be schools with security rather than prisons with education. The Government have already established secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and the Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions in that Act relevant to the establishment of new secure schools.

In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his landmark “Review of the Youth Justice System”. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. He proposed the creation of a new type of custodial environment, one that is focused on the delivery of education and offers children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environments in which we detain and provide care for these children is as necessary now as it was then. The 2019 Conservative manifesto restated our commitment to trialling the new model. The first secure school is set to open in Medway in Kent this spring, and is to be run by the Oasis Restore trust.

Since the Taylor Report, the Government have been working to create the legislative and regulatory framework that will govern secure schools. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under both the Academies Act 2010 and the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued and we near the opening of the first secure school, this Bill is needed to ensure that specific provisions in the 2010 Act are relevant to secure 16 to 19 academies.

The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure schools, should there be a need to end a funding agreement. The Bill also amends the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. These changes will essentially reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, provide for better and more integrated services, and protect the public purse.

With that background in mind, I now turn to the clauses themselves. Clause 1 sets out three main measures. First, it amends section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period for termination of a funding agreement from seven years to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. Having a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and give them more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. The reduction to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which the Government are committed to funding the school longer than is necessary and ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding needed to avoid problems with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in that environment. Although the Government are already able to terminate funding agreements with secure school providers in the event of poor performance, the Bill provides an important “last resort” option to terminate a funding agreement for any other reason.

Secondly, the Bill disapplies section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies, which would otherwise require the Secretary of State to consider the impact on other educational establishments in the area of entering into a new academy funding agreement. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies to ensure that they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different from other schools in the community because they do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have any impact on the viability of local mainstream schools. The Bill therefore disapplies that duty to help any future secure school to open with minimal delay.

Thirdly, the Bill amends section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires an academy provider to consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. The Bill amend that section to require the provider to consult appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners; for example, a provider may deem it appropriate to consult elected representatives or health and education services.

Clause 2 establishes that, when enacted, this legislation will extend to England and Wales, but apply only to England, given that the academy system under the 2010 Act has not been adopted in Wales. The clause also establishes that the provisions of the Bill will come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, the clause establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referred to as the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2024.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to voice my wholehearted support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in introducing the Bill. I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for her well-known and long-standing commitment to children, both in her professional career as a doctor and in this place. It is perhaps a testament to that commitment that she has been instrumental in bringing forward this small but important piece of legislation. The people of Sleaford and North Hykeham are very lucky to have her as their representative in this place, and long may that continue.

It is a sad reality that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to prepare them for their eventual release and to turn their lives around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware from his time doing my job some years ago that we have within our youth custodial estate young offenders institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. The secure school is a new addition to that. It will be the first of its kind in the country. With that in mind, it is important that we establish this first secure school, see how it works and learn from that experience. If it works, my ambition is to see the concept expanded, subject in the future to any funding or spending review decisions. However, it is important that we learn from the real experience once the school is open before we make any longer term commitments or decisions.

The Government fully support the Bill on the basis that the amendments will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and create better services, thus strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children in our justice system. Through the Bill, we have an opportunity to enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer, and have more flexibility should there be need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Although one hopes that will not be necessary, it is prudent and appropriate to have that power in place.

We also have the opportunity to modify consultation requirements that do not apply to secure schools, and therefore help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has highlighted, is a key part of the selection process for any new custodial site. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, facilitating future secure schools should the school prove to be the success that we hope and anticipate it will be. That will ensure a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward the Bill, and I confirm the Government’s full and continued support for it.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank those who have contributed today, and the Government and the Minister for their support. I thank the hon. Member for Neath for coming along today and for her contribution. As she has in Neath, we have a secure children’s home in Sleaford in my constituency. These homes provide care, support and education to children in a secure environment, many but not all of whom have been placed there by the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation is a key part of the criminal justice system, particularly for our youngest people. Extending it to the formal school-based approach for 16 to 19-year-olds in particular will help us to rehabilitate those young people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Edward Argar]

I will take this opportunity to put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her work on the Bill, to those right hon. and hon. Members who are here today, to you for chairing proceedings, Mr Hollobone, and to the fantastic parliamentary and Bill team at the Ministry of Justice for their work on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Elective Care Recovery in England

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman and I have previously met to discuss this issue, and I share his view on the value of radiotherapy in helping to tackle the cancer backlog, and more broadly as a treatment. Ministers and I are always happy to meet him.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend spoke earlier of this Government’s record level of investment in the NHS, but each patient waiting for cancer treatment is undergoing a very long and frightening experience as they wait longer than needed. As he focuses on reducing this backlog, how will he ensure that the record level of investment is focused directly only on measures that will reduce the backlog and is not wasted?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks, as a serving consultant in our NHS. She is right that investment is important but that the outcomes are what really matter. We have set out measures such as the community diagnostic hubs, which are bringing diagnostic capacity to local communities and making it more accessible. That is just one example of how we will ensure that the money delivers the required outcomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

It is vital that non-covid treatments are restored as quickly and safely as possible. That is what the NHS is doing. It is working to have them restored, by October, to around 90% of last year’s levels.

[Dr Johnson]

Thankfully, children are relatively robust in the face of coronavirus. However, children’s services, like other hospital services, were understandably reduced during the pandemic. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that paediatric services are now 100% up and running and will not be affected by a future wave of the pandemic? What is he doing to support NHS trusts in dealing with the backlog of appointments delayed by the coronavirus?

[Edward Argar]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her service to her constituents both as their MP and as a paediatric clinician. She is right to raise this important issue. Restoration guidance has already been published by NHS England and NHS Improvement, setting out a framework to fully restore services in this area, which I agree is vital. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further.

Children’s Funeral Fund

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I would say to her that, as I mentioned earlier, we are not seeking simply to replicate what has been done by the devolved Administrations. We are looking at other aspects and seeing whether there are ways in which we might go a bit further. That does add complexity, so it is not exactly replicating something that is already there. However, she makes her point, as ever, courteously but forcefully.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will not, I am afraid, because I am very conscious of time, and I want to conclude and wind up this debate properly.

I will endeavour to keep the House updated on progress—I know the interest in the House—and I will seek to provide more detailed information on both policy questions and delivery and, where I can, on the legislative timing as soon as I am able to do so. I would like once again to thank the hon. Member for Swansea East and other contributors to today’s debate. No parent ever expects to bury their child, but the sad reality is that it happens, and perhaps more often than many of us realise or wish to acknowledge. For those who suffer such a tragic loss, the emotional burden, as she has said, is unimaginable. It is simply not right that, in addition, families should have to worry about what is probably an unexpected and, for some, totally unmanageable financial burden.

My commitment, the Prime Minister’s commitment and that, I believe, of Members on both sides of the House is clear. Let us make the hon. Lady’s vision a reality in our communities. We will deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment, we will finish that unfinished business this summer, we will give bereaved parents the support they need, and we will do it swiftly and effectively in tribute to all of them and to the hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Argar and Caroline Johnson

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

Since the creation of our youth justice reform programme in 2017, reports by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons have highlighted improvements in the youth secure estate. It is encouraging to see that our reforms are starting to have an impact on the ground, but there is more to do, which is why we are continuing to invest in system-wide reform further to improve safety and outcomes, and why we are expanding frontline public sector staff capacity at young offender institutions. That is why this is a priority for me and for the Secretary of State.

[Dr Johnson]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to a ministerial role. Many children and young people in custody have poor educational attainment. What is he doing to ensure that children in custody have access to good education?

[Edward Argar]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Her work with young people, on both their health and welfare, is well known.

Education should be at the heart of youth custody and must meet the needs of young people. It is there to prepare them for employment, an apprenticeship or continued education when they are resettled back into their communities. We are building more flexibility into the core day, which is designed to ensure that all children receive an individualised education programme tailored to their needs. We are working with each YOI on plans for improving delivery of education to those young people who are unwilling or unable to participate in the mainstream regime.