Health Bill (Fourth sitting)
Gregory Stafford ExcerptsTuesday 23rd June 2026
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2026 - (23 Jun 2026)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on amendment 59.
The amendment fosters competition. That is not ideological; the Government themselves have accepted, in clause 5, that competition and choice are important. As my hon. Friend said, this is about ensuring that patients have real choice, and not just something that the Secretary of State has thought about. If one provider has a waiting list of 30 weeks, for example, while another can see patients in just four weeks, patients should clearly be given the opportunity to choose the faster option. By expanding patient choice and making better use of the available capacity, my hon. Friend’s amendment has the potential to reduce bottlenecks without necessarily increasing overall NHS spending—that is a good thing.
Importantly, the amendment allows patients to choose between all approved providers, including NHS bodies and independent sector providers. It prevents integrated care boards from excluding suitable providers simply because of their organisational type. I think all Committee members believe in provision that is free at the point of use, but that can come from a number of different providers, including the independent sector.
Peter Prinsley
Does the hon. Member recognise that there are circumstances in which independent provision within a district has the effect of disabling the NHS service? A pertinent example is the ophthalmology world. Services have become difficult to deliver in NHS hospitals because large numbers of NHS staff have chosen to work in the independent sector. That makes the comprehensive provision of a service in an eye department difficult, as the staff are all off operating on cataracts.
Gregory Stafford
I do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman puts forward. He is essentially saying that, by allowing the private sector to carry out operations and procedures, we are somehow making the NHS unsustainable. The follow-on from that logic is that we remove all private sector providers and practice so that every single doctor, nurse and therapist is working in the NHS. I do not think that he is arguing for that situation, but it is the logical progression of his argument.
Dr Johnson
When I met surgeons, they said that one reason they like working in elective independent sector hospitals is that they can do more operations on a given day. The shadow Secretary of State visited a provider of cataract treatment yesterday. It is able to perform more treatments on a given day, partly for organisational reasons. The NHS, which is quite frustrating for surgeons, could learn from that. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I do not want to go down the cataracts route, but she and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have both mentioned them. Clearly, cataracts are a relatively low-complexity, high-volume type of operation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that some providers can do five or six operations per list, while other places are doing two or three. That is often about the private sector being able to move more quickly, which is obviously better for patients, as well as for clinicians, who want to do the surgery that they have trained for.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I think that competition can play an important role in driving improvement. When providers must attract and retain patients, they have a stronger incentive to deliver timely, high-quality services, and to innovate in how they provide care. In that sense, competition is not an end in itself but a means of improving outcomes and responsiveness for patients. If both sides of the Committee support clause 5, because we are interested in choice and competition, amendment 59 is the logical extension of that.
The amendment is also clear about where the new obligation choices would apply. It covers a range of out-of-hospital services, including diagnostics, audiology, hearing-aid care, dietetics, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and so on. By clearly defining the services in scope, it provides a realistic and workable road map for implementation.
As I said, the amendment is not about ideology—I think we all agree about choice and competition—but about ensuring that patients receive timely care and have a meaningful choice about where that care is delivered. By fostering healthy competition, making full use of the capacity in the system and putting patients at the centre of the decision-making process, it offers a practical route to improving access and raising standards of care. For those reasons, I support it and commend it to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee. We almost went down a cataract rabbit hole, but I think the points were well made. I will outline the Government’s general approach to choice and then move on to the amendment.
I recognise that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee are committed to protecting and upholding patient choice in our system, as are the Government. That is why clause 5 introduces new duties that require the Secretary of State to promote
“the involvement of patients, and their carers and representatives”
in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of their illness, and their care or treatment. That applies when the Secretary of State is exercising health functions.
The clause also requires the Secretary of State to
“act with a view to enabling patients to make choices”
about the health services provided to them. The Government are committed to involving patients and carers in decisions about their care. We know that supports a better experience of care and, in many cases, better outcomes. Furthermore, if they want to be, patients should be active participants in decisions about their own care, rather than passive recipients of services.
I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I do not think it is necessary. It turns a general duty into one with more prescriptive detail, which risks adding complexity. Details on service types and operational details currently sit in secondary legislation, which allows them to be updated and amended as services evolve. I reassure the hon. Member that we will protect and maintain all the existing rights and duties set out in the choice regulations.
In any future consideration of expanding patient choice, which this amendment requests, I hope the hon. Member would agree that we would need to build up and test the evidence base to ensure that any changes were effective and meaningful for patients, before legislative changes were made. I am not sure what problem the hon. Member is trying to solve.
The Government are committed to protecting patients’ rights to choose. It is absolutely right that the duty to involve them in decisions will remain a central principle of the new health system and that patients are empowered to make informed, meaningful choices. I believe that the clause, unamended, does just that. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was a very junior doctor, whether one wanted to work in a small hospital in the countryside or a large teaching hospital in a big city mostly related to whether one wanted to study a specialist, narrow field of medicine or a wider, broader field of medicine with a variety of different conditions. During my career, I have seen consultants make choices that meant they had to move from their district general hospital to a teaching hospital in order to make progress—in one case, a consultant was told he would not get a professorship unless he moved. The hon. Lady is right: we need to carefully consider how we support innovation.
I have concerns with the clause as it is drafted. Section 13K of the NHS Act 2006 gave NHS England the power to award prizes in support of innovation. Clause 6 ensures the Secretary of State has that power, but there is a big difference between an arm’s length body of technocrats awarding prizes and a political office holder awarding prizes, because then the prizes come out of taxpayers’ money and Governments are particularly short of that—not because they are not taking higher rates of tax, but because they are squeezing the economy.
There is a risk that those awards, and funding for innovation more broadly, become exposed to political cycles. When Governments face a fiscal straitjacket, Ministers are often quick to slash discretionary spending, even though it provides a long-term return on investment. There is also a risk that prizes will be awarded on the basis of who shouts loudest. Certain charities will want the Government to focus on awarding innovations in cancer care, for example; some unions will want the Government to focus on awarding innovators who achieve greater equity in service delivery. There is little doubt that Ministers will have a tough time batting away lobbyists calling for more funding to incentivise this or that type of innovation.
Clause 6 also gives the Secretary of State the power to set up a committee to provide advice on awarding prizes. It is right that the Health Secretary should solicit expert advice when determining which trusts, teams or individuals deserve incentive payments, but does that require the power to set up what is effectively a whole new quango? The Government created more than 25 arm’s length bodies and advisory councils in their first six months. Does the Secretary of State require the power to pay members of the advisory committee when there are many experts in their field who can give their time charitably? I notice there is no requirement for any prize committee to include the chief scientific officer or representatives from ICBs. It is ultimately an unchecked spending power.
Gregory Stafford
What my hon. Friend describes is the real nub of the Bill. If we are to abolish NHS England and move most of its functions to the ICB level or to the Department of Health under a Secretary of State, it would be utter madness for us to, at best, move one set of bureaucrats from NHS England to the Department of Health and therefore gain no extra efficiency, or at worst, as seems to be the case in this clause, not only transfer the NHS England bureaucrats, but create a whole new set of bureaucrats and committees to continue the functions already performed under NHS England.
We need to understand whether the Bill is really about making our NHS more efficient by removing levels of bureaucracy, as was the stated intent of the Minister and the previous Secretary of State, or whether it is simply a political power grab where we keep all the bureaucrats and the inefficiency of the current system.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend, as ever, puts things very succinctly. Much of what is said about the Bill is different from what it seems to mean in practice. We have heard the Government talk about the decentralisation of power so decisions are made locally, but in the oral evidence session, even the union rep said that the Bill is more of a centralisation of power. I agree that creating new bureaucracy to replace old bureaucracy—particularly if that involves redundancies—does not help to save money or to make the system more efficient.
I tabled amendment 58 to make the duty on innovation more robust. It would make clause 6 specifically require the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of services, ensure that innovations are spread and adopted across the NHS, tackle barriers to innovation and consider the wider economic benefits of innovation. That is important, because when we talk to people in the life sciences industry, they tell us that one of the biggest challenges is the roll-out of innovation. They can develop innovations in the UK, but it can take a long time to get them on to the shop floor, which is a disincentive to innovating in the United Kingdom. That process needs to move more quickly.
As currently drafted, the clause does not make it clear what innovation is for or whom it is meant to benefit. Amendment 58 would make it clear that innovation should be to benefit patients, no matter their location or socioeconomic status. I welcome the principle of keeping innovation on the statute book, but innovation is an organic process, and it does not begin in the Department of Health and Social Care or in NHS England—that is a fundamental principle that I think the Government fail to understand across many areas. Innovation begins with the frontline workers: the scientists, the technologists and the people who have ideas about better ways to care for patients. I am encouraged that the Minister understands that.
The Government’s vision for ICBs is that they will have more responsibility and more freedom to innovate—although we will discuss whether the legislation actually delivers that later in the Committee’s consideration—and I hope that vision extends to other areas of health policy. The clause is not disagreeable, but it must be made more robust. If Committee members agree, I hope they will support amendment 58.
Joe Robertson
I thank my namesake for his intervention. I do not completely understand what he says, because the amendment refers to cultural barriers. He is absolutely right that we have to be careful when we mandate things, but the strength of the amendment is that it has a broad application and does not seek to mandate specific detail. I accept that it has more detail than the Bill, but its strength is that it gives some direction without being overly detailed. I again draw his attention to the fact that it asks the Secretary of State and the Department to identify and remove cultural barriers.
Gregory Stafford
I will not keep the Committee too long. We need to look closely at what the clause is trying to achieve, both on innovation, which I support, and on the prizes. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East asked a number of pertinent questions about the prizes, and I want to expand on that before I talk about the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
We have no idea what scale of prize we are talking about. Is it thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds or millions of pounds? Will the prizes be given to individuals or to organisations? Will they be given to NHS bodies? I think not, or at least not exclusively, because the clause suggests that they could be for research. Will they be given to the private sector—I know that Labour Members have antibodies against the private sector—or to university research functions? It is very unclear who the prizes will go to.
Even more interestingly, proposed new section 1CC(3)(b) says that prizes may relate to
“work done at any time (including work before the commencement of this section).”
So they could be given for something that happened prior to the Bill coming into force, but we have no idea how far back that could go. Are we talking months, years or decades? There is no clear outline about who will get the prizes, how much they will be, what innovations or technologies they will be for, or the point in time that is being referred to.
Then the clause says that the Secretary of State may set up a committee. I have been in enough Bill Committees to know that civil servants do not write something into Bills unless they have an idea of what they want to do with it. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what sort of committee it will be, how many people will be on it, how much remuneration they will receive and how they will establish themselves and fulfil the function that the Secretary of State gives them. If we do not know that, the proposal is so open-ended that I would have real concerns about letting it go forward in the manner in which it is currently written.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East suggested—I do not think he was joking—that the word “prize” made this sound like a game show. That is part of what we need to understand. Will the Secretary of State set up a competition in various areas of healthcare, technology, disease or treatment? Will they say, for example, “We want to find the best technology for dealing with cataracts”? Will a call go out for people to submit bids and say, “We have produced this amazing new laser treatment,” in order to win the prize? Or will it be entirely open-ended? Will people come into the Department of Health and Social Care to this new committee and say, “We have created this amazing piece of innovation—give us some money for having done so”? It is so unclear in the Bill. As I say, I am absolutely certain that the Minister knows the answer to those questions because this clause and subsection would not be in the Bill if she had no idea what she was hoping to achieve by them.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is describing something a little like “Dragons’ Den”, which is a very good TV programme—perhaps it will be televised or livestreamed. How will the Government ensure that there is no conflict of interest?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend’s point is correct. There is so little detail in the clause about how these prizes will be awarded and how the committee that will award them will be set up that we have no idea how conflicts of interest will be dealt with. That is another reason that the Minister needs to explain to the Committee how this is going to work. My hon. Friend mentions “Dragons’ Den”. I see her as the Deborah Meaden of our Committee, so I look forward to seeing that play out—I will not say what that makes me.
What I see from amendment 58, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham— I hope I am not misrepresenting her—is once again an attempt to codify, clarify and strengthen what is fairly woolly wording within the Bill. In particular, her amendment rightly emphasises the importance of
“timely adoption and spread of clinically effective innovations”.
Timeliness is so important to patients. We need innovation quickly. Again, it worries me that the prizes could be given for innovations that could have happened weeks, months, years or decades ago, according to the wording. We also need to ensure that innovation is not in isolated pockets, either in terms of geography or type of service. We need something that is consistently delivered across the healthcare system.
By highlighting the need to address things such as procurement, the regulatory sector and cultural barriers, my hon. Friend’s amendment would support a more proactive and enabling environment for innovation to flourish, not one that shuts it down, as some Labour Members have suggested. Crucially, paragraph (d) of the amendment represents a significant and commendable commitment to fairness and inclusion by prioritising equal access to new technologies, medicines and models of care regardless of geography or socioeconomic background. It would help to tackle long-standing inequalities and move decisively towards ending the postcode lottery that we often see in care quality.
The focus of the amendment would ensure that innovation benefits all patients, not just those in the most advantaged areas. It would ensure that rural and coastal communities are aligned with the urban. As someone who represents a semi-rural seat, I see those inequalities in service delivery, quality of care and innovation. The large towns in my constituency receive far more money and get far better services than the surrounding villages.
I have many concerns about the clause as it currently stands, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the Opposition’s questions. I entirely endorse amendment 58.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. We heard about the excitement in our constituencies around innovation—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned Newcastle University at the start and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned her visit to Imperial College. Those visits are inspiring. Other universities and centres of excellence are available, but they made the case for why this is so important to the Government’s approach to innovation. I will talk about that and then turn to the amendment.
The Government are fully committed to innovation. It is absolutely central to our ambitious priorities to digitise health and care, support prevention and early diagnosis, and enable a shift to neighbourhood care, to growth in our economy, and to regaining our place in the world as a centre for innovation, which was lost under the Conservatives over those 14 years. That is why clause 6 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of health services, including in how services are arranged and delivered.
The clause also incorporates the Secretary of State’s existing power to incentivise innovation and research through the payment of prizes, as we have discussed. That is a flexible tool that will allow him to stimulate breakthrough ideas and reward innovation across the life cycle, including an early-stage report.
On some issues that have been raised, the Conservative party knows that Ministers have to act reasonably as this transfers from NHS England, and we would obviously want to tailor a committee to the matter in question, including membership. The clause will allow that flexibility. The equivalent duty was on NHS England; I understand that it has not actually been used over the past five years, but it was previously suggested as a way of promoting innovation.
In practical terms, the Secretary of State already supports innovation in a number of ways, for example through the work of the Health Innovation Network, supporting workforce developments in schemes such as the clinical entrepreneur programme and providing funding support for developing and evaluating promising innovations.
Peter Prinsley
As the Committee knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) is one of the five medical doctors in the parliamentary Labour party. It is a great pleasure to move the amendment, which she tabled.
The amendment is about education and training. My hon. Friend would like us to consider whether there should be an additional subsection after proposed new subsection (1)(a), which is about ensuring that
“there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service”.
My hon. Friend would like to include within that specific training about wider health determinants, which, as we discussed earlier this morning, consist of things like housing, air quality, occupation, and substance abuse—tobacco, alcohol and so on. Her opinion is that that needs to be specifically incorporated into the legislation.
Gregory Stafford
I shall speak briefly to the amendment that was just moved by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. I do not mean this rudely, but it is a relatively motherhood-and-apple-pie amendment. The onus would be on the Secretary of State to recognise that smoking, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk and harmful substances are bad, but I think we all agree on that. If the Secretary of State, or any future Secretary of State, does not already recognise that, I would be pretty surprised.
I have a number of issues with the amendment, the first of which is that it expands some central duties without clear limits. Potentially, it could be a gateway to what I would describe as interventionism. Perhaps, too, it lacks some of the prioritisation or proportionality that I would like to see in the Bill—as I have said, however, I think that otherwise the training element is pretty good.
Moving to amendment 50, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I entirely support it. This amendment would be extraordinarily useful, because the NHS publishes independently audited forecasts of the workforce every five years, but the amendment would lead to better long-term planning. Regular, independently audited forecasts would help the NHS to anticipate staffing needs, plan training and recruitment, and use resources more effectively and with more efficiency.
Amendment 50 would also increase transparency and trust. One of the key things that we will need to do as a Parliament when the Bill becomes an Act is to convince the public that, when this new world of how the NHS is going to be managed and operated comes in, they can have confidence that the treatment they get is the best that it can be and that those who are being trained and working in the NHS get the training that they require and are being established as some of the best in the world.
Independent audits would make such forecasting more credible and give reassurance to the public and the stakeholders that the workforce planning is evidence-based and not potentially politically influenced, which is one of the big problems about having the Secretary of State in charge of everything throughout the Bill. The key thing must be improved patient care. Accurate workforce predictions will ensure that we have the right number of healthcare professionals available. We will see a reduction in shortages and more consistent, high-quality care.
I support amendment 54, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, because it ensures that clinically trained managers maintain patient-facing roles, making better use of scarce clinical expertise and improving workforce efficiency. It strengthens accountability, like amendment 50, by tracking and increasing the proportion of care delivered by qualified professionals, helping to optimise staff deployment and reduce pressure on frontline services. I have some concerns about amendment 33, but amendments 50 and 54 have my support, and clause 7, hopefully amended, will also have my support.
Puberty Blockers
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Johnson
This is not a form of gene therapy. It is a medication that is a GnRH analogue, and what it essentially does is delay puberty. It was designed as a drug to treat children who go into puberty much earlier than they would be expected to, and to delay it until, as it were, the right time. The effects of the use of puberty blockers in older children and for a much longer period, at an age when they ought to have started puberty, are not fully understood.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that we do not know the effects, but a number of children have been put through this process via the now discredited Tavistock process. Why does she think that the NHS will not refer to the data linkage study and use the data that would have been gained from the children who were put through that process, in order to find out what the effects are before deciding to put a whole new cohort of children through what is clearly a damaging procedure?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and I will come to the data linkage study shortly. What we do know from the Cass review is that the vast majority of children who went on to puberty blockers in adolescence went on to receive cross-sex hormones, which are known to have permanent effects.
One fact that is crucially important is that it is not possible for clinicians to confidently determine which children with gender incongruence will persist with the trans identity into adulthood, and which will not. How can the clinicians possibly know that they are not injecting potentially dangerous drugs into children whose incongruence will resolve itself? The answer is that they cannot. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he is aware of new evidence allowing clinicians to work out confidently which children will persist with the trans identity at 11 and which will not? We need to think about the risk involved in the treatment, and whether it is worth the benefits that they will purportedly receive.
The trial researchers suggest that they will take a wide approach to looking at potential benefits, that they will look at quality of life and body satisfaction, and that there must be a reasonable prospect of benefit; but how can they know whether there is a reasonable prospect of benefit when they do not know whether or not the condition will persist? Some have suggested that giving puberty blockers will help the few adults who retain their trans identity into adulthood to pass as the opposite sex. Does the Secretary of State think that the long-term damage to many is worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 specify that “anticipated benefits” must justify the risk. This is an ethical rather than a medical question. Does the Secretary of State think that the benefits justify the risk?
I regret that we have ended up discussing the details of a clinical trial in the Chamber—the reality is that things should be done impartially by scientists in most cases—but with this topic we have seen the quashing of open debate, which is why we have ended up where we are.
I will move on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). Even if the Secretary of State thinks the principle of the trial is right, he must surely agree that it is unnecessary and unethically broad. For example, if someone was designing a trial to treat children with a specific form of cancer, the children who would be entered into the trial would have that specific form of cancer. We would not include children with any disease, because that would make the results unreliable in terms of benefit to the target group and children would be unnecessarily put at risk of receiving experimental drugs that they did not need.
The same applies to this trial. The Cass report tells us that many of the children in the proposed trial will get better on their own. The Secretary of State said yesterday that
“we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
I know what a sensitive, emotive and difficult issue this is. As I said in the House yesterday, I have myself struggled with the profound challenges this subject raises. We all, as adults, owe a duty of care to every child and young person in this country. That is a responsibility I bear, both as a citizen and as Health Secretary, with the utmost seriousness and sincerity. It is why, in all my deliberations on this matter, my consideration is to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led, safe and effective. The way to ensure that is to follow expert clinical advice, which is what the Government are doing.
Dr Hilary Cass, the clinician who I think has more respect in this space than any other, has spoken about the importance of this trial in recent days. I remind the shadow Minister that it was her party that commissioned the Cass review and accepted its findings, which included the Pathways trial. I have been clear to the House that this is a challenging area. I accept and welcome the scrutiny of Members, but I encourage us to keep in mind Dr Cass’s request to consider the issues sensitively and cautiously. She says:
“Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive.”
I do not think that there is any question that a few years ago, children’s safety and wellbeing was not being protected when it came to gender incongruence. From around 2009, the number of children and young people being referred for NHS support around their gender identity increased rapidly. Stories subsequently emerged of young people struggling after undergoing radical and permanent transition surgery at an early age, of children rushed into taking medication without adequate therapy beforehand, and of clinicians disregarding conditions such as neurodiversity and mental health issues. As such, there was rightly deep concern about the vulnerability of these children and young people, the care and treatments they were receiving, and the surge in referrals. And so, in 2020, NHS England commissioned the leading paediatrician, Dr Hilary Cass, to carry out a review into NHS gender identity services for under-18s.
What Dr Cass uncovered was shocking and scandalous, and she made a series of recommendations for how children can be better protected and supported. It was, in my mind, unquestionably wrong for children and young people to be routinely prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria without any clear evidence on their benefits or risks. The situation then was out of control and so I fully supported the indefinite ban introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), which followed the temporary ban brought in by the previous Government.
In considering what to do next, Dr Cass identified that treatment for gender incongruence was
“an area of remarkably weak evidence”.
She found that even clinicians working in the field were divided on the best way to support, treat and care for young people suffering from gender dysphoria. Where there is strong divergence of medical opinion on treatment, the two possible responses are either to continue with uncertainty—and with that, conflicting opinions and advice—or to undertake a trial. It is only by doing that that we can ensure that children with gender-related distress get the same access to and standards of care as everyone in the NHS.
Gregory Stafford
There is a third option, which is to get NHS England to motor ahead with the data-linkage study, so that we can use the data that has already been collected to find out the answers to the questions that the Secretary of State is posing. Only then, if the information is not there, should the trial go ahead. Why is he not pushing that third way?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman’s question allows me to address that matter directly. The data-linkage study will not provide clear evidence of the risks and benefits of puberty-suppressing hormones, which is needed to guide future clinical practice for this cohort. The type of information that would be available in a linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will collect about the relative benefits and harms of puberty-suppressing hormones when accessed alongside a holistic model of care.
Health Bill (Second sitting)
Gregory Stafford ExcerptsTuesday 16th June 2026
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2026 - (16 Jun 2026)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Q
James Blythe: With a lot of foundation trusts, as the NHS has moved into a period of increasingly tight financial control and as we have needed to recover from the covid pandemic, far closer working has been required between all NHS providers and the centre, to manage both the financial implications and the pandemic’s implications for patient access and patient quality.
Having recently moved from a senior leadership, board-level role in an NHS trust to two roles as chief executive in a foundation trust, I do not feel that in the day-to-day relationship with the centre and with our local and regional representatives there is an enormous difference in how we balance quality, finance and performance now. Those foundation trust freedoms were most relevant when we were in a system in which expenditure on health could grow and we were not trying to recover from the challenges that we have had recently.
Day to day, the relationship between NHS trusts and foundation trusts feels quite consistent now, so I am not sure that the changes proposed in the Bill will necessarily make a huge difference. As I said in response to an earlier question, it depends entirely on whether the provisions of the Bill are used to set a small number of priorities and let NHS organisations get on with delivering them, or whether they are used more regularly to intervene more directly in our day-to-day operations. A lot comes down to how the regime is operated.
The Chair
Sir Ciarán and Mr Blythe, thank you very much indeed. Sadly, we have just about run out of time for this session, but we are most grateful to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Sarah Tilsed, James Cooper and Professor David Croisdale-Appleby OBE gave evidence.
Sojan Joseph
I asked whether it is not a good change to streamline these bodies so that fewer of them have powers to take action like the CQC?
Professor Croisdale-Appleby: There is always a danger, if I may say so, in the use of the word “streamline”. We have to think what is lost in the streamlining process. I do not want to repeat what I have said and waste your time, but one thing that is important is whether there is a golden thread running through seeking out and listening to patients’ views, putting those together in a coherent form, making recommendations for improvement—that is what we do all the time at Healthwatch—and then holding people accountable for that. I remember Penny Dash saying that one of the points of the Bill is to bring this closer to those who commission and those who deliver. I am not sure that it necessarily takes it closer to that simply by embedding it—as a colleague asked earlier—within the formal structure. There is a danger in that that the patient voice is often a spiky voice. As a former chair of hospitals and so on, I know that patients do not always say things that are convenient. That point about independence is vital. If I may, sir, I take slight issue with your term “streamlining” and would try to take that apart into the different components that might comprise it.
Sarah Tilsed: I cannot comment too much on the CQC, but on the point about a rise in complaints but nothing seems to be happening, we are finding that patients do not want to complain any more because they are finding that they are getting a worse service of care. That might be a slightly separate issue, but considering that there are so many complaints and that patients are not wanting to complain because they are scared, I do not think that streamlining is the right way. We need an independent voice that will focus solely on the patient voice, which I think we are completely losing at the moment.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Professor Croisdale-Appleby: If we talk about money— I will be quantitative here—Healthwatch England currently costs £3 million per year and the network receives £25 million per year. To people like me, £3 million and £25 million is a lot of money, but in the greater scheme of things it is not a significant amount, particularly when you think what is being produced for it.
I cannot speak appropriately, in my role as chair of Healthwatch, about Government policy. It is not my job to do that; it is the Government’s job. If you want to ask me a question on a purely personal basis so I can step outside of that role, I will be happy to answer, but I always have to draw a very distinct line on anything that I say. Everything so far has been said in my formal position as chair of Healthwatch as opposed to any personal views, because I certainly do not want to comment on Government policy.
The Chair
Let us see if either of your colleagues would like to be less cautious. Mr Cooper?
James Cooper: The key here is making sure that the independent patient voice is well-resourced, is held accountable for doing its job and works particularly for those the system finds it hardest to reach. Families of seriously ill children definitely fall into that bracket, so the interest of Together for Short Lives and the children’s palliative care sector is certainly in making sure that those structures do that.
Sureena Brackenridge
Q
Councillor Wright: At the LGA, we are arguing for a single person record, so that we have a single patient record that brings in social care providers, or at least the local authorities’ social care statutory provision, too. Someone discharged into the community would therefore still have access to records and know what was going on, while others would know what has happened to that person and what they need. Yes, we agree: we hope that a single patient record would make things as smooth as possible from hospital discharge to home and would help when someone comes into hospital, so that the clinicians have a better idea of what the patient’s quality of life was like, what treatments they were on, and so on. We are definitely in support of the single patient record for that, and we would like it to become a single person record.
Sally Burlington: We are supportive as well. The Bill itself is unlikely to solve all the problems in this space. A huge number of practical cultural system problems exist in data sharing, so the regulations that follow the Bill will be important to enable that to work for social care providers and commissioners. It is worth noting that there are thousands of social care providers, so the implementation of the Bill and subsequent regulations will be important. We are keen to ensure that any approaches are co-produced with the social care sector, as well as the NHS. It will be a lot of thinking, a lot of planning and a lot of hard work to get it right, and social care providers will need lots of notice to upgrade their systems in the right, consistent way to enable them to speak to each other, if we are to see the vision of the single person record delivered. I guess it would also be helpful to think about the role of carers as we move into that space, because we know from covid that data sharing among carers was one of the issues that came up.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Maria Higson: Any time we go through an NHS reorganisation, it is distracting—that is the reality of such situations. It is unfortunate that, over the past 15 months, this has been a large distraction for people who are genuinely trying to deliver the three shifts—prevention, digital and neighbourhoods. It is true that it has been a distraction. I am not sure that this Committee is the right space to go into these, as I am aware that we are here to discuss the Bill, but there are probably opportunities to go further on some elements, which may help us in future.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Maria Higson: To take one example, I would love to see an NHS where we step away from short-term activity metrics, and towards outcomes—that is mentioned in the Bill. The constant firefight on activities is quite challenging, so how can we move that dialogue to ensure genuine transformation? That is an example of where we could potentially go further than the Bill suggests, but I am conscious that I am supposed to comment on the Bill, not give my own random thoughts.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q
Health Bill (First sitting)
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Q
Dr Dash: I think that we do need to recognise that. I hear that as well and experience it myself; lots of people are often reluctant to come forward, and they think, “If this is my GP, how is this information going to be treated?” That is why we need to really raise the calibre of our directors of patient experience. There are ways in which you can manage that and treat that data confidentially—in fact, you have to treat all data confidentially. There are ways in which you can support people and give them the confidence that their information will be taken seriously and treated confidentially. You can do that often through focus groups, one-to-one conversations and anonymous surveys. We are hoping to be able to do a lot more of that through the app, to link it directly to people’s care, and to give people prompts as soon as they have had an interaction: “Please feed back.” I think there are ways in which we can overcome that. Bringing this much closer to people’s care, linking it in much more to day-to-day practice and making sure that feedback goes straight back to our frontline clinicians in an anonymised way to encourage and support them to improve brings a significant benefit, and we can find a way around the concerns about confidentiality.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Q
More specifically, if, as you said to the Health and Social Care Committee, the safe space element would be retained and HSSIB would operate as an independent organisation, how can you square the fact that it would remain independent and yet be part of the CQC? If it does remain independent, what is the need to bring it into the CQC?
Dr Dash: The point of bringing it into the CQC, as I said before, is that we are trying to simplify this landscape. There are so many different organisations continually commenting and doing reviews—often replicating the same reviews that other people have done. The concern is that it is distracting rather than enabling. The hope that I had when I made the recommendation, and still have now, is that by bringing HSSIB into the CQC, you can align the work of the two.
For example, if the CQC is going round the country and spotting a particular problem with the way in which anaesthesia is being given or with managing patients post-surgery, the CQC could then say to HSSIB—that team of people with specific expertise—“Can you go in and take a look at this? Can you do a detailed focus review of this particular area of care that we are spotting through our visits and which seems to be a particular challenge?” It is that bit about enabling the CQC to identify a problem and then asking HSSIB to review it in detail, and HSSIB bringing its expertise in investigations into the CQC to enable the CQC to go deeper and then come back to the NHS with particular areas, but also to supplement the work of the NHS.
I would like to point out that since HSSIB was established, the NHS has established its own much more rigorous, much more robust investigatory teams and processes. Of course, I am not saying that they are perfect—we can all see that—but I encourage all colleagues here today to look at the work they are doing, the specific areas they are reviewing, the outputs of those reviews and the ways in which those are leading to improving care. That feels to me to be a much more systematic way of addressing the concerns of patients, families and staff in the place where those concerns happen, having mechanisms to escalate those through the NHS so you can bring them to regions—some investigations get done at the NHS England level—and having the CQC as an independent body that can separately review and spot if there are problems but also ensure that those investigations within the NHS are happening well.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Dr Dash: Well, we then have to deal with that as a problem. That is the same as saying, “What happens if the problem is this organisation or that one?” We have 150 organisations—150. What if the GMC is a problem? What if the Nursing and Midwifery Council is a problem?
Liz Twist
Q
Dr Dash: There are a few different things. First, we have talked about appointing a director of patient experience. They will report directly to the chief exec of the NHS. That is crucial; it is about emphasising the importance. We are about to do the interviews for that person, so I hope they can be in post very quickly.
Secondly, we are hopefully about to publish the quality strategy. Within that strategy, which has come out of the 10-year plan, we are very clear about the three dimensions of quality. Those are: safety, so ensuring that basic standards are in place; effectiveness, so making sure that patients receive the right care in the right place at the right time and it is delivered to a high standard; and, crucially, patient experience. In the quality strategy, we emphasise that all three of those are crucial. You need to have all three and all three need to be done really well.
We then go on to talk about different mechanisms for improving those dimensions. Crucially, we have a set of 183 metrics, which we will review within the NHS England quality committee while it still exists, and then within the National Quality Board. We also expect every region to review those metrics, as well as others, and every ICB and provider to review the ones that are relevant to them. So the next bit is to have all those different metrics.
Thirdly, we need wider transparency. There are way more than 183 different metrics and we need to have far more on patient experience. They need to be routinely collected in the same way that we do surgical audits or audits of GP work. Those all got in the public domain; that was a big element of the 10-year plan.
Finally, as I said before, we need boards to take full responsibility and accountability for all aspects of quality, which includes patient experience. As I go round and meet individual hospital boards, I ask them about that. I spend quite a lot of time with chairs and new non-executive directors coming into NHS providers, and I continually emphasise, “This is a crucial area for you to focus on as a board.” What are you asking your exec colleagues? Who have you put in place as your director of patient experience within the organisation? How are you routinely collecting information from a whole spectrum of users from the whole of society? How are you doing that in a confidential way for the reasons we spoke about earlier, and then ensuring that people are acting on it? I do not think we are doing anything like enough of that, and we need to get much better and do far more of it.
Peter Prinsley
Especially if it were the case that the patient were the data controller.
Sarah Woolnough: Yes.
Jacob Lant: Whoever ends up being the data controller, the most important thing is that patients have a right to express how their data is used. That is where it is really important to keep things like the national data opt-out up to date, and to ensure that it is clear and accessible for patients to express how their data is used for secondary purposes.
That becomes much harder in a direct care scenario. If you restrict the sharing of data for direct care, you could inadvertently create a second-class system for people who are not in that. It is a really clear distinction. For secondary uses, we need a very clear opt-out, where people can understand how their data is used and express a preference.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Sarah Woolnough: The Government have an incredibly ambitious agenda, which is partly articulated in the 10-year plan. Our ongoing concern has been that some of the biggest-ticket items that the Government rightly want to achieve to fundamentally shift power to patients—delivering a shift towards prevention, moving care closer to home and allowing more digital enablement—do not require this kind of legislation or a reorganisation.
I go back to my first answer: what is honestly the opportunity cost of doing some of this at the expense of more focus and attention on, for example, delivering care closer to home? There is a lot of energy and activity in that area, but the Government want to make really good progress over the next few years. To take that example, if you are really serious, you need to understand what the barriers are to delivering more care in the community, closer to people and patients, and wrapping services around patients. It requires you to flow money differently and to have a different incentive scheme, but that is nowhere near this piece of legislation.
Our worry has been about what is not in the Bill, and what is the rightly and fantastically ambitious agenda to improve health for people and patients, versus the opportunity cost of a largely technical piece of legislation that reorganises some central functions.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Jacob Lant: Yes. I kind of think, as the debate goes on, that—with the changes to Healthwatch in particular—you could achieve so much without legislation. You could beef up the internal functions for listening to a patient and engaging with them without legislation—there is no requirement for that. You could invest more resource in that, and you could do the same with Healthwatch. You could think about the resourcing of the structures and the support they receive, so you could make that whole system better without legislating to get rid of it. As Sarah said, the NHS changes are a distraction at a time when we should be moving on with focusing on patient care.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Jacob Lant: The issue is that the system—the NHS provider, the commissioner or whoever is picking up the individual complaint—will treat that as an individual incident to look into. Healthwatch may support the individual to raise that complaint or that individual piece of feedback, but the collective learning across that is more important, and it is pulling out the themes that are consistent across multiple bits of feedback, both positive and negative, that makes the difference. We see that evidence and insight from Healthwatch making a difference in local and national policy. It might not feel like that to the individual patient, but things like the creation of a single patient record exist in part because of a lot of campaigning by local healthwatch on the issue of people having to repeatedly tell clinicians about their experiences.
It also could be issues to do with not being able to find a dentist, for example; the system will treat that as an individual incident of helping someone who is trying to find a dentist or not, but Healthwatch could use that insight to petition and push for national change around the commissioning of a service like dentistry. A topic like administration of care, which Healthwatch, National Voices and the King’s Fund have all worked on together, is invisible from the way that the system perceives performance at the moment, but because we listen thematically to patient experience, we can push for a much greater focus on things like the basics of communication and keeping patients up to date on what is happening with their care, which really matter. Healthwatch is thematically looking at patient feedback differently from the way that system does, and that is something I fear may be lost.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Dr Benneyworth: Yes, absolutely—we have seen that in so many of our investigations. It can often be exacerbated by different parts of the system working together.
To give you an example, we looked at mental health in-patient settings. There is national guidance that says that people should not use risk assessment tools around self-harm, but when we looked we found that, on the ground, everyone was using these tools. We asked why that was, and we were given two reasons. One was that the IT systems were set up such that you could not move past the front screen without ticking one of the risk assessment boxes, and the other reason was that people were fearful about being in front of a coroner and asked about risk assessment tools, so we took action on both those fronts.
Another thing that we see is about speaking up. There are definite inequalities at play when people are speaking up. We have seen significant racial discrimination. We wrote a report about temporary workers. We find that people working as locums or agency staff often feel a lot less able to speak up if there are patient concerns. If you are black or from other global majority groups, to be able to speak up is even harder. On the back of that, we made a recommendation to the National Guardian’s Office, and it has done a lot of work with temporary workers, looking at how we can improve their ability to speak up. We still have a huge way to go on culture generally, but particularly on discrimination and the inequalities that we see in every one of our investigations.
Gregory Stafford
Q
I have two questions. The first is about the safe space. We have seen written evidence, and we have heard when others have attended the Health and Social Care Committee, about the fact that if HSSIB is placed inside the CQC, you could have the farcical situation of one set of CQC lawyers, who are representing HSSIB, suing or attempting to sue another set of CQC lawyers, who are looking out for the CQC situation, because they are trying to get information out of part of their own system. Is that parody or is it a possibility and real problem?
Dr Benneyworth: It is a problem and something that potentially could happen. I hope that we would work effectively to try to avoid that. Essentially, and just to reassure the Committee, if we see something of a criminal nature, if there are significant regulatory concerns, we have protocols in place to be able to escalate that. But there is a real risk that potentially, if we held information that the CQC needed in part of its regulatory function, in its enforcement function, we would not be able to share that, because of our legislation, and we would not want to share it, because we want to maintain the trust in the system. It would need to go to the High Court to be able to get hold of it.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Dr Benneyworth: No.
Gregory Stafford
Q
Dr Benneyworth: NHS England has an investigations unit that commissions regional and national investigations, sometimes from private organisations. We work very closely with the NHS England patient safety team. As I said, we have supported their work in rolling out local investigations around the patient safety incident response framework. We have been instrumental in supporting the training and education around that. We are the only safety investigator with protected disclosure. There is no other body that is like us and can do the same type of investigations in this country, and we are internationally looked at. In fact, I am doing a podcast with Canada tomorrow. Numerous countries are looking at us and saying, “We want the same thing.” There is a handful of investigators like us in Finland and Norway, and they have excellent safety outcomes for their patients, but the rest of the world is looking at us and trying to learn from us, and I am frequently asked to speak internationally about this.
The Chair
I am afraid we have come to the end of the session. I am sorry and I apologise to colleagues whom I did not manage to accommodate this time. Thank you very much for joining us, Dr Benneyworth. That was most helpful.
Examination of Witness
Sir Jeremy Hunt MP gave evidence.
Access to Dental Services: West Sussex
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate, and for outlining the issues that her constituents—and, indeed, many constituents across the country—are facing. It is something of an irony that I find myself speaking on NHS dentistry for the second time in as many days, having co-sponsored yesterday’s Backbench Business debate on precisely this issue, but if anything, that underlines the scale of the issue we are dealing with.
The hon. Member for Chichester will know that West Sussex borders my constituency, which spans Surrey and Hampshire. Many of my constituents in Haslemere and the surrounding villages routinely access services across that boundary, and would regard West Sussex as part of their natural health economy. I am sure the same is true vice versa, because dentistry does not respect administrative lines, and access to care either exists or it does not.
Let us be clear about the scale of the problem. Oral health is not a luxury issue; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) set out so clearly and passionately, it is fundamental to dignity, confidence, employability and overall health, yet access to NHS dentistry has become a postcode lottery. Nearly 14 million people are struggling to access care, and in many areas more than 70% of practices are not accepting new NHS patients, including children. As far as I can tell, not a single dentist in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon is accepting new NHS patients.
It is often suggested that we simply have a workforce shortage, but the issue is not that we do not have enough dentists; it is that, understandably, too few are willing to work within a contract that no longer makes sense. The 2006 NHS dental contract, introduced under the last Labour Government, is based on units of dental activity. It pays the same whether a dentist carries out one filling or six, rewards volume rather than complexity, and actively discourages preventive care. That contract is central to why the system is struggling.
The Government came into office promising a dental rescue plan, including urgent appointments, contract reform, workforce expansion and a greater focus on prevention. Those commitments were clear and repeated, yet delivery has not matched the rhetoric. In practice, the additional appointments that have been rolled out amount in many cases to only a small increase in urgent capacity. According to the British Dental Association, they are equivalent to a couple of extra slots per dentist per month. At the same time, the long-promised NHS workforce plan has still not been published and, without it, there is no credible road map for how capacity will be met. Warm words about recruitment are no substitute for a clear and funded strategy that tells practices and patients what the future looks like.
We also need to recognise inefficiencies within the current system. In some practices, around one in seven NHS appointments is missed, costing individual surgeries tens of thousands of pounds a year. That is not just a frustration for clinicians—it is lost capacity in a system that is already under extreme pressure. However, rather than addressing the structural incentives that contribute to this, the Government’s response has been piecemeal. The consequences of all this are not evenly distributed; rural and coastal communities are particularly badly affected, with some having as few as 10 NHS dental practices per 100,000 people. These so-called dental deserts are not accidental, but the predictable outcome of a system that does not align funding, workforce planning and local need.
There is a striking example of underused capacity in my local area. In Haslemere, the hospital contains a fully equipped dental suite that remains unused despite clear local demand. That facility could serve patients across the West Sussex border, given the natural geography of where people access care. Instead, it sits idle.
I think everyone in this Chamber agrees with prevention in principle, and with the need to move away from a purely treatment-based model. The challenge is delivery. Likewise, workforce expansion is essential, but announcements without a credible plan do not translate into appointments. Ultimately, what is required is straightforward in principle, but urgent in practice: a properly funded and credible workforce plan, contract reform that rewards prevention and complexity rather than volume, and a serious strategy to address dental deserts that reflects real geography and need.
We should also acknowledge the previous efforts of the Conservative Government, including the dental recovery plan, which did attempt to address these issues through recruitment incentives, training expansion and support of overseas qualified dentists. I accept that some measures had limited uptake, but they were at least an attempt to respond to a growing crisis. The question now is whether this Government build on what works or continue to drift without clear direction. Patients do not care which Government designed which contract or which plan; they care about seeing a dentist when they need one.
I end with three straightforward questions that I asked the Minister in yesterday’s debate, but to which I did not get an answer. When will we see a fully funded and credible NHS dental workforce plan? How many additional dentists, hygienists and therapists are required to meet demand? What is the plan to ensure that dental deserts do not become a permanent feature of our healthcare system? Patients deserve these answers not in the future, but today.
Health Bill
Gregory Stafford ExcerptsMonday 1st June 2026
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I have asked this question both as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and on the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State’s predecessor. Given that the new Secretary of State is a numbers man, I hope that he can answer it where his predecessor could not. How much in redundancy payments will this measure cost the British taxpayer, and can he confirm that no person currently employed by NHS England will be fired, paid a redundancy fee, and then rehired by the Department of Health and Social Care?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we are going through that process with the workforces at NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. Crucially, however, by 2028, across the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and ICBs, we will see a 50% reduction in headcount. That means that the money that would otherwise be spent on those members of staff will now go towards healthcare on the frontline, which is what patients want to see.
As hon. Members will know, NHS England was established by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That Act established more than 300 new NHS organisations, and has led to too much time, money and effort being wasted on overlapping processes, as good people try to navigate a labyrinthine system that holds them back from delivering for patients. In short, we have a system that gets in the way of what staff, patients and taxpayers want to see.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is exactly the sort of issue that will need further scrutiny in Committee. I note that local authorities will not have the same seat at the table and that it will be transferred for mayoral regions, but what about regions that do not have a mayor? That measure will create a real democracy deficit in the NHS. I hope that we can look at this in detail in Committee, because that serious oversight absolutely needs addressing.
Gregory Stafford
On the point of accountability and scrutiny, the Government are looking to abolish HSSIB or bring it into the CQC, they are getting rid of Healthwatch—which serves my constituents so well—in places such as Surrey and Hampshire, and they are getting rid of governors from the boards of foundation trusts. That does seem to suggest that they have not really thought the accountability point through. Would not this be the occasion for the new Secretary of State to stamp his mark on this Bill by conceding that some of the changes in the Bill are not what was intended, and to take this opportunity to give confidence back to the public that they will have the accountability and scrutiny that they deserve?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises a very important point; it is an area that the Committee will have to look at very carefully.
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I believe that he wants there to be a patient voice, but there is a serious flaw in the Bill. Abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB is a terrible mistake, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for the work that he has been doing on this. The reality is that HSSIB gives members of staff who work in the NHS the confidence to come forward and be a whistleblower. We need that. We need people to feel that they are in a safe environment. The CQC is a totally different beast in the minds of people who work in the NHS and social care, so to put those functions within that organisation is a terrible mistake and one that I hope the Committee will look at very carefully.
Allied Health Professionals
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
May I wish you a very happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker?
It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition and to recognise the invaluable contribution of allied health professionals, especially those living and working in my Farnham and Bordon constituency. Having spent much of my career in the healthcare sector, including time working for the College of Occupational Therapists—before it was granted its royal title, which shows how old I am—I have seen at first hand the critical role those professionals play across health and social care, often without the recognition they deserve.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on leading today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , a physiotherapist herself, for her work in securing it. The House is right to give time to those who do so much, often without fanfare. I want also to mention the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), whose experience of care by allied health professionals was both extraordinarily moving and amusing. I have taken to heart his recommendation of a diet of red meat and cheese.
If this debate is to mean anything, we must address the central issue, which is workforce. Without a clear and credible workforce plan, warm words about allied health professionals will not translate into better care for patients. The Government’s still-awaited NHS workforce plan, due this spring, will be crucial. It is meant to set out how the ambitions of the 10-year health plan will be delivered. Without it, there remains real uncertainty about how workforce shortages and rising demands will be addressed, as the hon. Member for Thurrock highlighted so powerfully when she summed up the situation as “a crisis”. That matters, because allied health professionals are already helping to unlock capacity across the system. We see that clearly in the expansion of independent prescribing, which we as Conservatives support. By enabling allied health professionals to take on those responsibilities, pressure is reduced on GPs and specialists, and patients receive faster, more efficient care. It is a practical reform that improves outcomes, but one that depends on proper planning and support in order to scale it.
The challenge does not stop in the NHS; it extends directly into education and special educational needs and disabilities provision. As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for SEND, I see the growing reliance on an expanded workforce of therapists and specialists to support children with additional needs. From experience of working alongside occupational therapists early in my career, I know just how critical that support can be in helping children to access education and achieve their potential.
However, the pipeline simply does not match the ambition. Training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years and other key roles, such as speech and language therapists or occupational therapists, take many years to develop. Without a clear and actionable workforce plan, local authorities are left trying to bridge that gap themselves, often without the certainty or the funding required to do so effectively. I saw that at first hand in Hampshire, as I am sure you have, Madam Deputy Speaker. Proposed changes to therapy provision raised real concerns among professionals in my constituency, but through consultation, the council listened, protected staff and expanded the specialist roles. That is the difference that practical, locally informed decision making can make, protecting services while improving provision.
Unfortunately, by contrast, there is a growing concern that the Government’s approach risks creating uncertainty, rather than clarity. That is particularly striking when we consider the progress that had begun under the previous Conservative Government, rightly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her superb speech. Through the AHP strategy and the long-term workforce plan, clear steps were set out to expand the workforce, increase training places and grow apprenticeship routes into these vital professions. It was not perfect, but it was a plan.
What we see now, however, are drifts: no published workforce plan, no clear assessment of the impact of recruitment challenges, and decisions that risk weakening the very structures needed to support AHPs. The requirement for integrated care boards to reduce their budgets has already raised serious concerns. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has warned about the impact on leadership roles, and we are already seeing a reduction in senior AHP positions across the system. That is not strengthening the workforce but undermining it.
Jen Craft
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on supporting the SEND White Paper through an allied health professional workforce plan. However, there is something of an amnesiac recollection from Conservative Members when it comes to looking at a decline in numbers of healthcare professionals, and allied health professionals are not unique in that. Would he like to say what happened to the figures for allied health professionals over the 14 years when the Conservative Government were in office?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Lady, with whom I serve on the Health and Social Care Committee, always raises important points. What the last Government were trying to do—certainly by the end—with their workforce plan, which was the first of its kind, was to ensure that the workforce began to expand again. That is what all of us across the House are hoping that this Government will build on.
The Government have confirmed that they have no plans to extend the job guarantee to allied health professionals, and have made no assessments of the impact of recruitment delays on patient care. For a Government who often speak about the importance of the NHS, it is difficult to understand why the very professionals who play such a central role in recovery, rehabilitation and patient flow are being overlooked, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) passionately highlighted. If we are serious about reducing waiting lists, improving outcomes and supporting patients across both health and education, allied health professionals are not optional but essential—and essential services require serious planning.
In conclusion, I will ask the Minister three simple questions. First, when will the NHS workforce plan be published and how will it specifically address the shortages in allied health professionals? Secondly, will the Government reconsider their decision not to include AHPs in the job guarantee, given the clear need to support and retain this workforce? Thirdly, what steps will be taken to ensure that NHS organisations and local services can recruit and retain the AHPs they need, particularly in under-resourced areas?
Without clear answers to those questions the risk is clear: we will continue to ask more of allied health professionals while giving them less support to deliver. From what I have seen throughout my career, including in my work with occupational therapists, that is not a position that any of us should accept for the workforce or the patients who depend on them
Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. My constituents have a clear expectation that we proceed with caution when it comes to children’s healthcare, but there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this trial: the Government have already restricted these drugs due to what they described as an “unacceptable safety risk”, but those same drugs are now being made available through a clinical trial.
We must also look squarely at the evidence. There is no robust proof that puberty blockers deliver the benefits often claimed. In fact, the evidence suggests that, for many children, gender-related distress resolves naturally through puberty. The risks, however, are very real—to bone density, brain development and fertility. There are also serious ethical concerns. We are talking about administering powerful drugs to young children with no reliable way to predict who will benefit. This is not a targeted intervention; it is a gamble with children’s futures.
The design of the trial only adds to those concerns. It compares immediate treatment with delayed treatment, rather than examining long-term outcomes, and relies heavily on subjective measures rather than clinical evidence. It risks answering the wrong questions while exposing children to the well-rehearsed risks. Even more concerning is the sequencing—clearly, we should understand past outcomes first, and yet the trial presses ahead before we do.
The process itself also gives us pause. The trial received ethical approval and £10.7 million of public funding, and yet within months it has been paused following intervention by the regulator over concerns about safety and design. If a trial collapses under scrutiny before it begins, that tells us it is not ready and raises a serious question about why it was pushed forward in the first place.
I urge the Minister to explain why, given the known risks, the trial should proceed at all. When the evidence is weak, the risks are real and the patients are children, pressing ahead is not leadership, but recklessness.
Karin Smyth
I am not going to give way; I am going to get through these points.
The safety and wellbeing of children and young people have always been the driving consideration in every decision we have made regarding this trial, and always will be. That is why the trial sponsor has paused recruiting until these issues can be resolved. There have been calls today to cancel the pause, to continue with the pause and to cancel the trial, but the position is that the trial is paused until the issues are resolved, because we will not compromise an inch on safety. The trial will proceed only if the regulatory approval is reconfirmed. We will provide an update on the outcome of those discussions as soon as we can.
Healthcare in Rural Areas
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who has campaigned tirelessly for a GP surgery in Wixams in his constituency. I was delighted to hear that his campaigning is beginning to bear fruit, and I wish him well with that.
The challenge that my hon. Friend mentioned resonates strongly in my own constituency. There has been significant housing growth in areas such as Bordon, yet the supporting infrastructure, particularly primary care, has simply not kept pace. Residents move into new homes only to discover that securing a GP appointment is harder than it should be.
Hon. Members across the House have made a consistent and compelling case this afternoon. Rapid housing growth places a real strain on local practices, and patients then struggle to access timely appointments. Infrastructure funding is too often misaligned with development, and co-ordination between local authorities, NHS bodies and developers remains insufficient. Healthcare must arrive with the new homes, not years afterwards.
The Government’s 10-year plan puts having care closer to home at the centre of NHS reform. That ambition is entirely welcome, but as hon. Members have raised, the national neighbourhood health implementation programme begins with pilots in 43 areas, and each designated neighbourhood must serve a population of around 50,000 people. That population threshold presents a fundamental challenge for rural and semi-rural areas, where individual villages and market towns fall well below that figure. Although larger geographical regions might technically meet the requirement, genuinely rural communities cannot qualify as stand-alone neighbourhoods and are therefore excluded from the first phase—and potentially always.
If the 50,000 population threshold is rigidly applied, smaller communities will only ever be served indirectly, folded into large neighbourhoods covering multiple dispersed settlements. That risks diluting the focus on their particular needs, and residents might continue to face long travel times, limited access to primary care and fewer co-ordinated services, as hon. Members have described. That is especially concerning given the demographic trends.
Healthwatch England highlighted in 2023 that the NHS long-term workforce plan projects a 55% increase in the number of people aged over 85 living in rural areas by 2037. Demand is rising most sharply in precisely those areas excluded from the pilot phase. In areas like mine, where hospital access already involves significant travel, the case for strong, well-resourced local primary and community care is self-evident. Excluding rural and semi-rural constituencies from the first wave risks entrenching disparities rather than reducing them.
I also have concerns about cuts and mergers in ICBs. The institutional knowledge and expertise built over many years risk being disrupted during the transition. For example, the Frimley integrated care board, which serves the northern part of my constituency, is being abolished, so the local leadership and co-ordination that previously existed will be lost and responsibilities will be redistributed. Change on such a scale requires clarity of governance, funding and accountability. Without it, delivery will vary and confidence will suffer.
Access to primary care, pharmacy and dentistry remains central to this debate, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Since 2024, more than 200 pharmacies have closed in England. In the first three months of 2025 alone, 31 medium-sized and 24 large pharmacy branches closed. For villages and small towns, the local pharmacy is not a luxury; it is a frontline health service Although schemes such as the pharmacy access scheme and Pharmacy First are supported and welcome, there are significant problems with their roll-out, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with unions like the BMA trying to undermine that very significant investment.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. For rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine, the details of the policy matter enormously. First, will the 50,000 population threshold be applied flexibly in rural and semi-rural areas? If so, how will smaller communities be guaranteed equal access to neighbourhood services? Secondly, what is the timetable for expanding the scheme beyond the initial 43 pilot areas? When can constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire expect to be included?
Thirdly, how will the continuity of neighbourhood health delivery be safeguarded during the merger and abolition of ICBs, and who will ultimately be held accountable for that if implementation falters? Finally, will the Minister publish clear and measurable criteria for success, particularly in relation to rural access, travel times and coverage of elderly populations so that the House can judge whether care closer to home is being delivered in practice and is not merely a promise?
Oral Answers to Questions
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I have spoken before about trying to drag in a supplementary question that is not relevant to the main question. I call the shadow Minister and welcome him to the Dispatch Box for the first time.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Seven months ago, the NHS 10-year plan promised a maternity taskforce. May I ask the Minister how many times it has met?
Dr Ahmed
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it has not met yet, but we are establishing it and it will be meeting soon.
Gregory Stafford
The fact that the taskforce has not even met, seven months later, tells us everything we need to know about how urgent and important the Government consider this issue. In Leeds, families are losing faith in the failing maternity services. The Secretary of State said that he takes the matter “extremely seriously”, yet Donna Ockenden—who exposed the failings in Nottingham, has the support of families, and has said that she is ready and willing to lead the inquiry—has not been appointed. If the Minister and the Secretary of State take this issue extremely seriously, why have they not appointed a chair yet?
Dr Ahmed
I see that the brass neck of the hon. Gentlemen’s predecessor has been transplanted to him. He talks about seven months, but what about the last 14 years, through which the Conservatives presided over the decay and decline of our NHS? They failed our patients and the clinicians who serve them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with maternity families and, like me, he takes the matter extremely seriously. He will report to this House on the outcome of his deliberations on a regular basis.