Health Bill

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis]

I absolutely agree, and I was a Labour councillor and leader of the council’s Labour opposition back then. I was also married to a special educational needs co-ordinator who was employed by the local authority. I was employing my own professionals to get through this process and ensure that the health aspects of the EHCP were upheld. The situation is absolutely abhorrent. Many parents who do not have the opportunity and insight that my wife and I had cannot ensure that accountability for their child. When my borough received that judgment of systemic failings, that issue really came to the fore.

I would be grateful if the Minister or Secretary of State could outline how the Government intend to address the issues addressed by my amendment and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. My amendment intends to ensure that we deliver basic objectives, set clear expectations for how long disabled people should wait, set consistent standards, and ensure meaningful accountability for ICBs when services fall short.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support.

I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill.

A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know.

Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Labour Members who had that commitment in their manifesto may want to reflect on how much more commitment we have to constituents because they are our constituents than we would if we shared constituents from day to day. We often go out of our way—I hope—to look after our constituents because of that sense of ownership and obligation. It is only because we are allocated those people and they are our responsibility that we go that extra mile. Why would doctors not be the same, and can colleagues not see the sense of what my right hon. Friend is saying?

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS.

There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice.

People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done.

The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to.

At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

There is lots in this Bill that is very positive, but I want to raise a couple of local issues, including one relating to my local Stepping Hill hospital. I thank the Minister for meeting me and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), to discuss the hospital, because it is at the heart of healthcare provision in my town of Stockport. It serves around half a million patients per year and is one of the four specialist hub centres for emergency and higher-risk general surgery in Greater Manchester.

I appreciate that 14 years of austerity, imposed by the coalition Government of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, and by subsequent Conservative Governments, have taken their toll on the NHS. The Labour Government have been trying to fix things over the last two years, but Stepping Hill hospital is a huge issue locally. I have mentioned the condition of the hospital a number of times in this Chamber, and a number of constituents frequently get in touch with me about the state of the hospital. At one point, Stepping Hill hospital was reported to be delivering only 51% of its usual outpatient services, which is simply not good enough. The staff do an amazing job, and an amazing set of volunteers support the hospital, but so much more needs to be done.

The backlog of repairs at the hospital is estimated to cost around £138 million. The Government have allocated £2.5 million for targeted essential repairs, fire safety and other works, and the foundation trust has been allocated £75 million by this Government over the next four years. That is a positive step, but I urge the Minister to go a bit further for Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport, Greater Manchester.

The second issue I want to raise is NHS-funded IVF treatment, which I have also mentioned previously. We live in a country where we have a postcode lottery in NHS funding for IVF treatment, and that should not be the case. I have signed new clause 104, tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which is about ensuring that the provision of NHS-funded IVF is in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

Once again, a number of parents in my constituency have been in touch with me about this issue. Sadly, NHS Greater Manchester ICB has taken the step of reducing provision. It conducted a consultation a few months ago, and 74% of respondents either disagreed or completely disagreed with the proposed one-plus cycle offer. I have submitted a freedom of information request to NHS Greater Manchester ICB regarding the cost and resources that went into the consultation, because it did the consultation and then proceeded to reduce the provision. The change disproportionately impacts low-income women and people from poorer backgrounds, and that is simply not good enough. Greater Manchester has a population of almost 3 million people, and this is a regressive step.

The Government need to do a lot better on mandating legal access to NHS-funded IVF. Current data from a fertility unit in the north-east—one of the only two areas where an ICB funds three full rounds of IVF treatment—shows that the chance of a woman under 40 having a baby after three cycles of treatment is 70%, but the figure for people who get access to one cycle is just 46%. In England, we need standardisation of IVF treatment.

I also support new clause 108, tabled by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I will not say much on this point, because I have spoken on three separate occasions in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber about data hygiene and safety. I have had a very large volume of correspondence from constituents on this issue. Many people in Stockport are worried about foreign tech firms having access to their sensitive personal medical records. People need to have confidence that the personal details and data that they provide to the NHS will not be misused.

As I said earlier, this Government have achieved a lot in the last two years, but we need to recognise that there is so much more to be done. Labour Governments always fix things in the long run, but I ask the Minister specifically to go a bit further on Stepping Hill hospital and IVF.