Health Bill (Second sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

By all means.

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: We have to recognise that a tremendous amount of work is done in the health and social care system with people who have multiple comorbidities—not just one thing, but a number of things that often interact together. Without a single patient record, we can find that a consultant or a GP has access to only one part of that multiple comorbidity, as it were. That can lead to all sorts of unforeseen errors. I think that that is an important point to make about the great advantage that we can get from a single patient record.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Q Professor Croisdale-Appleby, the local healthwatch on the Isle of Wight has proven invaluable in amplifying patient voice, gathering patient experience and helping those who are democratically elected—MPs and councillors—to hold health leaders to account. My concern about that function being folded into the ICB is that the ICB has often been on the sharp end of critical analysis by Healthwatch, and so the ICB will end up marking its own homework. We will lose the critical voice that has, I am sure, led to better decision making. How can we possibly resolve that fundamental issue, if Healthwatch is folded into ICBs?

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: You make a pivotal and focused point. The independence is vital, not just because of the quality of what Healthwatch produces, but because of the confidence that it gives people that they are speaking to an independent organisation. In the background, some communities distrust being critical about the care that they receive in case it rebounds on them. If the same organisation is responsible for marking its own homework, as you put it, that problem will be much greater than it has been in the past. In terms of what to do about it, I think that you stick to some basic principles. If we are moving forward positively, we have got to be locally driven. We must reach out to communities. They will not reach into us; we have to reach out to those communities and the individuals within them.

I mentioned the value of qualitative evidence. It is not always easy for big institutions to go through all the work of evaluating qualitative work. It is easy to look at quantitative statistics, but the patient voice must be highly visible and central to policymaking. That was the basic idea behind the Bill: it would be about the patient and the patient voice, putting the patient right at the centre of the multiple discourses. As my colleagues have said, we should be totally transparent about priorities, impact and holding people to account. If all five of those principles are followed, it will work. If they are not followed, it will not.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q Sarah, you mentioned that the patient should be the centre of all this. I do not think that anybody disagrees—including any politicians—that making these changes is in the best interest of the patients. However, many changes have happened over the decades, but data for the last 10 years shows that patient safety incidents and complaints are steadily going up, so those changes have not made any impact on patient care, safety or experience. We need to do something here.

After each incident, there is a recommendation or an action plan, but clinical staff or patients do not have much involvement with those and do not see any difference. Healthwatch helpfully finds the issues, but it may not actually go back and see what changes are made following its recommendations. The CQC physically goes into clinical areas to see the difference, and has the power to take action against those responsible, so is it not a good change that more accountability will sit with the providers, and the CQC—or local authorities and ICBs—can take action against them?

Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Forgive me; you asked several questions. Which would you like me to start with?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

Q I will put words in your mouth, and you can disagree with me. Do you think the Bill should tackle the point about having a properly funded care service so that the transition from hospital to the community can actually take place? As you have just said, if people are not cared for properly, they end up back in hospital, and everyone here agrees that is what we are trying to avoid.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: Yes, it is very odd. It is worth doing the odd thought experiment: imagine that the bit of healthcare that was underfunded and available only subject to a means test, and not free, was for heart disease. We cannot imagine it. The fact that it is dementia and severe arthritis means we have drawn an arbitrary line, and while that line still exists and there is still inadequate funding, even in a means-tested system, we are hamstringing the NHS. Now, that is not the most important problem, which is that we are failing to give people flourishing lives and allow them to live to the full, but it is now so bad that it is actually making it hard for the NHS to work.

[Joe Robertson]

Q Hospital pressures on the Isle of Wight are particularly severe, and part of the way of dealing with so-called corridor care is for the hospital and local authority to look at discharging some frail patients to the mainland, including those living with dementia, which is plainly not a solution by anyone’s normal interpretation. Is there anything in this Bill, notwithstanding that it does not deal with the fundamental problems of social care, not only that can help to resolve those sorts of situations, but that could help to resolve them if it went a little further? I am looking for opportunities to use the Bill to try to do a little more in and around discharge and social care.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: That is a very good question, to which I do not have a very immediate answer. Well, I do have an immediate answer, which is that, as far as I can see, it is nothing very substantial.

The single patient record offers some prospects here, and it is terribly important for people receiving social care, which again reflects how much longer we are living. There is much more multiple morbidity now. Many of the people who can and are benefiting from social care will have quite complicated medical experiences and histories. That is the kind of group that could particularly benefit from a single patient record, so that we are not having inappropriate prescription and so on. That is going to help, but it will be a second-order issue.

Let me be very blunt. There are two fundamental challenges facing the social care system. The first is that the means-tested bit of it, where we say, “If you don’t have any resources of your own, the state will look after you,” must be a minimum for any humane society. Essentially every year for at least the last decade, the Treasury has announced emergency funding for that in year. That money then does not get spent well. Honestly, if you are announcing an emergency package every year for 10 years, it is not an emergency package. You should wake up, pay attention, have a mature response and fund that system properly. That is the minimum.

The second is that the only big risk we all face that is not pooled is social care. Our risk of healthcare is pooled by the state, our risk of having a car accident or our house burning down is pooled by private insurance. This is the one risk that is not pooled, and the reason is that the state does not, and the private sector cannot. The reason the private sector cannot is that it is too far ahead for a private insurance market to deal with it, so only the state can pool the risk. If there is any area where the case for social insurance is absolutely clear, it is social care; the case is even more powerful in social care than it is in health.

At the moment we have a situation where often people will feel that the best thing that can happen to them, if they think they might have a social care need, is that they die before too long. It is a bit like standing in the middle of the road with a lorry driving towards you and hoping that the best thing that might happen is that you die before it hits you. That is not a good way to be running any kind of society or country. Those challenges—the lack of adequate funding of the means-tested system and the lack of any risk pooling for the population as a whole—lead directly to the kind of experience that you are describing in the Isle of Wight, where there is simply excess demand and so we are trying to ship people across to the mainland. It is a reflection of the fundamental challenges that we have ignored for 35 years.

[Dr Johnson]

Q You have talked a lot about adult social care in terms of the very elderly and frail and people with dementia, but it also affects younger people. For example, Swallow Lodge, which is a facility for working-age adults in my constituency, is under threat of closure. I and others have made the arguments about how it is a lifeline that allows the families to have a break and the individuals using the service to flourish and enjoy life, but there is an economic argument too. How well do you think that is understood? Closing such a place could lead to higher costs for the NHS in mental health or physical health support, further social care admissions and the like.

Sir Andrew Dilnot: You are absolutely right to emphasise the importance of non-elderly adult social care, which is roughly half of all of the expenditure and growing. One reason that we see particular pressures in the elderly care sphere is that the less-elderly need has grown very dramatically, again because of the scope for increased human flourishing.

On the whole, as far as I can see, there is very little understanding of the integrated nature of these costs between social care and the NHS, so I think there is very little thinking in budgetary terms about the consequences of the squeeze on social care leading to increased expenditure and needs elsewhere in the NHS. That is not easy to resolve. Moving to a system that properly integrates those trade-offs will be difficult, and it requires a different sort of funding regime, but while we do not, those costs exist. My sense is that they are second order at the national level, but where they are certainly not second order is for the individuals concerned and their families, for whom this kind of thing is an eruption of anxiety and grief, in the context that families are already under pressures that most of us would find hard to imagine.

Health Bill (Third sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very clearly and he is absolutely right. Not only is there a lack of clarity in the legislation and in the plans for how the NHS will look, but, as was alluded to during evidence, the missing bit from the Bill, which is highly relevant, is social care. It will be deeply concerning if, when the implications of local government reorganisation emerge from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in a few weeks’ time, the two are not properly meshed together, because we will risk, yet again, a widening disconnect between the two vital parts of our health and social care system, both of which have to work well in tandem for the whole system to function. The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. He also highlights ICB budgets. I suspect hon. and right hon. Members around the country are already seeing the genuine impact of those changes to the budgets, which are actually pulling through into the frontline services that our constituents receive.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about our health and social care services, and has a wealth of experience from in this place and outside it. Given the comments from our witnesses and the impact assessment, which has page after page listing the risks associated with this approach, I ask her how she will mitigate that loss of focus and that distraction, which is an inevitable human reaction when there is uncertainty. When she comes forward with the plan to merge NHS England into the Department, how will she ensure that she retains the best, most experienced staff? In any organisation where there is a change, it is often the most able and experienced who find it easiest to go to another role, by virtue of their skillset. How will she ensure that there is not a loss or drain of that expertise and knowledge?

I turn to a deeply concerning element that links to the lack of clarity. The impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England is pretty much silent on the monetised costs and benefits and specific figures. The first two pages with the boxes and the summary just say “N/A” in pretty much every box on assessing the costs. If I flick through to the section headed “Monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of each option”, I see page after page. There are lots of words but virtually no figures, and where there are figures, there is no breakdown of how they were reached, and no explanation of the degree or range of confidence in the few figures that are there.

I ask the Minister whether a detailed spreadsheet of all the statistics, costs and benefits, risks, confidence levels associated with the numbers, and the phasing over years of savings and costs will be published during the Commons passage of the Bill so that Members of the House can consider it. If not in Committee, could it be published at least before Report so that we can have an informed debate? More broadly, once the Bill in whatever form is passed—I expect, given the Government’s majority, that it will be—what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that when a target operating model and all the other details are available, Parliament will have an opportunity to not only debate them, but have a meaningful say, potentially with a vote, be it through delegated legislation or in the House?

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.

I echo and endorse all the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who was comprehensive in setting out our position. I therefore speak from a broad consensus surrounding the Committee that the final days of NHS England as a body are here, and so be it, because there are advantages to be gained from its abolition. The Minister set out some of the leading reasons why she and the Government are abolishing NHS England. She referred to the growing bureaucracy, the unnecessary complexity, and the overlap of roles and responsibilities between the organisation and DHSC. She also spoke about being able to better focus on delivering care rather than navigating bureaucratic hurdles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend talked about how the ICBs have merged. There are lots of different types of reorganisation going on at once: the abolition of NHS England, the changes to local authorities, the introduction of mayors in some areas, and the changes and cuts to ICBs. What effect is that having in his part of the country?

[Joe Robertson]

The shadow Minister points to a much wider issue entirely relevant to the Government’s plans here: the more reorganisation we do, the more we shrink the bandwidth to deal with smaller and more operational problems because so much of the resource has been pulled in. In my area, although it is probably true everywhere, reorganisation of Department or Government responsibilities causes endless frustration that while Governments and politicians—I take some responsibility for my own side’s actions at times in the past in very limited ways—talk about reorganisation when so much can be done on what might be termed low-hanging fruit.

I worry that the Government are missing out on opportunities here to make a much more meaningful difference day to day and much more quickly than this huge reorganisation will achieve. Everything is about priorities. Plainly, no Government can do everything they want to do all at one time. It slightly surprises me that reorganisation of the NHS and doing away with NHS England has become such a major priority, considering it did not feature in the Labour party manifesto just two years ago. I do not seek to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but the gist of her evidence to this Committee was that within eight months of this Labour Government coming into power, they realised that NHS England had to go. Eight months is eight months, but it seems a short timeframe in which to decide to do away with a fundamental way that health is organised and delivered in this country.

Going back to priorities, I recall that before the election, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—then the shadow Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Ilford North, talked about introducing a national care service. That was the Labour party’s big priority. Although Conservative Members and, frankly, the majority of the public were slightly sceptical of his intentions, we all agree that social care needs reform and that ultimately, the success of the NHS will be delivered only if we deal with the long-standing crisis in social care, which extends back three decades or more, as it is entirely dependent on that.

Before the election, the priority was the national care service, but since the not-so-random date of 5 July 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State, he ceased to refer to reform of social care, and it seems once again to have been put on the back burner. I wonder whether the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England has gotten in the way of equally large, and perhaps even more substantial, reforms, which might ultimately have made a much more meaningful difference to the delivery of not only healthcare but health and social care, as well as to the overall wellbeing, including financial wellbeing, of so many people in this country. Social care refers to people living with frailty or dementia, and the family carers, and families more widely, on whom that has an impact. Every decision made is a decision not made, given the resource and bandwidth of those whom any Government ask to implement change, such as the civil service, advisers and the hundreds or thousands of people who are relied on to deliver in their day-to-day job.

I and, it seems, all the other Committee members do not disagree with the fundamentals of what Government are trying to do; their reasons for doing this are broadly sensible, so who could disagree? However, because of the manner in which it is being done, I urge caution and a check on being too optimistic—just doing it and expecting all the good things to flow. It will take an awful lot more than simply passing the Bill to make the NHS the success that, to take the Minister at her word, she intends, wants and will do her best to achieve.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Prinsley]

I apologise for being a little delayed, Sir Jeremy. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). It would place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities when exercising functions.

Between 2011 and 2021, the UK was one of only five high-income countries where healthy life expectancy fell. Over the same decade, we faced a cost of living crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and economic decline across the post-industrial regions. We cannot shy away from the fact that ill health is rising. Economic inactivity due to sickness is at its highest level since 2012, and we witness a widening disparity in health outcomes. People living in the most deprived areas of the UK, on average, live just 52 years of healthy life. There is now a 16-year gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of the UK. Even within individual constituencies, the life expectancy gap can be as wide as seven years between local postcodes.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that decisions taken at the highest level of the health system consistently reflect the reality that health outcomes differ sharply depending on where someone lives, the conditions that they live in and their opportunities to achieve good health. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve the health of persons in England. The intention is that this duty would include the need to reduce inequalities in health. That is in addition to the duties that are already in the clause, relating to inequalities in access to and outcomes of healthcare.

At present, the Bill brings together old duties on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequality in access to and outcomes from NHS services. Those are too narrow and do not reflect the wider determinants of health that the Government have pledged to tackle through their 10-year plan. The amendment would strengthen the duty to reflect the wider cross-Government goals for health improvement and health inequalities. That would make an important statement of the Government’s commitment to improving health and tackling health inequalities, and would set in train an important step towards achieving them.

The amendment also provides a clear definition of “health inequalities” and “general health determinants”. Health inequalities means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health, which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants, including housing standards, environmental factors, public transport, economic factors and other wider determinants of life expectancy. The amendment has been drafted to mirror the wording of the newly enacted section 45 duty on combined authorities in relation to health improvement and health inequalities under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.

Accepting the amendment would ensure consistent focus on the mission of creating a fairer country where everyone lives for longer, from the top of Government to regions and neighbourhoods. By setting this out explicitly, the amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State cannot overlook the wider conditions that shape health outcomes. In sum, the amendment would require that when decisions are made, the Secretary of State must consider their impact on health improvement and on distribution of health across the population.

The amendment is supported by the Health Equals coalition, including 27 organisations that wrote an open letter to the Minister on 15 June. Those organisations range from the Health Foundation to the King’s Fund, Ramblers UK and the Wildlife Trusts, showing the breadth of support from across the sector. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee also recommended that the clause be amended in this way.

Embedding this duty in legislation would strengthen accountability and ensure that the reduction of health inequalities is treated not as a secondary consideration, but as an integral part of how the health system is led and managed. If accepted, the new duty would ensure clear alignment at national and local levels about the importance of prevention.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Jeremy. I will speak generally about the amendments on health inequalities, and specifically about some points that the group of amendments homes in on.

On the general principle of dealing with health inequalities, the sentiment behind amendment 13 is important, and I support hon. Members’ motivation for tabling it, but I question exactly what “persons of different descriptions” means. Does it relate to protected characteristics, which employment law deals with, or to geography? I suspect that it is both, and I wonder whether there are more considerations than those two. It would assist us if the amendment were clearer on that, notwithstanding the fact that clarification may be made during the debate or to the amendment itself if it is accepted later. I have concerns about what “persons of different descriptions” means. Certainly, in everyday English, every individual could be described as a person of a different description, so the phrase does not have any particular legal meaning.

If the phrase means something equivalent to protected characteristics, I wish to say something about health inequalities affecting those of different ages. I am the Member for Isle of Wight East, which, of course, has an older population. I want people of all ages to have equal access to health and social care, and inequalities in access to be levelled out and removed, but it is not only older people who find accessing health services difficult, not least for reasons of physical access; the entire population within an area with an older age demographic is affected. The Isle of Wight has a small local authority. We are fairly unique, in that we are surrounded by water and have a higher age profile, which, taken together with other challenges, makes health equality a challenge for the entire population, not just older people. The issue is aggravated by other considerations, primarily relating to geography.

Amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, refers to hospital transportation access. That can mean a lot of different things in different places. I support at least the aim of putting more pressure on the Secretary of State and the Department and encouraging them to recognise and eradicate inequalities in hospital transportation access. For my constituents, accessing specialist services means crossing a body of water, which is not only a physical barrier—a ferry has to be taken—but a cost barrier, because ferries cost money. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, given the challenge in my constituency, but of course other places have different but challenging hospital transportation issues.

Amendment 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, refers to cross-departmental working to ensure that health inequalities are taken into consideration. I think this is key. Of course the primary responsibility for health inequalities rests with the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is by no means the only Department with that responsibility. The more we think about the various inequalities that exist in this country, the more we realise that other Departments have considerable responsibility. We hear from politicians—of all parties, but particularly the Labour party in government—about better joined-up working between Departments, but without something more concrete in Bills such as this one, that will remain one of those aspirations that many talk about but few actually achieve.

The most obvious Department to help achieve the reduction in health inequalities is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, given its responsibility for local government funding. Of course, local government has primary responsibility for delivering social care and public health within its area. It is a well-known feature of the system we have in this country that healthcare is free at the point of use and delivered effectively by central Government, while social care is a combination of different provision but private funding and local government have the largest role to play, and too many people fall through the gaps in those fundamentally different ways of funding two parts of the system. Unless MHCLG is bound into the way we reduce health inequalities, even with the best intentions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, it clearly will not be delivered in a comprehensive and holistic way.

I refer again, as an example, to my area, which has a higher age demographic but a small unitary authority with a lower funding base. It is a matter of public record that the funding decisions made by the current Government at the beginning of this year have meant an effective reduction in funding for my local authority, notwithstanding its responsibility for an older population and the existing challenges in delivering social care. That is an argument that I and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley), are making to the Government in an ongoing conversation about how we can resolve that issue. We are having that conversation with MHCLG, notwithstanding the fact that it has a very direct impact—the biggest impact, in my view—on health inequalities in my constituency and the effectiveness of the Government’s 10-year health plan and their intention to improve the general health of the population. That is the probably the key departmental relationship that will be relied on to deliver the reduction in health inequalities.

The Department for Transport also has responsibility for this. If we refer to its responsibilities for reducing health inequalities outside the context of this argument, people might scratch their heads and wonder what we are talking about. but as soon as it is brought into a real-life example within this debate, it makes sense that the Department for Transport has some responsibility for reducing health inequalities. However, we will not achieve all we want to unless that responsibility is made more obvious and specific, named somewhere in some Bill. We have an option to achieve our intention to have joined-up decision making, and to ensure that every decision in any Department that has the potential to impact health inequalities is considered, whether in a formal impact assessment or just in the ordinary day-to-day decision making and mindset of the relevant Ministers, Secretary of State or departmental officials.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak to clause 4 and this group of amendments. Health inequalities are commonly defined as the systemic differences in health status and distribution of health resources between different population groups. There are limits to how far the state can equalise health in a free society, but I am sure all Members would agree that the service should not preside over differences in access to health resources. Unequal access runs contrary to the vision of the NHS as a comprehensive service, available to all and based on clinical need, not ability to pay. Those principles are violated when people without fixed addresses struggle to access general practice, or patients in rural areas, such as my constituency, miss out on treatments—for example, specialist cancer treatments—that are available in more urban areas.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 inserted section 1C in the National Health Service Act 2006, placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the need to reduce inequalities in the benefits that people obtain from the health service. As the explanatory notes to the 2012 Act made clear, the intention of that was to

“include consideration of the need to reduce inequalities in access...and the outcomes”.

Clause 4 of this Bill takes that which was understood and makes it more explicit.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that I support updating that duty—she is smiling. The word “benefits” in the original section is a nebulous and subjective term. The wording introduced by the clause is less imprecise and requires the Secretary of State to consider the whole health pipeline. None the less, I have some questions about the lens that clause 4 and its predecessor, section 1C of the 2006 Act, invite the Secretary of State to look through, particularly in relation to other statements made by the Government.

In the Government’s policy paper “ICBs as strategic commissioners”, they say that increasing the commissioning responsibilities of integrated care boards will result in them being

“better placed to support innovation”

and

“design new models of care”.

Innovation can produce disparities; that is true in healthcare as well. If one ICB decides to innovate and produces a better service, that area will have a better service than another, and the Secretary of State will have the job of undoing that. That could be done by spreading the innovation across the whole of the country, but if the innovation is expensive or difficult to roll out, it could in effect be quashed. Does the Minister recognise that empowering health leaders to innovate and do things differently could widen inequalities, at least in the short term? Is she willing to accept that?

A problem with using inequalities as a stand-alone metric is that it does not really tell you whether things are getting better or worse; it must be taken into consideration alongside a wide range of other metrics. An often forgotten fact is that disparities can be reduced by levelling down as well as by levelling up. Fixating on determining the size and cause of disparities can, in some cases, come at the expense of eliminating them. I recently tabled a written question to ask the Government if and when they plan to

“set an explicit target to close the Black and Asian maternal mortality gap.”

I note that the Minister stood on a manifesto pledge to close that gap. The Government response to my question indicated that they are waiting for Baroness Amos to finish looking at the drivers of inequalities before they do anything. It is possible to produce tomes on the nature of disparities; I suggest that energy would be better spent on addressing them.

Amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to consider health inequalities arising from differences in general health determinants. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, as statistically, those with lower earning capacity, limited access to green space or unhealthy lifestyles have comparatively worse health outcomes, but would placing a duty to take stock of that on the Secretary of State make the health service any better for such groups, or for the population as a whole?

What would be the practical purpose of the amendment? As somebody said to me yesterday evening, do we have a section in education legislation stating that the Education Secretary has to consider that their job is to ensure that people are educated? Do we have clauses in defence Bills saying that the Defence Secretary must consider the defence of the realm? I cannot be sure, but the amendment seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious, so what effect would it have? Does the Member who tabled the amendment think that the Secretary of State will not consider those factors—essentially, that he will not do his job properly? Do they not have confidence in him or in future Secretaries of State?

Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would need to consider inequalities arising from people’s employment, environmental conditions and lifestyle choices, which his Department has little to no control over. If poverty is the problem, the solution is employment and welfare policy, which is not in his gift. If poor environment is the problem, the solution is environmental policy. If a well-informed adult chooses, despite knowing the detriment it may cause them, to consume unhealthy food or an excessive volume of alcohol, or not to exercise, what can and should the Minister do about it in a free society?

Amendment 13 would risk distracting from the focus of clause 4, which is, as I see it, to ensure equal access to health resources regardless of a person’s standing in society. What is the practical effect of making it a duty on the Minister to do these things? Will it cause a whole load of bureaucracy? Will the Minister have to produce impact statements for every new hospital? If, for example, one opened on the Isle of Wight—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East was talking about that—would we need to consider what effect it would have on smokers, people who do not exercise or people who have a lower earning capacity, and produce an endless list of assessments? It would take a lot of money and effort and not really add anything. The amendment would also risk the Government getting bogged down in litigation, as people who disagreed with the Government’s or the ICB’s decision would spend their time litigating the question whether something that may or may not even be relevant was considered properly.

Members will not be surprised to hear that my thoughts on amendment 29 are similar to those on amendment 13. I do not doubt for a minute that its supporters have the best intentions, but this type of public sector equality duty language does not do anything to improve public services. Too many arms of the state have been so concerned with disparities that they have become incompetent at getting on with the job that they are actually meant to be doing; they are distracted by trying to measure all these different equalities.

Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to involve all Departments in reducing health inequalities and take all reasonable steps to ensure that all other Departments

“consider the impact of their policy proposals on health inequalities.”

Is this spreading the bureaucracy and the impact assessments more widely? If the Government decide to buy a new submarine, do they have to consider what effect it would have on people who smoke on the Isle of Wight? It does not make sense to me. It is a statement of the obvious that members of the Cabinet and Government have to work together to deliver better health for the country. Of course that is true, but what would be the practical effect? The Minister may be able to tell us.

New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to publish a health improvement and health inequalities strategy within six months, and an annual report thereafter. Again, that would invite more glossy brochures from the Government, using the precious time of civil servants. The new clause seeks a cross-Government approach by mandating that all Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the strategy when carrying out their functions. Again, it is basically stating what their job is.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Although all these amendments come from a very good place, they are so obvious that they should already be happening, and are too obvious to be enshrined in some overriding duty in a Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. The amendments include, in many cases, a statement of what someone’s job is. Does the Member who tabled them think that the Secretary of State is not doing his job and therefore needs to be told what his job is? That could create a whole load of bureaucracy detracting from the actual job in hand.

Amendment 34 concerns transport access. I understand that that is a problem for many people in rural areas, such as my constituency. They often have a harder time, as the distance they need to travel is longer and public transport services are infrequent. Healthwatch, which will be cancelled by this Bill if the Government get their way, has heard from patients who struggle to book transport online, and whose transport turned up several hours early or was cancelled with little or notice at all. Those problems are well documented.

I visited Lincoln county hospital, which has a unit for renal dialysis, where I heard that although transport is provided for individuals having dialysis, which is good, it often does not turn up when it should or does not pick people up at the time that it is supposed to. More concerning is the fact that if they need a transplant and transplant assessments, most have to go to Leicester to have that done, which is several hours’ drive from some parts of Lincolnshire. Most disturbingly, I heard concerns that some people would choose not to go through the transplant programme, and a factor in that decision would be the ability to get to the transplant centre to have the significant amount of testing and follow-up that needs to be done. Clearly, that is not equal access, so I urge the Minister to look at that.

Imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider reducing inequalities is a good thing, but it does not magic up the resources necessary to fix them. In exercising his functions, it is a problem the Secretary of State is already capable of addressing. I am sure the Secretary of State, like the Minister, is a good person and wants people to be able to access the services. If Members believe the Government are failing in that regard, I would advise that adding another legislative duty is not likely to bring about the change desired. If we are being honest with the public, we must challenge the premise that every disparity is evidence of a policy failure. The duty placed on the Secretary of State should be to ensure that care is of an equally high standard across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I will speak in support of clause 6 and against amendment 58. I work with a great many rare disease groups as part of my work as a Member of Parliament. Those people have specific health needs, and innovation is key to developing ways of dealing with their needs and to making their lives better, so innovation is at the heart of what we do.

We have many great institutions. In my region of the north-east, I will mention Newcastle University, which is doing a huge amount of research into a range of rare diseases and is working collaboratively with other institutions, particularly in partnership, to address those health needs. The clause allows the Secretary of State the breadth to encourage that innovation and to help to make it into a viable spin-off. We too often lose the benefits of the innovation that we create, and it is adopted in other countries.

Amendment 58 would put this important clause in danger of being too prescriptive, and sometimes, if we prescribe particular things, we lose the ability to do other things. I support the clause, and I do not support amendment 58.

[Joe Robertson]

The clause, and amendment 58, deal with innovation. Although the NHS is responsible for some great healthcare innovations, not only in this country but around the world, unfortunately, it is often an example of a complete failure to innovate, or even to use fairly basic technology that has been around for a long time—I am thinking of using computers for patient records, as paper records have lasted for far too long. Promoting innovation is clearly a good thing—it is essential—so I support the amendment. I will speak about the details in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I think this is the first time we have had a Robertson on Robertson intervention. It is a pleasure to break that duck.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the need to change culture to embed innovation across the NHS. There is an example that we always come back to: fax machines. Fax machines were used in the NHS for far too long. It was mandated in 2018 that the use of all fax machines had to be stopped by the end of March 2020, yet in 2023, the NHS still owned 600. That mandation came up against a cultural barrier and it did not work, because 600 of them survived for three years after that.

In amendment 58, I see more mandation and nothing on culture. The problem with the amendment is that, by trying to mandate innovation too closely, we would miss the cultural point. We could undermine the Secretary of State’s power to say that all parts of the system are fair game for them. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that point?

[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.

Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

I am talking predominantly about clinicians working in trusts who are trained and very experienced, but then move to work in the same trust but in a more managerial role that does not involve clinical care. I am not saying that every single person needs to be delivering clinical care—there may be exceptions, of course; people do have career changes—but I encourage the Government to reflect on the number of posts being created that take people away from the clinical arena, and on the effect that that has. When the Minister is presented with the number of nursing or midwifery-qualified staff working in a particular department, that may not reflect the number who are delivering clinical care and, by their own admission, the Government do not know which is which.

Amendment 33 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the workforce is trained on the wider determinants of health, such as housing standards, air pollution and the use of harmful substances. In my many years as a paediatrician, I have yet to meet a nurse, doctor, surgeon, porter or care co-ordinator who does not know that damp and mould are bad for people’s health, and I have yet to meet a fellow employee who does not know that air pollution causes asthma, or that tobacco use increases the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and a whole host of other ailments.

Considering the many pressures on NHS workers, I do not believe that mandating a new programme on health determinants is a good use of time. I fear that it is rooted in the agenda of creating more and more mandatory training, and I would actually encourage the Minister to look at rationalising mandatory training to that which is absolutely necessary. Control of the curriculum for such staff is dealt with separately, so I object to amendment 33.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 7 says—I abbreviate:

“The Secretary of State must exercise functions…with a view to ensuring that…there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service, and…there is an effective system in place for the planning and delivery of education and training of people to meet those needs.”

That is all very nice—who couldn’t agree with that?—but amendment 50, tabled by the shadow Minister, would add a means by which the public, in the interests of transparency, could make an assessment of that by requiring the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years. That seems entirely sensible, it is something that I am sure any Government would want to do anyway, and it would add meaning, assessment and transparency to what is already in the Bill.

New clauses 44 and 45 would do something similar in relation to the number of medical school places. As the shadow Minister said in response to an intervention, new clause 44 seeks to do only what the Government have already said they want to do. Hopefully, the Minister can give us some clarity on whether that is still the Government’s intention and, if it is, what aversion she has to including it in the Bill.

Separately, new clause 45 seeks to establish a benchmark of data collection. Of course, duties and requirements placed on a Secretary of State, such as those in clause 7, can be delivered only if we start with the proper collection of data and, in the interests of transparency, publish it. For that reason, I also support new clause 45.

Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

In essence, the clause abolishes integrated care partnerships and strategies, which are where ICBs come together with local authorities to discuss how they can make their services more integrated. We know that many of the challenges facing the NHS are caused by difficulties in social care provision and some of the difficulties in social care provision are caused by issues with health provision, and that if those commissioning services in those two areas work together, we can see an improvement in both.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 made changes to local government structures and enhanced public involvement in health services. Section 116 requires local authorities to produce joint strategic needs assessments for the local authority and its partner ICB. When preparing the assessment, the local authority and its partner ICB must

“co-operate with one another…have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State…involve the Local Healthwatch organisation”,

and involve local people and the relevant district councils. I note that later in the Bill we will also come to the abolition of Healthwatch.

Section 116 of the 2007 Act has been modified by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Health and Care Act 2022 to ensure that references match the current NHS structure. For instance, in 2008 there were primary care trusts, rather than ICBs. Section 116ZA of the 2007 Act requires ICBs and local authorities whose areas coincide or overlap to create integrated care partnerships, which consist of a member appointed by the ICB, one from each responsible local authority and any other members that they choose to add; to some extent, they can determine their own procedures.

Section 116ZB of the 2007 Act requires ICBs to prepare an integrated care strategy

“setting out how the assessed needs in relation to its area are to be met by the exercise of functions of…the integrated care board…NHS England, or…the responsible local authorities”.

When developing that integrated care strategy, the integrated care partnerships must have regard to NHS England’s mandate and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Clearly, that would now apply only to guidance issued by the Secretary of the State, because NHS England is also being abolished. An integrated care partnership must publish its integrated care strategy and give it to each local authority and partner ICB. Integrated care partnerships must reconsider and, where necessary, revise the strategy each time they receive a new needs assessment.

Clause 23 deletes section 116(5A) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. That subsection required the local authorities to give a copy of the needs assessments to the ICBs, which is of course no longer necessary because they are being abolished. Clause 23 also deletes sections 116ZA and 116ZB of the same Act, which established ICBs and defined integrated care strategies respectively.

As Conservatives, we believe that streamlining bureaucracy is sensible, and I am sure that this is a well-intentioned reform. However, a survey conducted by the NHS Alliance in November indicated that a quarter of integrated care system leaders are likely to keep the integrated care partnerships anyway on a non-statutory basis, and 40% plan to fold them into health and wellbeing boards and working partnerships with the authorities. It is not really a ringing endorsement of the policy if a sizeable number of people intend to keep it anyway.

Like many other elements of the Bill, these changes are uncosted—if we read the impact assessment, it says “N/A” for the cost. Clearly, there will be a cost incurred by the abolition of the process, but there will also be an opportunity cost to services if ICBs and commissioners are not working together in the provision of social care as effectively as they were before. That will cost people in social care, and it will cost people in healthcare.

As recognised by the impact assessment that the Government have produced themselves, there is a risk of reduced focus on the wider determinants of health at system level. Committee members on both sides of the House have already stressed the impact that other health determinants can have on the health service and social care, and we have previously considered amendments to that effect.

Overall, it is regrettable that local government does not have the direct feed into ICBs that the design of those integrated care partnerships provided. Whether or not I agree, I can follow the theory or principle behind making the area covered more local, in line with the strategic authority. However, if the Government wanted to do that, I do not understand why they did not decide the mayoral areas first. At the moment, we do not know where the mayors will be, and where they are now is not where the ICBs are. The Government have decided to cut ICB budgets and force mergers before they have decided where the mayoral authorities will be in some cases. Even where there are mayoral authorities already, the Government have not mandated that the ICBs be coherent with them, and, therefore, in many cases, they are not. We have a very confusing pattern emerging, which may require further reorganisation of ICBs to line them up, with a further cost down the line.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, even if the Government get through the combined mayoral authorities they are trying to in this Parliament, there are still great swathes of England where there are no active plans for a mayoral authority at all. Even if the Government get their own way, some areas will not have a mayor for many years—if they get one at all.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. The mayors are also not all responsible for health and social care—the local authorities are, in most cases. There could therefore be a mayor directing proceedings with the ICB who is a political opponent of those actually democratically elected to look after social care. ICBs are supposed to be apolitical commissioners accountable to the Secretary of State, but now, instead of working with social care directors, they will work with an elected mayor instead.

I can see a positive to that in terms of democratic accountability, but what happens if they all disagree? There is some incoherence about who is in charge. We have the local authority tasked with delivering social care, which may be led by one political party; the mayor directing the ICB, who may be of a different political party; and the Secretary of State who can also direct the ICB, who may again be of a different political persuasion. How does it work if they disagree? Does the mayor actually have authority, given that the Secretary of State can override them anyway? How does the Minister see that working in practice? It feels like some people will be in power without responsibility and others will have responsibility without the power to exercise it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to pick up where the shadow Minister left off. Essentially, she said that the cart is being put before the horse in terms of mayoral authorities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East outlined, many areas have no plans for a mayoral authority; our area of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is some way down the track. As I expressed last week in Committee, we have a strange anomaly in the new Surrey and Sussex ICB, because Sussex will get a mayor and Surrey will not, so Sussex residents will have representation on the ICB whereas Surrey residents will not. I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reflect on that strange paradox over the weekend and that she will now be able to answer specifically, as she did not last week, how that lack of representation for Surrey residents will work locally.

The abolition of the integrated care partnerships and their allied strategies continues a theme whereby the Government, under the veneer of slimming down, are actually decoupling—or weakening or whatever terminology Members wish to use—health and social care. For many years, all parties have regarded the bringing together of health and social care as essential, but the Bill not only looks like it is not trying to encourage that bringing together, but in fact is doing the opposite of that—it seems to be looking to pull them apart and decouple them. That is strange, because it does not appear to be the expressed policy of the Government, but it is the only logical explanation for many parts of the Bill, including the abolition in clause 23.

The shadow Minister pointed out that a number of areas will keep the ICPs in some form or other. I ask the Minister, does the Government support that feature? Was it the Government’s intention to remove the statutory footing of the ICPs and strategies in the hope and expectation that they would continue on a non-statutory footing? If so, we come to the paradox: if the Government support local authorities and health services continuing to work together in informal ICPs, why is the Minister trying to get rid of them? If they do not support that, is it now stated Government policy to separate social care and health services?

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. There is a consensus—not just in this room, but within Parliament and going back several decades—that we want more integration and partnership working, particularly to bring together health and social care services, but this clause drives a coach and horses through that, and does so in a way that weakens rather than strengthens the Government’s plans to replace the system.

Local authorities bear responsibility for social care and public health in their areas, but they will no longer have a direct voice when it comes to integrated care boards. What we have seen to date is not an ideal system, or even a system that works particularly well, so I understand that the Government want to strengthen it, but we should not do that by removing the local government voice or making it indirect via a mayor who does not have the direct responsibility for delivering social care locally. Mayors may have some strategic oversight, but that is different.

Just last week, the Minister of State for Care appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee and was questioned on this very issue by me and others. His view was that the mayoral strategic partnership would be more than sufficient to make up for the local authorities losing their seat, but he faced particular scrutiny from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), who made some excellent points, which I will not repeat or paraphrase as they are on public record.

The gist of his argument was that local authorities have been ignored for too long when it comes to joining up health and social care services. This measure puts local authorities in an even weaker position and threatens what the Government are trying to achieve with social care, particularly for areas such as mine that have an older population and a relatively small unitary authority with so much responsibility to deliver on.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has already said, the combined area of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—or the Solent, as the Government like to call the Isle of Wight, despite the fact that fish cannot vote—is not set to get a mayor for a couple of years, but it will be at the vanguard of the Government’s plans. What about those areas for which there is no date, or even no plan for a mayor at all? It seems extraordinary that the Government would do away with the current set-up, imperfect as it is, and replace it with something that does not yet exist.

The Government have time deal with this problem. I am sure they quietly understand that there could be a problem. It is now on their shoulders to deal with it. I welcome the Minister’s reflections.

[Karin Smyth]

There has been a wide-ranging discussion on this clause. I remind Members that the abolition of ICPs is about reducing that complex legal framework, allowing for local decisions and putting partnership work in place in the most effective way. That is what the measure seeks to do. I do not think anyone has disagreed with the notion that the landscape is complex, and that people are producing a lot of reports. In future, health and wellbeing boards will be the focal point for the collaboration between ICBs and local authorities. They are statutory committees that bring together the NHS, local government and relevant community partners; set the strategic direction for health and care services; and oversee joint working in their area, which we are of course committed to making work in local areas. I do not think many people will disagree with that; I hope that is clear.

There is also an enhanced role, not only for the health and wellbeing boards—as I said last week, I think they have been underutilised in most areas; again, I do not think people generally disagree with that point—but for health scrutiny. Again, across the country, that has not been pursued to the greatest extent to create links with elected councillors in local areas.

We are clear that the role of local authorities is crucial at a local level—as the name describes—and particularly in working on our commitment for neighbourhood partnerships and developing the neighbourhood plan; most of that was covered in our sittings last week. I accept that there are a number of concerns about how that will work in different geographies. I think the Opposition said last week that a survey suggested a quarter of areas will keep those partnerships, which is absolutely fine. That is up to them.

On the one hand, the Opposition say that there is centralisation and a power grab in this Bill; on the other, they complain—I should not say complain, because it is their right and their job to do so—about the move to devolution and the freedom to allow, or indeed encourage, local leaders to work together across authorities on behalf of the populations they serve, even where some of them are politically divided, because the populations they serve voted for different people. It is incumbent on all of us as individual elected politicians to work with people—whoever the population around us voted for. These provisions provide for that.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

I will start by addressing Liberal Democrat amendments 9 and 10; once again, I see the impetus and reason behind tabling them. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, new clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, has a similar but subtly different—in my view, usefully different—impetus and emphasis.

I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we published a report into community mental health in December last year, which laid bare the shocking state of mental health services in this country, especially community mental health services. Mental health accounts for over 20% of the demand for health services in this country, but in the period 2025-26, it is forecast to receive only 8.7% of NHS expenditure.

The spend in that period is expected to be higher than in the previous year, 2024-25, but it will actually be a smaller proportion of total NHS spending, decreasing from 8.78% to 8.71%. That reduction also means that 2025-26 will be the first year since 2016-17 in which mental health spending will not rise as a proportion of total health spending, which is in contravention of the mental health investment standard that has been introduced. In fact, on 17 November last year, NHS England confirmed that the proportional increases will not take place over the next two years to 2028-29, and that there will instead be “flat real funding growth”.

Overall, although I accept that the Government have increased spending on mental health, the fact that it is going down as a proportion of the total bill is one of the many reasons why we on the Health and Social Care Committee were very concerned about the future of mental health funding. It is also why we supported our Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, in tabling new clause 27.

The differences between new clause 27 and amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, relate to the financial penalty. If we want people to spend more on mental health, it would seem perverse to punish them by taking money away from them, because there might be reasons why they could not meet this requirement. I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve, because as he said, Claire Murdoch, the national director for mental health, resigned in September over the fact that she did not feel that the Government were spending the right amount on mental health.

New clause 27 would put the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health, and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure. It also differs from amendments 9 and 10, in that rather than increasing the amounts as a total of expenditure—an approach for which I have sympathy—it has the more realistic requirement that it must only go up every year. Over some years, I would like the amount to increase as a total proportion from the current figure of 8% or 9% to 20%, which is the real cost or burden of mental health care in this country. I think new clause 27 is a much more fair and appropriate way of achieving that.

I accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about a potential loss of local flexibility, but I think the new clause is written in a way that gives ICBs at least some flexibility to decide how they spend that money. Also, unlike amendments 9 and 10, there is not a financial penalty if for some reason they do not manage to do so it.

In principle, I see merit in new clause 33. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I represent a semi-rural seat, so I know that understanding delays in accessing mental health treatment is essential if we are to have services that meet patient needs and ensure greater transparency on waiting times. All this can help identify inequalities and inform better policymaking. The requirement to examine the disparities between rural and urban areas is particularly welcome given the challenges that rural communities can face in accessing specialist mental health services. However, it should be noted that the new clause would primarily deliver a reporting mechanism rather than a solution to the problem. Although annual reviews might improve our understanding of treatment delays, they do not in themselves guarantee improvements in access, workforce capacity or service provision. There is also a question as to whether the health service already collects much of this information in other ways, and whether a new statutory review would add significant value beyond the existing reporting arrangements.

Better evidence about the scale and geographic distribution of mental health treatment delays could support more targeted interventions and help to ensure that patients are not disadvantaged simply because of where they live. The challenge will be ensuring that the findings of any review actually lead to meaningful action, rather than just becoming another reporting exercise or inquiry.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that reporting between urban and rural, which runs through these amendments, is particularly useful? Many of the solutions put forward throughout this Bill involve mayoral areas or authorities, which of course do not currently exist in many rural areas, and in some may never exist.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have talked about this issue while debating numerous clauses of the Bill. If someone were being ungenerous, they might say that there is an urban bias to this Bill. I think that it is less that than the fact that the Government have decided to use, as my hon. Friend rightly says, these mayoral structures to base health services on, when in fact, in so many areas, they either do not exist yet or, as far as we can tell, will never exist. Maybe Manchesterism will change that; we do not know. The Minister is smiling, so maybe she knows.

Regarding new clause 34 and the promotion of positive mental health, the prevention of mental illness and the reduction of stigma are obviously vital and important goals. I welcome the intention of the new clause to ensure that mental wellbeing is taken seriously across the health service. However, I have a few concerns about placing such a broad duty on a statutory footing, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked: is that not the job of the Secretary of State anyway?

As far as I can tell, new clause 34 essentially duplicates many of the responsibilities that already exist. The Secretary of State and NHS England—as currently exists—along with integrated care boards and other public bodies, are already subject to duties relating to improving health, reducing inequalities, promoting public health and improving the quality of services. Many of the objectives listed in the new clause are already capable of being pursued under those existing powers and obligations. The question therefore arises as to what additional legal effect the new duty would have.

Secondly, the concept of “mental health wellbeing”, while perhaps being a term we kind of understand, is inherently broad and rather difficult to define when we are talking about writing it into law. Unlike things such as waiting times, staffing levels, or access standards, “wellbeing” is not really a measurable outcome. I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who said in evidence that he wanted to see fewer targets, because they often have unintended consequences and skew the system towards the targets rather than what is actually required.

Mental health wellbeing could encompass life satisfaction, emotional resilience, social connections, employment, housing security and many other factors. As a result, I do not think it is clear what compliance with the duty in this new clause would look like in practice, how the success would be measured or how public bodies could demonstrate that they had fulfilled the obligations.

Finally, although the requirement for an annual report may improve visibility, as with the provision in new clause 33, there is a risk that new clause 34 could create an additional reporting obligation without necessarily improving services or outcomes. Before Parliament imposes a new statutory duty, it should be satisfied that there is a clear objective, a measurable standard against which performance can be assessed and a distinct purpose that is not already served by existing legislation or rules. I am afraid that, unless the hon. Member for Winchester comes back with a devastating argument in his wind up, I am not yet convinced that new clause 34 amendment meets that test.

Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 70, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, would require the Secretary of State to publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion in the single patient record. That is important because, as our lives become more electronic and online, there are people who are getting left behind. That could be because they have a disability that prevents or makes it more difficult for them to access online facilities, because they do not have the resources, because they live an area of the country that is less well served by digital or broadband provision, or because they are elderly and have decided that they will not get involved in the digital world.

In fact, according to the Good Things Foundation, 7.9 million people in the UK lack basic digital skills and 1.6 million adults do not have a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Of those with no basic digital skills, 77% are over 65. People need more healthcare as they get older, yet those individuals have fewer digital skills, so this issue needs to be addressed. The NHS Alliance published a report on digital inclusion in March 2026, which found that rural and coastal areas typically have higher levels of digital exclusion than urban areas.

Lincolnshire ICB, which covers the area that I represent, estimates that 21.3% of Lincolnshire’s population live in the most digitally deprived areas. The ICB has a digital inclusion strategy for 2025 to 2028, which includes efforts to try to reduce digital exclusion; I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on how she might expand that sort of initiative across the country.

The Government’s equality impact assessment for the single patient record recognises that digital exclusion is a significant challenge in several groups with particular protected characteristics and other characteristics. I am interested in learning more from the Minister about how she intends to mitigate that challenge. In many ways, digital availability is a good thing, and it makes things much easier for many people—I am not knocking it in any way—but we need to ensure that people do not get left behind.

I understand that NHS England is supporting public libraries to signpost users to the NHS website and help them navigate it. What will happen to that support as NHS England gets abolished? Does the Minister intend the Department of Health and Social Care to provide something similar?

Amendment 49, tabled in my name, is basically about public awareness. Although we get immersed in what we are doing here, the public are not necessarily following every word that is said in Committee or in this House—or even necessarily every word that appears in the press—so when the single patient record is launched, it is important that they are aware of it, and in particular, aware of their rights.

We have talked about whether a person might want to let a carer see the single patient record or whether they might want to let someone see part but not all of the record. If the record goes live before people are aware of their rights and abilities in relation to it, they might find that things are available to people, or can be viewed by people, who they would not have wished to see them, which could lead to a number of problems. The amendment would allow people to be more aware of the single patient record for a period of time before it is brought in to try to make sure that that sort of problem is mitigated, and I am interested to understand the Minister’s view on it.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish to speak on this aspect of the single patient record. Although I support the general intention and aim of the single patient record, I have some wider concerns about how it will be implemented. I will restrict my remarks to the issues related to this group of amendments, and particularly amendment 49 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Plainly, most people—I would probably include myself in this—are not immediately familiar with all the ins and outs of how their medical records are kept and used, and why should they be? However, they have some pretty clear views on what they expect, whether that is confidentiality or their records being used and stored in such a way that does not inadvertently act as a barrier to accessing healthcare in an efficient and timely way. That is why the Government have introduced these proposals, which I mainly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is right. I will not sit here and propose a solution to this problem, but what her amendment does is ensure that the Government look at this and present a plan before both Houses of Parliament, before we get to a single patient record.

I have now touched on the nefarious and the nosey. I think there is also a case of inadvertent access. With this new system, despite what the professional regulators might think, and despite the best training from the Information Commissioner’s Office, there will be occasions in a new system where people do not understand the limits of what they are allowed to look at or the appropriateness of access. There could well be inadvertent access to these systems. Again, the Government need to have a plan and system in place to ensure that there is not inadvertent, non-nefarious access to patient records as well. That is why I am very supportive of amendment 48.

To make sure that this system is trusted by patients, we need to have the highest level of safeguarding possible, both from external attacks and from internal misuse. My hon. Friend’s amendment goes a long way to putting some of that trust in place.

[Joe Robertson]

Plainly, there is already scope for this to happen and sadly patient records are wrongly accessed, either inadvertently through mistake or deliberately in bad faith. However, from a technological and design point of view, the single patient record inevitably makes that easier and more likely, whether through mistakes or deliberate acts. That is just one of the many considerations and downsides of a single patient record that is otherwise beneficial.

It is incumbent on the Government to do what they can to mitigate against those inevitable structural problems that the record will produce, and amendment 48 is an entirely sensible way of achieving that. I am always slightly reluctant to use analogies from other sectors, because plainly there are differences, but in my former life as a family law solicitor, even within a small private law firm, there were structures in place to ensure that only people who needed to access data could do so, and much of it was arguably less sensitive than patient records.

That was the case in a small firm, and because we have a national system of healthcare in this country, which is a good one, the scale of fallout and harm that could arise from such mistakes or deliberate acts is so much greater. I urge the Government not to see the amendment as seeking to undermine their overall plans, but as a means of strengthening them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson]

I am not entirely certain that I want to agree with “one of” the most valuable datasets in the world; I think it could potentially be the most valuable dataset in the world.

We know that the NHS is the largest healthcare provider in the world. We know that the data is potentially very valuable. Creating this will allow our NHS to be at the forefront of managing how it works, in a way that no other health system will be able to, and certainly to a scale that no other health system anywhere in the world will be able to. That obviously comes with risks.

I have been listening carefully, and it is important that we tease out those risks and make sure that we stay as red hot as we can on all the issues that hon. Members have raised. I go back to the salient point of whether this clause should stand part. I fully support that this measure should be part of the Bill and that we should be moving in this direction.

I have spoken about the more global ideas and the reasons why, intellectually, I think this is a good idea, but let me take an example from my home county of Staffordshire up in the west midlands. There are reports that one hospital in Staffordshire uses 450 different electronic systems, which is absolutely bananas.

For so long, we have not had a single patient record. We have not had one unifying system. Over a cup of tea with the Minister a couple of days ago, I got very excited and started talking about primary keys because, although I am not a data scientist, I like the use of data. I do not think we need to get into a situation where there is a single primary key that is instantly recognisable to everybody and where we are necessarily using some machine learning to assess that. That could potentially come later down the line. That is not what the clause is doing, and it would need a much wider discussion than we are currently having.

If we take the example of Staffordshire and its 450 different data systems in one hospital—I do not know that number for certain, although it has been reported to me by two or three colleagues—I cannot imagine the difficulties that the IT team has in trying to get that number of systems to talk to each other. It will be nigh on impossible. All it leads to is delays. All it leads to is people having to reproduce data from one system to another manually. By creating an overarching single patient record, we will force it to happen.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. A single patient record is not the same thing as mandating that 450 record-keeping systems become one. In fact, the single patient record will work as a theory on paper only if there is interoperability between different databases. That is a massive challenge that is not dealt with here. It cannot be dealt with here, in the real world, and the single patient record will not be realised until it is dealt with, which could take years. Does the hon. Member have a reflection on that point?

[Dave Robertson]

I appreciate the intervention, and it is nice for the hon. Member to get me back after I got him the other week. He is absolutely right. I do not think anybody in this room expects that after we have this discussion and the clause forms part of the Bill, and after the Bill goes through the parliamentary process and hopefully becomes an Act very soon, the next day there will instantly be this magical, ethereal thing called a single patient record and everything will drop into place immediately. I have a bridge to sell to anybody who thinks that.

What the clause does is put the NHS on a path to being able to deal with data appropriately, in a 21st-century way, by adding the ability and requirement for the NHS to use data appropriately. In terms of how that is done technically, I am very far from a computer programmer—I have done a tiny bit in parts of my life, and it always drives me absolutely wild—but there would be a number of architectures that could be used to make this work. I am not an expert and would not profess to be or to give anybody advice on that.

An advantage of the way the Bill is written is that things can be picked up by secondary legislation, which can go into a lot more technical detail. That is a real strength of how this is drafted. If we tried to mandate in primary legislation, in an Act of Parliament, far too granular a level of data science and information technology architecture, we would run a real risk of falling behind. Everybody is very aware of AI, and it is rare that I go a day without hearing people talk about it. Quantum is just behind it, and it is potentially much more disruptive and much more beneficial to huge parts of the economy, especially healthcare.

Trying to do everything through primary legislation is absolute folly. However, making sure we have primary legislation that allows us to drive the NHS into this space and to require and enable the NHS to stay on top of the proper use of data and to modernise its structures and practices can only be a good thing.

I close by saying that I absolutely support clause 47 standing part of the Bill. It has the potential to drive huge improvements in the NHS, both on a local scale and on a more global scale.

[Joe Robertson]

I will pick up where the hon. Member for Lichfield left off.

I make it clear that a single patient record is not a single electronic record-keeping system. Also, the single patient record is a theory, and it will remain a theory long after this legislation has been passed, as I am sure it will be, unless and until the electronic record-keeping databases and software in this country are able to speak to each other.

I have experience of working for a national nursing charity, and my role specifically dealt with the legal and governance issues of trying to embed community nurses in different settings. However, that work was beset by the problem of different databases—different electronic record-keeping systems—that did not speak to each other. Even those systems that were supposed to speak to each other did not do so. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, sometimes there can be dozens, even hundreds, within even one NHS trust.

That should not be a problem today, but it is, and the Bill will get us no further on the technicalities and the technology problems we have. These systems are already meant to speak to each other, and we do not need legislation to realise that should be happening. Indeed, there are still paper record-keeping systems in many places up and down the country. The theory of a single patient record is a good one, but it will mean nothing in practice until those paper record-keeping systems have become electronic and then all the electronic systems speak to each other.

That makes me wonder whether a single patient record will ever be realised, regardless of legislation on the model that is supposed to exist. Indeed, the Bill does not mandate a single preferred electronic record-keeping system, and nor should it; there is a competitive market out there in which NHS trusts are free to engage and contract with different providers of electronic record-keeping.

I wrote to the local health bosses in my area after being made aware that the provider of one of their main electronic record-keeping systems had offered to extend the system further throughout the trust in order to save money. However, the trust has not yet responded. I am not in a position to say whether that offer is a better one, but on the face of it, it certainly looked like it would save money because it was a record-keeping system that the trust was already using; it just was not being used across all parts of the trust. That letter has gone unanswered for a year. It is not just a technological issue; there is also a cultural issue of the lack of nimble, joined-up decision making.

Some health bosses, not necessarily those in my area, are unable to take advantage of the financial benefits of changing or adapting to using new systems. Until that is resolved, a single patient record will remain ever wanted but never actually delivered.

To use an analogy, different companies provide the services on people’s mobile phones—the internet access, social media; software and even hardware. Most of us end up with a smartphone that does pretty similar things to every other smartphone and, broadly speaking, all the different apps co-operate with each other. Of course, the major global technology companies have faced legal action in the US, Europe, this country and elsewhere to ensure that their systems talk to each other, and primary legislation has been required to make them do that.

[Dave Robertson]

The phone analogy is really valuable. I am not an expert on the various architectures that make up phone operating systems, but I know a little about drivers and a little about computer programming languages. The hon. Gentleman is right that all the different bits of hardware in every single phone speak to themselves in a different language. Lots of them use different computer programming languages, and they all require drivers to translate that into whatever the operating system uses.

There are two or three major providers when it comes to mobile phones in the UK: Google and Android, and iOS. There is effectively a requirement on the phone companies that says, “If you want your app to be on our phones, it’s going to have to be able to use this language.” Depending on the operating system, the language will be slightly different, but the commercial requirement that apps must be able to use a certain language obliges the individual app producers and the individual pieces of hardware to have the driver to translate whatever language they use to talk to themselves into the one that works with the operating system.

Does the hon. Gentleman think there is a parallel in the Bill? Having a piece of legislation that requires a single patient record, whatever that looks like and whatever language it uses, potentially shortcuts some of the problems he is talking about with using a plethora of systems. Rather than having 450 systems, which could potentially use 450 languages, and trying to teach all of them all 450 languages, we create the requirement to use a specific language. We then teach all 450 one additional language and they will all be able to feed in—

[Dave Robertson]

Apologies.

[Joe Robertson]

That was a long intervention, but it was helpful. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the legislation is not seeking to require technology companies or the providers of electronic record-keeping systems to be able to talk to each other. It is trying to create the concept of a single patient record, which is good, but it does not mandate a way to achieve that. I do not particularly want to name companies, but a big provider that is already in the health space and that provides electronic record-keeping systems might say, “We can already provide a single patient record. It is for other providers to adapt and feed into our record-keeping system,” and there is nothing in the Bill that says one technology company must adapt to another.

The technological issue is completely unaddressed. I am not even saying that it should be addressed in the Bill, because there are all sorts of issues around competition law and state support for particular companies. It is not a criticism per se of the way in which the Bill drafted, but this is an opportune moment to make the point that absolutely none of the clause will be delivered until a major issue that the Government have not yet addressed is dealt with. That issue is the interoperability of different electronic record-keeping systems provided by the private sector. They are all in competition with each other to get a bigger share of the market; unless and until that is addressed, the Government are not going to realise any of this. I do not want that to be the case. I want the single patient record to be realised, broadly speaking.

[Sojan Joseph]

I wish to speak in support of clause 47. I spoke on Second Reading about my strong support for the introduction of a single patient record. I am not a tech expert like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—

--- Later in debate ---

Those are just some examples. In my constituency, a patient’s records are kept in five, six or seven different locations.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I have been trying to. He referred to a number of companies that each provide an electronic record-keeping system. The Bill does not mandate those companies to speak to each other and create a single patient record; there is no requirement on those private companies to do anything. As they are in competition with each other, their answer could be, “We can provide the single patient record—we are already doing it—if you just use more of our system and pay us more money.”

I am not suggesting that this is the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility, but does he have anything to say about the practicalities of a single patient record as a theory and the interoperability of electronic record keeping—a practical thing not dealt with in the Bill?

[Sojan Joseph]

My patient record is currently kept by different organisations or providers, which cannot see each other. If I speak to the GP about my blood sugar and then end up in A&E, they cannot see that record. If I go to the mental health service, they cannot see what medication I was taking. When I get discharged back to the GP, he will not get the information on my medication. That is the clinical aspect I am talking about, although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope the Minister will address some of those issues.

The responses I collected demonstrate how disparate and fragmented digital record systems are within just one local area. I do not think any of our constituents are aware that their data is kept in different places and that the services do not talk to each other. That is what the Bill is trying to address. All that information will be available for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare providers so that they can see patients’ history and medication and those patients will be more safe. Things will be more transparent. It will be easier for admission to discharge processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I turn first to new clause 7. Patient data is at the heart of the NHS, and it is important to help plan and run health and social care services; we have discussed that before, and a lot of these points have already been recorded in our earlier conversations. The security and privacy of people’s health and care data are paramount. To be clear, the Bill does not rewrite our data protection laws; it works alongside them, allowing the NHS to use existing, lawful frameworks to share information safely and legally for the direct care of patients. Article 25 of the UK general data protection regulation already applies to the federated data platform, and will apply to the single patient record. The new clause is therefore not necessary.

In the NHS, there are different ways in which patient information is used, and not all of them involve asking for explicit consent each time. For example, if a GP refers someone to a hospital, that person would not expect the clinician reviewing the case to ask their permission before looking at their medical record; their agreement is understood as part of seeking care. That is called implied consent. Although a national data opt-out exists, it applies only to data used for secondary purposes such as research and planning.

The single patient record is expected to operate roles-based access control, whereby permission to access patient information is restricted to authorised users only, with an audit trail of who has accessed the patient’s data. Inappropriate or unauthorised access to health records, often referred to as snooping, is a serious offence. There are mechanisms to manage that, including prosecution and fines.

In 2025-26, we invested £75 million across health and social care, building on the £375 million invested since 2017. Through our ambitious cyber improvement programme, we are tackling the changing cyber risk head on, expanding protection and services to better protect the health and care system. The single patient record system is expected to be assessed as critical national infrastructure, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance to meet our existing duties to keep personal data safe under the data protection legislative framework.

I turn to new clause 8. No decision has been made about who will be the IT suppliers of the single patient record. It is expected and intended that it will be delivered through contracts with multiple suppliers, which will reduce dependency on a single supplier. Furthermore, no decision has been made as to how, if at all, the single patient record will link to existing infrastructure such as the federated data platform. As hon. Members will expect, I would not support using the Bill to try to rewrite the contract for the federated data platform.

Hon. Members have discussed a wide range of issues relating to this area. They probably know that negotiating the intellectual property in relation to software in digital services is complex and often contentious. The new clause would make it a condition of any single patient record IT supplier contract that the NHS owns the intellectual property in data connector software, regardless of the circumstances. In practical terms, that would be likely to disincentivise suppliers from offering their services if they were required to sacrifice the IP of a product. It is unnecessary to impose such a condition, as there are other ways in which the NHS can ensure that software is reusable, such as broad general licences to use the data connector software in whatever manner, requirements to use industry standard code and interfaces, and information standards.

The recent changes to the NHS information standards in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 make relevant IT suppliers accountable for meeting information standards and enable the Government to monitor and enforce compliance with information standards by IT suppliers. We wish to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, while ensuring that patients get the best technology to improve care outcomes and to keep the NHS financially sustainable. That will give the NHS more choice and help to improve standards while supporting economic growth.

We have had what they call a wide-ranging discussion on some things that are not actually in the clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it is absolutely right, and we have heard some excellent examples from Members with clinical experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will now be forever known as Data Dave—sorry about that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has clinical experience and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has NHS experience, as do I. That experience is really valuable. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments and had a long list of questions, most of which are addressed in various pieces of information that we have put forward. However, I take the point about the intellectual difficulties of what the clause does. We all agree with it, as does the country, and patients think it already happens.

We are an outlier in this sphere. The Government are going to change that situation. However, these questions and concerns are the reason why we take through secondary legislation, which is something that we all understand but the outside world does not. We need to bring people with us. Our officials have come to talk to Members of Parliament about the Bill. I am open to suggestions from Members about the best way to address the issues, and particularly about the best way to inform Members on behalf of constituents. These discussions are important to building public trust and security.

I will finish on a broader point. I commend clause 47, which gives an enabling power, but let us be very clear that patient information will still be held in the system in which it was originally created. These bodies, whether GPs or hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring that the data is handled securely and lawfully and is accessed for valid reasons only. As I mentioned earlier, we have shared systems operating already. Some parts of the country and some of our constituents are already experiencing some of the benefits of a shared system. We will use that experience and learn the lessons of the past, under whichever Government, to build for the rest of the country the shared systems that some people have already. We will come on later to provisions on devolution arrangements, on working for the future and on operating more efficiently across devolved areas.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that the data will continue to be stored and held in the databases in the electronic record-keeping system where it is currently kept. I am not looking for her to give me a detailed solution on the spot, but does she accept that unless there is seamless interoperability across all those systems the single patient record will not be realised, and that we are still an awfully long way from seamless interoperability across England, let alone the UK?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to spend the next hour talking about the shocking state of the capital and infrastructure systems that we inherited from the previous Government, but I will not. Of course they do not work: that is one of the biggest issues around staff morale. We saw through the 10-year health plan, particularly with clinicians having to log on to nearly 10 different systems, how that impedes progress and efficiency at a local level. Where it is rolled out, the federated data platform helps to make systems more efficient, particularly in local hospitals. We heard in our evidence sessions about maternity and frailty, which are the areas in which we will be testing and rolling out this approach to make the best use of it on the ground. Alongside that, the work to make systems more interoperable and efficient at a local level continues. I commend clause 47 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Information about health service products

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a comprehensive speech and getting to the nub of all the relevant points. He talks about the system failing; to me, that is the absolute nub. The CQC is absolutely part of the system and of the establishment. If anyone is put off from making a complaint to the CQC when they think the CQC may be to blame, how on earth can the functions currently exercised by HSSIB continue in any effective way?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes several key points, and he is absolutely right: what problem are the Government trying to solve here? If we believe in independence, believe in an investigatory body and believe it is working well—and it demonstrably is working well—why on earth would we change it? That goes to a further point: these clauses not only potentially provide for a transfer of HSSIB into CQC but add risk and failure in that procedure.

My hon. Friend asks how we can be confident that the system is going to work if a patient or a clinician does not want to put their head above the parapet because they are frightened that there will be regulatory consequence. That is a fundamental problem with the Government’s proposal. As I have said several times in this speech, we have not had the answer to that and no answer seems to be forthcoming. I may touch on that in a bit more detail in a moment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash was clear on this topic when he gave evidence to the Committee:

“My concern was that the NHS and actually health systems across the world are not very good at learning lessons when there are tragedies.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 29, Q52.]

That is the problem that HSSIB was created to address and why I struggle with the Government’s argument. If the problem is that the NHS does not learn lessons effectively, the answer should be to strengthen the organisation designed specifically to help it to learn, not to weaken the independence of that organisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash identified the precise part of the system that remains broken. He said:

“the Bill does not do anything to address the bit that is not working well, and that bit is that the NHS is still very poor on acting on recommendations that are made”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 30, Q52.]

That is the crucial point. The Government’s justification for the merger appears to be based on a concern that there are too many recommendations, too many reviews and too much duplication, but the evidence of my right hon. Friend highlights a different problem. The issue is not that we do not know what needs to change but that we too often fail to act on what we already know. The answer to that problem is not fewer independent investigations but stronger accountability for implementing recommendations. Indeed, my right hon. Friend made that point powerfully in his evidence. He explained that

“What there needs to be is a formal system with a legal obligation on the Government.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 30, Q53.]

He warned that too often recommendations disappear into what he described as “agree in principle”, which allows organisations to acknowledge a problem without committing to a timetable for fixing it.

The Government are proposing structural change because recommendations are not always acted on, but the problem is not the existence of HSSIB; it is the absence of sufficient accountability when recommendations are made. The Government appear to be addressing the wrong failure. There is another important point from my right hon. Friend’s evidence. He explained that one of the long-term purposes of HSSIB was to reduce the need for expensive public inquiries. He told the Committee that

“Ideally, when something goes wrong, what you want is for there to be an investigation and for lessons to be learned, so that grieving families can say, ‘Well, at least we are confident that this wouldn’t happen again.’”

However, because families often lack confidence that lessons will actually be learned, they understandably seek public inquiries. My right hon. Friend explained:

“families still think the only way they can get real change is through a public inquiry”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 32, Q56.]

That is an important warning. If confidence in HSSIB is reduced, the unintended consequence may be more public inquiries, not fewer—more cost, more delay and, most importantly, more time before lessons are learned and acted on. That is the opposite of what the Government say they want to achieve.

The Government’s second argument is that safe space can be protected through legislation. I accept that Ministers intend to preserve those protections; however, the evidence we have heard demonstrates that the issue is not simply one of statutory wording but of culture and confidence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash gave a particularly important example: he explained that the CQC plays a vital role because it rates healthcare organisations. Hospitals and GP practices care deeply about whether they are rated “outstanding”, “good”, “requires improvement” or “inadequate”. His concern was this:

“If a staff member is talking openly to HSSIB about a failure of governance in their organisation, and that is the same organisation that could decide whether they get stripped of their ‘outstanding’ rating and downgraded to ‘good’ or ‘requires improvement’, my concern is that some people may worry and say, ‘Maybe I shouldn’t be open, because this could affect my hospital’s rating.’”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 33-34, Q59.]

That is the practical problem: the Government’s argument relies on the assumption that staff will distinguish perfectly between different parts of the same organisation, but the concern is that a frontline clinician may not see those internal distinctions. They may simply see that the investigator and the regulator now sit under the same roof. When people are deciding whether to disclose something that may have consequences for themselves, their colleagues or their organisation, perception matters. As my right hon. Friend said,

“we have to be really careful that people still have confidence in the safe space function if this merger goes ahead.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 34, Q59.]

A similar point was made by Professor Carl Macrae from the University of Nottingham. While giving evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, he said that it is difficult to conceive how legislation alone could overcome the fundamental conflict created by merging an independent safety investigation body with a regulator, given that the two organisations perform inherently different functions.

The Government’s case depends on trust surviving that merger, but the evidence tells us that trust is precisely what is at risk. Dr Benneyworth made a similar point from HSSIB’s perspective. She told this Committee:

“There needs to be much more clarity about governance and how that will work in the legislation to protect independence.”

She went further and suggested that if the Government proceed, there would need to be much stronger safeguards, including

“a legal duty on the CQC to protect the safe space.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 26, Q44.]

That evidence is significant because it is not a witness arguing that change is impossible; it is the organisation at the centre of this proposal telling this Committee that the legislation, as drafted, does not provide sufficient reassurance.

The Government’s response cannot simply be that they intend to be careful. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said that the integration would be approached with “enormous care”, but we have to ask what that actually means in legal terms. Where are the enforceable safeguards? What prevents a gradual erosion of independence once HSSIB is part of the regulator? History tells us that institutional safeguards matter precisely because they protect against future changes in culture, leadership or priorities. A body can begin with the best of intentions, but still drift over time—that is why Parliament creates independent institutions in the first place. It is not because Ministers are untrustworthy; it is because good governance recognises that structures matter. In this case, the structure matters enormously.

Those concerns become even more significant when we consider the legal framework around protected information and the practical operation of safe space. The Government’s argument appears to rest on the belief that if the right protections are written into legislation, the independence of HSSIB can be preserved, but the evidence we have heard suggests that the challenge is much more fundamental. The question is not simply whether information is legally protected but whether staff, patients and families will continue to believe that it is protected. That distinction matters.

During our evidence session, Dr Benneyworth highlighted a very specific concern about the drafting of the legislation. She explained that, at present, the clauses related to connected individuals could create uncertainty about who in the CQC might have access to protected material. She said:

“The legislation needs to be much clearer around the protection of protected disclosure materials, to give the system confidence in our ability to hold and not share confidential information.”—[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 25, Q41.]

That is the crucial point: the success of HSSIB depends on confidence that information provided in confidence will remain within the investigation process. If there is uncertainty about whether information could move elsewhere in the organisation, the very existence of that uncertainty risks undermining safe space.

Dr Benneyworth went further. She explained:

“There needs to be a legal duty on the CQC to protect the safe space.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 25, Q41.]

That is a remarkable admission. The organisation whose functions are being transferred to the CQC is telling Parliament that the Bill, as drafted, does not provide that sufficient certainty. The Government’s response cannot simply be that everyone involved will act in good faith. Good governance requires more than good intentions; it requires a structure that protects independence, regardless of who happens to lead an organisation in future, who is Secretary of State or who is in government. That is why Parliament creates these independent bodies in the first place.

There is also a practical issue that cannot be dismissed. Dr Benneyworth explained that HSSIB is unique because it can investigate every part of the healthcare system, including national bodies. She told the Committee:

“At the moment, we have the ability, being an independent organisation, to investigate any part of the system where there is a concern.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 23, Q38.]

That includes looking at how national systems operate, how regulators function and how different parts of the health service interact. That independence is important, because sometimes the problem is not the provider delivering care; sometimes the problem is the system around it.

A regulator may look at whether an organisation has complied with standards; an independent investigator may ask a different question: why did the system make it possible for failure to happen? The questions are complementary, but not interchangeable. Dr Benneyworth made precisely that point when discussing national failures. She explained that some problems cannot be solved by regulating an individual organisation, because the underlying issue sits elsewhere in the system. She said that is not something that can be changed by a regulator—a fundamental distinction. Regulation can identify whether standards have been met and independent investigation can identify whether the system itself needs to change. Both functions are necessary, but combining them risks weakening both.

Those concerns sit within a wider challenge on candour in healthcare. The statutory duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into the failures of the Mid Staffordshire health trust. The duty’s purpose was straightforward: when something goes wrong, patients and families should receive an honest explanation. Despite that legal duty, however, evidence remains of a defensive culture within parts of healthcare. Legal advice can sometimes encourage organisations to think first about liability, rather than about learning. Administrators can understandably become concerned about litigation risk—and where fear dominates, openness suffers. That is precisely why the safe space matters.

HSSIB was created to provide an environment where the priority is not defending an organisation, but understanding what happened. If we weaken confidence in that environment, we risk making the wider culture of candour even harder to achieve. The irony, of course, is that the Government argue that the merger will strengthen patient safety, and yet the evidence suggests that it could weaken one of the most important ingredients of patient safety: openness.

I also want to express concerns shared with me directly by people working within HSSIB. During a meeting with some of my constituents who work in the organisation, individuals involved in patient safety investigations raised significant concerns about the proposed move. They believe that bringing HSSIB into the CQC represents a backward step for patient safety. They also expressed concern that the rationale for the merger has shifted. Initially, the argument appeared to focus on streamlining and reducing duplication; increasingly, however, it appears to be about reducing the number of safety recommendations being made. That misunderstands the problem.

As I have pointed out before, the challenge is not the existence of recommendations but ensuring that those recommendations lead to action. Indeed, I was informed that HSSIB has already been developing a recommendations monitoring system, specifically designed to improve implementation and oversight. In other words, the organisation is already working to address the very issue now being used as justification for restructuring it. That brings me back to the evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash. He identified what I believe to be the central weakness in the Government’s argument:

“the Bill does not do anything to address the bit that is not working well, and that bit is that the NHS is still very poor on acting on recommendations that are made”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 30, Q52.]

That is the point that Ministers need to answer. If recommendations are not being implemented, strengthen implementation; if accountability is weak, strengthen accountability; and if learning is not embedded, create mechanisms to ensure that learning happens—but do not weaken the independence of a body responsible for identifying those lessons. The risk is that the Government solve the wrong problem. They will remove the independence of the investigator, while leaving untouched the failure to act on what investigators discover.

After considering the evidence presented to this Committee, the evidence that we heard in the Select Committee and my conversations with my constituents and others, I remain unable to support clauses 59 to 63. That is not because I oppose reform or believe that the patient safety landscape cannot improve—of course it can. The NHS must continue to learn, adapt and improve, but improvement requires honesty about what is working and what is not. The evidence suggests that HSSIB’s independent investigative model is one of the things that is working and that failure lies elsewhere. It lies in whether recommendations are being implemented, whether organisations learn quickly enough and whether staff feel safe enough to speak up. The answer to those problems is not to remove independence, but to strengthen it.

The creation of HSSIB represented a recognition by Parliament that healthcare needed the same principles of independent safety investigation that serve aviation, rail and other high-risk industry so well. Those principles exist for a reason: when something goes wrong, society needs an organisation that people trust to ask what happened, why it happened and what must change to prevent it from happening again. That organisation must be separate from those responsible for regulating the system. It must be able to investigate without fear or favour. It must command the confidence of patients, families and healthcare professionals.

The Government say that the protections will remain, but the evidence we have heard overwhelmingly demonstrates that confidence in those protections is precisely what is at risk. Once institutional independence is removed, it simply cannot be recreated through internal guidance or assurances. The structure matters, the culture matters and the trust matters.

For those reasons, I urge the Minister to reconsider clauses 59 to 63. If the Government believe that improvements can be made to co-ordination, accountability or implementation, discussions on that should absolutely continue and the Opposition would welcome them. However, the clauses go much further. They remove the independent status, which is so important. Given the enormous human and financial cost of avoidable harm in healthcare, Parliament should be extremely cautious before weakening one of the few mechanisms specifically designed to prevent it.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that the Minister is a diligent and thoughtful Minister who knows her brief very well, so I hope that she will reflect on the points made in Committee and reconsider the clauses.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The issues relating to clause 59, principally the abolition of HSSIB, have been well articulated, not least by my colleagues on this side. I wish to add some of my own views too.

The debate has been framed as a transfer of the functions of HSSIB to the CQC, and indeed that is the title of the clause. The Minister has certainly articulated her arguments in that way. Effectively, it is the abolition of HSSIB. In fact, clause 59(1) plainly says:

“The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is abolished.”

Its functions may be transferred, but that is quite a significant change, and I do not want that to be lost within the context of this debate. At the heart of it is this idea around investigatory and regulatory functions. While the argument remains technical—and it is of course easier for the Government and indeed Dr Dash to make the arguments to abolish HSSIB in the abstract—when we talk about the real-life implications and how real people react to different circumstances, it is plainly very significant and negative.

That is particularly true when it comes to investigating where things went wrong and when the system is at least in question and could be at fault. When there are things that need airing that people are afraid to air, confidence in the new framework is essential. Regardless of the systems, processes or protocols that the Government may wish to put in place to ensure that the safe space concept continues to exist, who on earth, if they are worried about making disclosures, will be satisfied and confident that those in the CQC, who may themselves be at fault, will not learn about a disclosure to the arm of the CQC that is empowered and entrusted with investigating the problem? An independent organisation, which HSSIB currently is, provides not just technical confidence but genuine confidence that people can speak freely on matters that may well be extremely unhelpful to their employer or the CQC—the national regulator itself.

As the hon. Member for North Shropshire noted about the Shrewsbury and Telford situation, it developed while the CQC gave a good rating. It may be that the CQC was fair in doing that, but it does not look good in the eyes of the public, and it will be a consideration for individuals seeking to make disclosures to an investigation. What will the public think?

[Gregory Stafford]

As I said throughout my speech, I am against this proposal whatever the nature of the CQC. However, does it strike my hon. Friend, as it strikes me, that the problems of moving the functions of HSSIB into the CQC are compounded given that the CQC, as he alluded to, is not functioning well and does not have the confidence of patients and clinicians?

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend leads me to a point I was going to make later, but I will make it now. He is absolutely right: the CQC has not had a lot of good press and does not instil a high degree of confidence in professionals and the public. That is a very real issue. The Minister and, I think, Dr Dash have said that the transfer of powers from HSSIB to the CQC will not happen until it is in a better place, and that is all very well, but these changes are intended to last for a long time—indefinitely, presumably. To merely wait until an organisation is in a better place to transfer those powers, and to expect that organisation to remain in a better place in perpetuity, is wishful thinking.

The CQC has had leadership issues. We all hope and I am sure that the leadership will be in a better place in the near future, but if an organisation can be in such a bad place because of a failure of leadership, those circumstances can return in the future. Of course, it might be leadership failings within the regulator that HSSIB is asked to investigate. Again, if its functions are delivered by a regulatory organisation with leadership failings, there will be no confidence whatever that a truly independent and meaningful investigation can take place.

Let us not forget that the public are somewhat jaded by investigations, inquiries and reports—justifiably so. They clearly have a valuable function, but their function is far more valuable if there is confidence in them. If a powerful organisation such as the CQC—the regulator—can effectively mark its own homework, that does nothing to help the reputation of investigations and inquiries with the public. I suspect that the problem with them in the public’s mind is that it always looks a little bit like the establishment is looking at itself and coming up with an argument it can then justify. There is a perception that that does not lead to meaningful change. With this Bill, we will create an environment where that perception is even stronger.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting the importance of independence, and trust in the independence, of the organisations investigating failures and making recommendations. Does he agree that that is only half of it? Those organisations are not at fault when recommendations are not implemented, so the other half of this is that the NHS and the system need to act on those recommendations when they are made.

[Joe Robertson]

It is, of course. I have been focusing on public perception, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that that is only one part of it—an important part of it. Probably, the most important part is what actually happens, and that requires the NHS to learn and improve, which is very unlikely to be improved by this proposal.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very important case about the importance of the perception of independence and the safe space actually being safe. There is a risk that people feel that they will be hounded or—

Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq.

New clause 6 raises an important question on how we govern health data, which one of the greatest assets of the NHS. The development of the single patient record platform and database, and the wider use of the linked NHS data, present enormous opportunities.

When used responsibly, healthcare data can support much more personalised care, improve NHS planning, accelerate medical research, enable earlier diagnoses and help develop new medicines and treatments. It can also improve efficiency and strengthen the evidence base for healthcare decisions. However, those benefits can be realised only if the public have the confidence that their data will be used safely, ethically and transparently. Public trust must be the foundation of any successful health data policy.

NHS health data is currently overseen by NHS England, following the merger of NHS Digital into that organisation. With the Government proceeding with the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions elsewhere, it is right that we consider future governance arrangements. In principle, I agree that an independent body may be needed to ensure and maintain the security, integrity and responsible stewardship of NHS data. There is definitely scope for an independent body to oversee the management and regulation of the public’s health data. That proposal places patient privacy at its heart, and would strengthen safeguards against misuse, give patients greater control over how their information is used, and provide meaningful mechanisms to opt out of certain forms of data sharing. It also promotes the use of anonymisation and trusted research environments, allowing valuable research to take place while reducing the risk of inappropriate disclosure. We have discussed inappropriate disclosure by a malign actor, or even inadvertent disclosure, during debate on other clauses.

The Liberal Democrat new clause also seeks to address a concern that has attracted significant public attention: where commercial organisations derive substantial value from NHS data, the NHS itself should share in that benefit. Although we did not support a number of Liberal Democrat proposals because of the inadvertent implications of their drafting, I still have sympathy with the overall thrust of what they were trying to achieve. There is a strong argument that the value generated from the data contributed by NHS patients should help to support future patient care and research.

Transparency is another important feature. Publishing data-sharing agreements, increasing openness around decision making and consulting the public on significant new data initiatives would help to strengthen public confidence. The proposed trust would bring those principles together by overseeing data use, monitoring compliance with governance standards, ensuring transparency and, where necessary, suspending access for organisations that misuse their data.

Of course, any new governance framework must avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or delaying important research. To reassure the Committee that the framework would not create a block or dampener, or insert inertia into the system, will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell us what evidence she found when drafting the new clause? If we are going to do something like this, the oversight should be proportionate, and it should complement, rather than duplicate or frustrate, any existing regulatory responsibilities.

Ultimately, the new clause has potential benefits. It would establish a clear social contract for NHS health data, which would hopefully protect privacy, support research and innovation, maintain public trust and ensure that patients and the NHS share in the benefits arising from the responsible use of a very valuable national asset. In terms of what it could be used for, that data is probably second to none in the world, but I am concerned about adding extra bureaucracy and inertia to the system, when we want a vibrant life-sciences industry that is able to use the data for the benefit of British citizens and patients. What does the hon. Member for North Shropshire think would happen in that case?

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has set out the arguments clearly; I will just add some of my own views. As he stated, the single patient record provides a unique and special opportunity to improve efficiency across the whole health and social care space and to empower patients, but it faces significant challenges. As I said in an earlier sitting, perhaps one of the biggest challenges is ensuring that it means something in practice. In a previous debate, the Minister helpfully clarified that the data currently held on a great variety of databases and electronic record-keeping systems in the NHS will remain on those wide and disparate recording systems. It seems that the advantages will be realised only if those systems are able to speak together and are fully interoperable.

I know from a previous time in my career that, in reality, many such systems are not interoperable or are only part-interoperable, and that, even where they do speak to one another, the data is collected and recorded in different ways. Simple things—someone’s name, their age or the principal field of the issue for which they are presenting to a clinician—are recorded, but because the systems are not standardised, that data cannot be transferred between them easily.

The advantages of the single patient record will be realised only when all those systems are unified in some form, but the Bill does not address that directly. I am not necessarily suggesting that it should, but I do not see the Government acknowledging anywhere that systems are contracted and provided by private providers through procurement processes at a local level, and asking, “How do we knit that all together?” It seems that somebody somewhere will have to produce some gateway software or system to allow the single patient record to be accessed. If every other existing system needs to be able to feed into that, the public sector will have a huge role, and the private sector will sit behind it to try to deliver that. It seems a huge project that could be fraught with difficulty, it could take many years before the single patient record is established, regardless of when the Bill is passed—although I am sure it will be passed fairly soon.

New clause 6 seeks to address another significant issue with the single patient record: security and the control of data. The single patient record, if fully realised, will make it easier for data to be accessed and shared. Its very purpose is to ensure that systems and services are more integrated and data flows more freely, to avoid the ridiculous situations in which a GP fills out a patient note but cannot share it with a secondary care provider, so must print it out for the patient, or attach a PDF to an email, so that somebody at the other end can input it to their database.

One issue with making it easier to share data—including personal data of the most intimate kind—is that once it has been accessed by bad-faith operators, it is easier for them to run riot and cause an awful lot of damage. It is also much easier for wider access to be shared accidentally, because the whole system is lubricated by the single patient record. I therefore understand the reason for the health data charter as a cure for potential ills.

New clause 6(3)(b) states that the charter must

“include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation”.

That is a fantastic goal that we all support, but I do not necessarily agree that the measure will achieve that. It is an added layer of bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon asked a rhetorical question about the bureaucracy and effectiveness. I endorse that question and hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will answer it.

I am minded not to support the proposal, though I agree with what it tries to achieve. If the Minister does not support the new clause, will she explain how its aim of protecting people’s privacy will be delivered by the Bill? There seems to be great scope for the undermining and abuse of privacy, not just deliberately by bad faith actors, but inadvertently.

A second issue aim of the charter is the balance between the security of personal data and the recognition of the value of anonymised data gathered by the NHS for research and development. Fully anonymised data that cannot be unpicked through reverse engineering is of huge value, both commercially and for the public good. Commercial value and the public good are not necessarily opposed to each other; in fact, they often come together. The NHS should be able to exploit the value of that anonymised data—“exploit” is probably seen as a negative word—for the public good. How do we balance that with people’s right to privacy?

Again, there is the possibility of inadvertently using for a wider public good data that was intended to be anonymised but in which people can be identified. The charter tries to get to the heart of that issue as well, which I welcome. Indeed, new clause 6(4)(a) states that the sovereign health data trust will

“hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment”.

The Minister may not agree with the new clause, but how will the Government’s proposals balance the security of an individual’s personal data while exploiting, for the public good, the value of the huge depth of anonymised data that the NHS holds and will hold? It could be used to drive so much innovative research and development, for the benefit of health delivery not only in this country, but across the world. Such a valuable commodity has commercial value that could deliver financial benefit to the NHS. I think we all agree that we have not yet exploited that area to the fullest. There is an opportunity to do so with the single patient record—if it is done properly, with all the necessary safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I would be interested in whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire has made any estimates of personnel time or cost that the proposal would entail.

In summary, the new clause would create an unelected committee removing democratic control. Essentially, it is asking a committee of unelected individuals to write and implement policy, which is the job of the Minister. That should be under ministerial control.

[Joe Robertson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an overarching issue here of public confidence in the safety of their data? That is not about one company or another; it is about ensuring that robust safeguards are in place for everyone and for every provider of a data and record-keeping system. If the public do not have confidence, they will understandably withdraw consent for their data being held. That will undermine the single patient record and the whole way in which health can be delivered efficiently in the best interests of patients.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. I am sure that the purpose behind the new clause is to ensure that data is safe, but it removes democratic accountability from the process of developing the policy, which may reduce the public’s confidence in it. I agree with its underlying principles, but much of it is cumbersome and, as yet, undefined, so it is important that we get more detail and specificity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I am grateful to the hon. Member; she makes an interesting point. She talks about irony, and I respond in the same manner as that which she intervened on me with a gentle response, which is to ask why, if everything was going so swimmingly well, she and the rest of her colleagues got rid of the Prime Minister?

[Joe Robertson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity not to chunter from a sedentary position and to remark that this tedious rhetoric about the last 14 years—when all the public want to do is hear about plans for the future and how they will work—is the reason why we are in the state that we are. Will my hon. Friend continue and address the points that the public want, which he had already begun to do?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public do not want to hear about the last 14 years or the rhetoric around them.

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dave Robertson]

I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard—[Interruption.] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter.

There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role.

New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I find myself unequal to the level of analysis and detail that the hon. Member for Lichfield brought to public health in the Ministry of Defence.

I will add just a few brief thoughts. The good intention of extending the life expectancy of the people in this country—although my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the good point that it is about living well, not just for a long time—is not always best served by creating committees, and additional duties, reports and responsibilities in legislation.

The hon. Member for Winchester argued—I paraphrase, but it is a matter of record—that he would like all Departments to have an eye on the health of the nation. That sounds sensible. There are other things that I would hope all Ministers have an eye on in everything they do, such as the wealth of the nation and inequality, but I would not advocate for embedding those things—I hope they would come with good governance, public duty and responsibility—in legislation as a duty, a committee, a set of meetings and a report. Indeed, it is things done with good intentions that lead to growing bureaucracy, which slows down decision making and requires more people to be employed to discharge those duties at a growing cost to the public purse. It is something that western democracies do all too well, and not always for the good. I would not want this well-intended set of new clauses to lead to growing bureaucracy with very little benefit. The benefit that the hon. Gentleman wants to see, which I agree with, can be best delivered in other ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It would be a very slippery slope to write that into legislation. I understand the motivation—as I often do—behind Liberal Democrat new clause 76, but I do not think its drafting is appropriate in this context, and I cannot support it.

[Joe Robertson]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we on the Health and Social Care Committee heard from the Secretary of State yesterday. These new clauses were obviously drafted in advance, but the timing of their consideration is rather good.

We had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State, who sits right at the top of the Department, some fairly basic questions about the deal that will apparently see the NHS pay 25% more for US drugs than it does currently. We asked, for example, how much it will cost. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, skewered the Secretary of State within minutes. A short while later, once the Secretary of State had had the chance to reflect on her queries, I had the opportunity to ask some even more basic questions. I asked not what the figure was, but whether one even existed or whether any analysis had been done. We ended up going backwards.

We parliamentarians and the public still do not know the answers to some basic questions, even though a deal has been done. Do we know how much it will cost? Does a figure exist? Has an analysis been done? Are we talking about a figure or a bracket? On what basis was the deal agreed? We received absolutely no answers at all to those questions. To conclude, I posed a fairly obvious question: how on earth can we strike a deal to pay 25% more for drugs that we already get without knowing how much it will cost? No answer was given to that question either.

It is no wonder that these fundamental questions have effectively come in the middle of the Bill’s passage. This is not the place for them, but in the absence of basic answers, I can see why the hon. Member for Winchester and others have raised these issues. I will ask the same questions of the Minister. If her boss cannot answer them, perhaps she can, as the Department has had 24 hours to reflect. How much will the deal with the US cost? Are there—even if the Government do not want to disclose them—a figure and an impact assessment?

If the Government can confirm that a figure or bracket exists, why are they not willing to discuss them? If the Government can confirm that some sort of impact assessment has been done, when did it happen and why are they not disclosing it? Until we get those answers, so that people can see the fundamental considerations on which the Government base their decisions, this is a fairly unappealing way of going about securing investment for life sciences.

The Secretary of State talked about the benefits of this deal, and I am sure that there are benefits. I do not disagree with the principle of paying more for drugs if it has benefits for research and development—I understand and support that principle—but I want to be able to see what those intended benefits are, in some form of document or analysis. I do not want bare statements that say, “Research and development is good.” We all know that; I want to see the cost.

New clause 15 would also set a cost threshold of £100 million. The Government are not in a position to confirm whether the US deal would qualify under clause 15. It would at least force the Government’s hand. I suspect that the sum is far higher—into the billions—but we do not know. We are left to sit and speculate, despite the Secretary of State’s appearance before the Health and Social Care Committee. He must have expected that question to be asked. He was flanked by the permanent secretary of the Department and the chief executive of NHS England. By the way, he was a Treasury Minister prior to becoming the Secretary of State just two months ago. We had all the key people in the room to give some sort of indication about cost and benefit, yet none was forthcoming.

Although I cannot back the new clause, because I do not think statute is the right place to ask these questions, I completely understand why it was tabled. She will not accept the new clause, but could the Minister at least answer some of the questions that parliamentarians and the public are asking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I understand the intent of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and her commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as that of her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope that some of my points will address that.

New clause 15 duplicates existing processes and creates responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Health that would cut across our important procedures for scrutiny. No trade agreement can, by itself, change UK domestic law or require new public expenditure without the usual domestic processes being followed. Any changes to legislation necessary to implement a trade agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. It is right that the Government be held to account, to ensure that trade deals deliver for the country. However, those processes are already in place and are working.

[Joe Robertson]

To strip this back further, can the Minister confirm whether a deal has been done?

[Karin Smyth]

I am not party to the negotiations. That is above my pay grade, like the conversation yesterday that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. I will get back to him on any outstanding questions, as the Department will to the Select Committee with other details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is good to hear cross-party recognition of how important the life sciences sector is in the UK, to universities and businesses as knowledge transfer partnerships. This is a huge opportunity not only to improve the health of the nation and the treatments available, but to boost the economy.

We will withdraw new clause 15, but I thought the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke extremely well about his concerns relating to the trade deal.

[Joe Robertson]

I think that the hon. Member has spoken very well, too, and I am grateful to him for airing this important subject through his new clause.

[Dr Chambers]

I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

As the chair of the APPG on adult social care, I pay tribute to unpaid carers for the enormous contribution they make to their families, their communities and wider society. I often have meetings with them, and as part of my job before I became an MP—I worked in the NHS—I had a lot of contact with carers. I have seen so many vulnerable patients benefit from the enormous amount of work that carers do. In some services, such as the mental health service, there is already provision for identifying carers, carers’ assessments and support for carers. Carers provide extraordinary support, often at great personal sacrifice.

Although the intention here is to make the wellbeing of carers a statutory duty, we need to be careful that we do not put any statutory responsibility for that on the NHS and create more administrative burden for it. I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that point, and if the Government would consider something to support carers, while not putting any more administrative burden on the NHS, where we are focusing on providing more support on the frontline.

New clauses 16 and 17 would impose new obligations on integrated care boards to promote carers’ wellbeing and to identify and record unpaid carers whenever they come into contact with NHS services. I want to make it clear that we should not create any more administrative burdens for NHS frontline services. Although identifying and supporting carers is important, the requirement would add to the administrative burden on NHS organisations at a time when they should be focusing on delivering frontline care.

We should be cautious about creating new statutory duties that divert resources and staff time away from patients. The proposal for a national respite care scheme is similarly well intentioned, but it risks imposing a centralised, one-size-fits-all model across a system that already makes local authorities and health boards responsible for assessing local needs and delivering support. Again, although we need more support for carers, we should be careful that we are not duplicating any of the services that are already available. Some charities also do a brilliant job of supporting carers. The provisions in these new clauses should be looked into, but we need to be cautious that we do not create more burdens for our existing systems.

[Joe Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for introducing these new clauses and for the debate that that is allowing us to have. Unpaid carers are too often a silent and fundamentally unappreciated part of society, which the system could not cope without. They are family members who are thrown into the role of looking after their loved ones, which they did not expect to have to do. Most of them have no formal qualifications, but through love and family ties, they provide unpaid support, which in many cases has a negative effect on the financial wellbeing of the household and involves a huge amount of emotional toil.

The crisis in social care has lasted for decades under different Governments, who have struggled to tackle it, and it is putting increasing pressure on family carers. Many do not see themselves as a carer—they see themselves as a husband, wife, daughter, son or friend—but they provide millions of hours of care and support, year in and year out. My former role was at a national nursing charity that seeks to support the families of those living with dementia. I saw for myself how much wraparound care can achieve in relieving pressure and unnecessary suffering, not just for the person living with dementia—it does not have to be dementia, but that is what I have experience of—long-term frailty or conditions that require support, but for their family and carer. Very often, the biggest care need for the person living with dementia is the biggest need their family carer has; if we can sort the family carer’s biggest need, they can go on and do so much more for the person they love.

I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for allowing us to have this debate. I urge the Government, if they do not adopt these new clauses, to do all they can to relieve the pressure on unpaid carers up and down the country and to provide support for them.

Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 97—Publication of annual dementia care report—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and

(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.

(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.

(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—

(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,

(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,

(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,

(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,

(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,

(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and

(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. These two new clauses, the latter of which is in my name, deal with the publication of an annual report detailing NHS and social care provision for dementia care and how the Government are performing against targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services. I would like to thank three important charities working in this area: the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. All three back the two new clauses.

The data requested is imperative to ensuring that the Government can measure and monitor progress against relevant national targets, standards and guidance, including the new modern service framework on dementia, the forthcoming Care Quality Commission statutory guidance and outcome measures that may be set in future NHS operational planning guidance. That is crucial to improving transparency and accountability, allowing systems to see the full picture of dementia provision in England and highlighting challenge areas or inequalities. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of information systems to collect, analyse and publish health and care data that is in the interest of the health service in England. The clause fits into that and would require the collection of data on the provision of dementia services in health and social care.

I do not propose to speak too long, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on the current situation, which sets these new clauses in context. Dementia data is not currently comprehensively or consistently collected, analysed and published. That means that we cannot fully understand the provision of NHS care or social care for dementia, which is the biggest cause of death in the UK; how national targets, guidance or frameworks are being met; and where inequalities and challenges lie.

As well as being the leading cause of death, dementia is a disease that around 1 million people live with. That number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That will, of course, impact many more friends, families and carers who support those living with dementia. More than a third of people living with dementia in England do not have a formal diagnosis. Those who do receive a diagnosis live with the condition for an average of three and a half years before that diagnosis. Post-diagnostic care and support is often fragmented, leaving people affected by dementia without a clear point of contact, co-ordinated care, or access to specialist support for those with complex needs. Recent findings show that only 14% of people with dementia have an advanced care plan in place. That is not good enough for a disease that affects so many people and is the leading cause of death in England.

Dementia puts immense pressure on our healthcare system: one in six hospital beds is occupied by someone living with the condition. Lord Darzi’s investigation into NHS performance highlighted how

“there is an important challenge to improve both the quality and quantity of care for people with dementia.”

The new clauses would go some way to addressing that, and I urge the Government to support them.

[Karin Smyth]

We largely agree with new clauses 96 and 97 and the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He cited some organisations: Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK; hon. Members across the House have worked with them, and many other organisations in this field, and value the work that they do. The hon. Member rightly notes the work that they do to support the friends, families and carers of people with this disease, which is increasing in prevalence. He also commented on the importance of getting diagnosis earlier, and we are moving forward but we need to do so as fast as we can; I think we would all recognise that. I completely understand the rationale behind the new clauses and the urgency with which people want to have sight of the sort of information outlined in them, but we do not think that the new clauses are necessary. I will highlight why.

Some of the data that would be requested by new clause 96, such as details of research in the NHS and reports of lived experience, is already available and often provided by our charity partners, as well as by others. The new clause would therefore lead to a duplication of work. Provision of the other pieces of requested information and the data collection required to produce the report required by the new clause would likely be very onerous, placing additional stress on an already overstretched sector, and would distract from the core task of improving dementia care. It would be especially difficult to get consistent and comparable information from across the adult social care sector, where data can sometimes be fragmented.

Instead, we think that the modern service framework for dementia and frailty is a more helpful vehicle for setting national standards of dementia diagnosis and care, and will serve to hold the sector to account. Additional reports, such as those requested by the new clause, would distract from that and result in duplication.

The framework is still in development and work is ongoing to review the relevant data, metrics and targets to inform it. The framework will also set new national standards, which will help to inform meaningful analysis in the future—something that we are all very keen to see. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.

[Joe Robertson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 97

Publication of annual dementia care report

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and

(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.

(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.

(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—

(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,

(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,

(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,

(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,

(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,

(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and

(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”—(Joe Robertson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.