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 (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.

Puberty Blockers

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I support an individual’s freedom to choose to live their life in whichever manner they want, subject only to the law. That includes someone’s right to want to live a life in a different gender identity to that which they were born with. But this debate is not about that; it is about administering powerful drugs to children. Although I have no direct experience of what it is like to want to live a life as somebody with a different gender identity, I have represented parents in the family court disputing their child’s gender identity—in one case, a child under that age of 10—in legal proceedings.

There is an absolutist argument that I want reject: the argument that this is only a clinical question, and that politicians, decision makers and the Government must follow clinical advice. The clinical advice itself is disputed, but I accept the weight that the Government have placed on the Cass review, which was commissioned under the previous Government. It is right that the current Government place weight on that. This is much more than a clinical question, though—it is an ethical question, a moral question and a legal question—and the issues that need to be grappled with fall on the shoulders of the elected Members in this place.

I want to explore one of the issues that I think is fundamental: the issue of consent. What can consent mean when we are talking about young children? What can it mean when we are talking about a parent giving consent for something to happen to their child? The issue of consent is not new. We have the legal age of consent for engaging in sexual activity. Society, through this place and the courts, has decided that children should not be engaging in sexual activity under the age of 16. That is not a fundamentally clinical issue; it is an issue around the emotional, psychological, moral and ethical impact on a child who does not fully understand what they are getting themselves into.

When it comes to a child under 13, we have a law that says consent is impossible. Under 13, there is no such thing as consent to sexual activity; it amounts to what we might term statutory rape. However, in the trial we are talking about today, children under the age of 13—at the age of 12—are going to be asked if they have engaged in oral sex in the last year. That is something that is illegal—something that they cannot consent to by law. Why are they being asked a question like that in these clinical trials? I ask the Minister to address that point directly. Plainly, consent is meaningful only if a child understands all the ramifications. I challenge anyone to stand up and back the idea that a child under the age of 13, for example, understands what it is like to give up the possibility of fertility, to live a life in a different gender and to really understand, at that age, what gender means in its adult entirety.

I turn now to the role of the parent. What parent can possibly say whether their child has been able to grapple with those issues in any meaningful way? They may be better placed than anyone else, but that does not mean that they can really form a judgment or view. After all, it would be preposterous to suggest that an adult could consent to their own child engaging in sexual activity, so how can they possibly consent to a child grappling with those ideas such that they administer a powerful drug to suppress their development and puberty?

We have a Government who have taken the view, which I welcome, that an adult cannot possibly consent to their own child having a social media account because they are not in a position to assess all the harms. How, by extension, can they say that an adult is in a position to consent to their child taking powerful drugs that will suppress their puberty and sexual development? It lacks any sort of coherence. I urge the Government to think again.

Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The number of expected participants in the trial is 226. That is not a firm target—it does not have to be exactly that number—but that is the number at which statistically significant conclusions can be drawn. The 226 will fall into two camps: one will access the medical treatment immediately and the other will access it after one year. In that way, we will have clinical evidence from which we can draw conclusions and on which we can base future decisions. The number has been chosen so that the evidence can be relied on in the future to take decisions about whether, and if so how, to continue the use of these treatments.

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

A parent cannot consent to their child engaging in sexual activity and soon they will not be able to consent to their child having a social media account, so why does the Secretary of State think that a parent should consent to drugs being administered to their child to supress their puberty and alter their sexual development?

[James Murray]

We are following clinical advice. We are ensuring that there is a triple lock on the consent for children and young people to be involved in this trial, involving the consent or assent of the young person themselves, parents or guardians, and the NHS care team—the national multidisciplinary team that I mentioned earlier. That is how this trial ensures that there is a high bar for being involved in it and that all aspects of a young person’s life are considered before they are approved.

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 (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 (First sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

For a final brief question—and a brief answer, please—I call Joe Robertson.

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

Q HSSIB is obviously an investigator and CQC is obviously a regulator—two different roles. I suspect there was a good reason why you were asked how the CQC can be investigated by a body that becomes part of it. Are you aware that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the UK Civil Aviation Authority are separate? If you are, why should that fundamental separation, which benefits air passenger safety, not apply to the safety of patients in the NHS?

Dr Dash: Yes, I am aware. The analogy is continually made—and it has been made several times—and to be honest, 20 years ago, I would have shared the view that healthcare was similar to airlines. Indeed, I did quite a lot of talks about that at the time. However, the more I have looked into it, the more I think there are limits to that analogy.

We are running out of time and this is a much longer conversation, but if I look at the specific examples that people bring up from the airline industry, it is about spotting some very specific things. An example was used at the Health and Social Care Committee about spotting a bolt that is not working properly. The equivalent of that within the NHS is actually something like the MHRA, which is separate. If we spot a drug, an anaesthetic machine or a cardiac device that is not working properly, that is for the MHRA, which is separate from the CQC.

The CQC is there to be the independent regulator of the quality of care more generally, which is more the space that HSSIB has been in. HSSIB has been looking at things like the use of digital triage in general practice and corridor care, and it has done some work on surgical safety and so on. All of that is part of a bigger landscape of quality of care, which the CQC is responsible for. The more that I looked at this issue and the more I spoke to people, I became less sure that it is analogous to the airline industry. It is much broader and more complex, and certainly the airline industry does not have 150 different regulators and quasi-regulators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

Q I want to touch on the single patient record. I declare that I used to work in mental health services. In my experience, mental health patients often navigate between A&E, GPs and mental health services during weekends. Often the clinicians do not know what medication they are on, or what kind of contact patients had on the Friday or Saturday. Also, during the discharge process, getting medication from the GP can be delayed until the discharge notification gets to the GP. Yes, there are concerns about who will own this data, but do you not think that the single patient record will bring a huge benefit for patient safety and continuity of care?

Kay Keane: In the example you gave, the hospital should be giving seven days-worth of medication to the patient. That is clearly its responsibility. Within those seven days, the GP practice should get a discharge letter that says what has happened; if appropriate, we then take over the prescribing.

If the information comes and is good quality—if the data is good and timely—the things you mentioned do not happen; they happen when neither of those things are the case. In my experience, information that comes out of A&E is often difficult to understand. A&E might make a diagnosis that it works with, but by the time that gets to the ward it can be different, so the A&E information we act on could be very different from what the patient is discharged with. Timely and good-quality information is therefore really important, and that GP record then becomes the centre of the patient’s care.

Dr Dickson: You are talking about transfer of care between services and about a weekend being an important flashpoint, but I think that that transfer of care does not happen appropriately even during the week. It is getting better, with electronic systems, but it is still not necessarily working for the full benefit of patients, especially if they access multiple services. The value of the single patient record is to make that safe, but the question is, will it do that? Can it do that? Is it safe to do that? Will the patient’s data be protected? That is what we are we are worried about. I think that is what patients worry about. They perceive that we do that already, and when they come up against the healthcare service, they realise that it does not happen; they do not realise that it is not a personal thing to them, but a systemic problem. It is about getting patients to understand the systemic nature of the lack of data sharing at the moment.

[Joe Robertson]

Q If responsibility for managing and safeguarding the single patient record is to sit with general practice, if that is what the Government want, can you tell us, Kay Keane, as chair of the Institute of General Practice Management, what the implication would be for workload, and particularly workforce, in practice management?

Kay Keane: I think it is impossible, really, for me to understand that. It is a large part of our job already. As Dr Dickson said, we act as a small business. We do all the things that any other small business does, so being able to manage that record on top of that would take a huge amount of investment into general practice.

I would argue that maybe the investment into general practice should not be on data, but should be in the wider workforce. We are really good at looking after our data now. We care about it, we hold it close to the care of the patient and we share it only when appropriate, but in our view to then be the data controller of other information is too much and is unmanageable for a general practice to do.

Equally, our data is very personal to us, and we want to keep hold of that. We do not want our patients worrying about the stories that they tell us, so a model where we feed into something else and have responsibility for the bit that it is fed into sits more comfortably with the Institute of General Practice Management.

Dr Dickson: I do not have much to add to that. The devil is in the detail of where it sits and how we reassure patients that we are trusted with their data—that we are sharing what they have given us appropriately for their health, but not for spurious reasons. I think people’s understanding is that we share an awful lot more than we do, so there is a gap. People perceive that we are going to overshare, whereas actually this will allow us to come up to the level that we should be at.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Q My question is to Dr Dickson and is about education and training policy, responsibility for which will be transferred from NHS England to the Secretary of State. I know that you have a lot of interest in medical training and education, so what do you feel would be the impact?

Dr Dickson: I think the impact could be really positive. At the moment, we train nationally to high standards, so that the product of medical education can be deployed anywhere in the UK, and we are also all trained to develop, innovate, change the service and move forward. What we miss at the moment is parity of esteem for education as a productivity function of the NHS. There is the productivity function of elective care, waiting times, cancer treatment and all those things, but education must sit at that level of esteem for productivity for all professions in order for the service to continue—not to innovate, change and develop, but just to continue. Moving things to the Secretary of State gives us a chance to ensure that that pure parity is seen. The danger is that if you move the function in, it gets lost in the service productivity sphere. There is a huge opportunity to firmly embed the education and strategic development of different roles as a true productivity function of the NHS, which it needs to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Q It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Sir Jeremy, I want to turn to NHS England’s accountability, or lack thereof. I know you made the point that you did not want clinically advised decisions to be overly politicised, but I had the reverse in my constituency when a decision was made after the lease on a doctors’ surgery ran out. It could not be extended because of some rule in NHS England, but due to that lack of accountability, there was nothing that we could do. The surgery closed, and one in six of its patients was just redistributed to another surgery, so that accountability clearly failed in that space.

If you are concerned that accountability ends up too close to the Department, where else should it land? I am quite comfortable with a Minister being accountable for that decision, because they are accountable to MPs, who are ultimately accountable to the people that it affects. Can you pare back your answer a little bit and talk about where that accountability should lie, and how we can ensure that it works?

Sir Jeremy Hunt: That is a story I think every single Member of Parliament could repeat, and it is a fundamental flaw in the system. Do you not think it is completely ridiculous that you have to go to the Health Secretary, who is responsible for a budget of £160 billion—the largest healthcare system in the world—to sort out something like a GP surgery lease in your constituency? That is a perfect example of a problem that we should be able to sort out locally, and that is why I think the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.

[Joe Robertson]

Q The safe space principle is arguably under threat by the merging of HSSIB and the CQC. From the evidence you gave to the Health and Social Care Committee, I understand your argument that if you get rid of the independence of HSSIB, staff members who have witnessed wrongdoing and unsafe practices will not feel there is anywhere they can go, when they feel compelled to disclose things they see, where there is no consequence to them. Can you just comment on that?

Sir Jeremy Hunt: Maybe I should just clarify, because I think Dr Dash referred to those comments. The CQC is incredibly important to hospitals and GP surgeries because it gives them a rating—“outstanding”, “good”, “requires improvement” or “inadequate”—and they really care about that. 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.” Obviously, I would always want staff members to be completely open with HSSIB, but we have to be really careful that people still have confidence in the safe space function if this merger goes ahead.

[The Chair]

Sir Jeremy, thank you very much for coming—once again, we are out of time, but we are indebted to you. The Committee will sit again in this same room this afternoon at 2 pm. The room will be locked, if Members wish to leave papers or anything else in here.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend to tackle health inequalities in his area. As he rightly highlights, our investment in the NHS and in the wider health of the nation is specifically about tackling health inequalities such as those that he raises, which affect the life chances of his constituents.

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

The crisis in social care is particularly bad in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, partly because of our unique geography but also because the Government have reduced funding to our local authority. Our council is now looking at discharging patients to the mainland, away from family and friends, which is completely unacceptable. Will the Government recognise our unique challenges as an English island and help provide a social care solution that recognises the challenges that we face?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member and I have discussed this issue, and I absolutely recognise the need to ensure that social care is provided in the most convenient way possible to his constituents and as close as possible to home. Obviously we are fixing a broken system, but we have delivered £4.6 billion more in funding, we are delivering the fair pay agreement, and we are working hard to ensure that we get adult social care back on its feet and fit for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

My hon. Friend will know that that is a question for Treasury colleagues. However, we are a mission-led Government committed to healthy outcomes across Government, not just in the DHSC.

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

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has compared GPs’ salaries to that of the Prime Minister. I can understand why he is taking a keen interest in how much a Prime Minister is paid, but can the Government assure the House that the GP contract will include an increase in GP funding over and above inflationary pressures? [Interruption.] They are on the frontline of ensuring that national wellbeing indicators in this country improve.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member just about scraped something together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The services my hon. Friend outlines cover a number of different areas in different locations, and I think it is very important that the workforce plan we are bringing forward reflects a different model of care. We have seen more services going into secondary care and particularly hospitals, at the expense of community care and particularly primary care. That needs to change across the age spectrum, and the new workforce plan will be designed in lockstep with a new service design, more staff in neighbourhoods and more digital support, as well as to address the issues she outlines.

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

A study by the Health Foundation has found that the cost to the NHS of staff sickness and staff turnover is of the order of £12 billion a year. Will the Government’s new workforce plan cover the issue of excessive cost through the entirely avoidable turnover of staff?

[Karin Smyth]

Yes, because those issues are a result of the shocking staff morale as a result of the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s Government. As highlighted by Lord Darzi, staff morale, and issues around staff sickness and the huge increase in agency spending on their watch, are all signs of a system that is not functioning for patients or staff. We absolutely will bring forward measures to address those issues.