Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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?

Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

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 ---

[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 (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

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 ---

[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.

Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

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 (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Regional Transport Inequality

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

In just one year, this Labour Government have already failed rural Britain on transport. They have scrapped the £2 bus fare cap, pushing up costs for working people; they have wasted £250 million in the process of nationalising South Western Railway, while my commuters are still stuck with cancelled peak services; and they continue to pour billions of pounds into London, while communities such as Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook in my constituency are left behind. My constituency is just 40 miles from London, yet the difference in connectivity is stark. London enjoys a world-class system—well, when it is not being held to ransom by greedy tube driver unions, as is the case this week—but Farnham, Haslemere, Bordon and Liphook are treated very differently.

The contrast with London is outrageous. In the capital, there is a bus stop every 400 metres and services run every five to 10 minutes throughout the night. In my constituency, buses are 30 to 90 minutes apart, if they run at all, and many disappear entirely after 7 pm. Students at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham cannot get to Guildford in the evening. Meanwhile, Londoners can choose from over 100 night bus routes. Whereas passengers in London pay a fixed £1.75 fare, people in rural Surrey and Hampshire pay much more, because Labour hiked the cap.

My constituents will remember that Labour put up their fares, which is why I took action. I convened the Bordon taskforce to bring Stagecoach, local councils and local leaders around the table, and the results speak for themselves. The newly revised No. 18 bus service now runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, and hourly on Sundays, linking Bordon, Whitehill, Farnham and Aldershot. The No. 13 service between Bordon, Alton and Basingstoke has also been strengthened, with six Sunday return journeys. Stagecoach even trialled free travel this June after my push for better value. These are tangible improvements that make life easier for thousands of people, but gaps still remain.

It is extraordinary that there is no bus connection between Bordon and Petersfield—only 11 miles apart—except for a single school service. That is why I am in talks with East Hampshire district council to establish a new route, modelled on the Waverley “hospital hoppa”—a scheme for which I secured funding in Farnham.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the points that my hon. Friend’s is making. The train to my constituency runs through his constituency, and he has referred to it already. Unfortunately, my constituency is reliant on entirely privatised ferry companies in order for us to get there. Does he agree that if this Government’s outlook on transport is to be truly integrated, they need to connect all parts of the United Kingdom and stop focusing only on cities?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right: this Government are focused on metropolitan areas, and constituencies like his and mine, which are rural and semi- rural, are simply left behind. His mention of rail neatly brings me to my points on rail.

Rail tells the same story as buses. Three of my four major towns have train stations, but Bordon, the third largest one, has none, and the lines that do exist are fragmented and unreliable. Only this week, the 7.28 from Farnham to Waterloo was cancelled. Too often, peak-time trains arrive at Haslemere or Liphook with just four coaches. When I challenged South Western Railway on that, I was told that to avoid cancellations nearer London, it reassigned carriages away from my area. I made it clear: my commuters are not second-class citizens, and that needs to change. At South Western’s Farnham depot this summer, I pressed the company directly on the £250 million Arterio fleet, which is meant to relieve overcrowding but is still sitting idle for want of drivers or because of faults. I secured assurances of change, and I will now hold the company to account.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned, the Government wasted £250 million nationalising South Western Railway. That money could have delivered a permanent Bordon-to-Liphook bus link for 1,000 years. Instead, urban areas get Crossrail and trams, while my constituents get cancellations and four-carriage trains. That is clearly not acceptable. Much more help is needed for my constituents. Rural communities such as mine cannot keep being treated as second class. Levelling up, economic growth and net zero—all laudable aims—mean nothing if millions of people in my constituency and the surrounding areas cannot get a bus on a Sunday, or a train with more than four carriages on a Monday morning. That is the reality of Labour’s transport policy: higher fares, wasted money and broken promises. That is unacceptable to my constituents and, I hope, unacceptable to the constituents of every single Member of this House.

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. Keen observers of Westminster Hall debates will have noticed that she responded on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to the debate that I had secured this morning, so there is a nice symmetry in the fact that I am responding to her debate this afternoon.

My hon. Friend gave an excellent summary of the current system and the impact that the changes that happened overnight will have on adopters and carers and, of course, on the children they support. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have powerfully demonstrated the impact that the changes are having on their constituents, and the situation in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, is no different. Hon. Members will have to forgive me; because so many Members have spoken in the debate, I will not be able to mention all their contributions. However, I pay special tribute to those Members who referred to their personal experiences in this matter.

First, I want to note the strong record of the previous Conservative Government on supporting kinship carers, adoptive families and some of the most vulnerable children in our society. While others have made promises, we took action. However, there is no doubt that there is more to do, which is why I welcome this debate.

The Conservatives have a strong record of prioritising and increasing adoption and strengthening kinship policymaking, including by introducing the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provided financial support to local authorities and regional adoption agencies to pay for essential therapeutic services for the most vulnerable children. The Government’s decision to cut the fund was a retrograde step, and it has placed significant stress on the near 17,000 applicants in 2023-24 alone who utilised services such as family therapy, parental training and creative therapeutic intervention.

It is highly regrettable that the Government failed to provide clarity about the continuation of the fund before its expiry on 31 March. Despite repeated calls for assurance, including from practitioners and sector leaders, Labour delayed its announcement. When it finally came, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, it confirmed a 40% reduction in the fair access limit, capping support at £3,000 per child per year compared with the £5,000 that families could access previously. The reduction places pressure on local authorities to bridge a shortfall of almost £34 million, using already stretched children’s services budgets.

The Minister has stated previously that additional support can be provided above the cap, but only at the discretion and financial behest of local councils. As hon. Members have said, many local authorities are not in the position to do so, but even if they are, this approach risks creating a postcode lottery, with some of the most vulnerable children supported but others left out.

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

As one of the vice-chairs of the APPG on kinship care along with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I want to add my voice to those calling for a reversal of the cuts, and for the Government to go further and better support families in adoption and kinship care.

[Gregory Stafford]

I know what a doughty champion my hon. Friend is for this cause, and I entirely agree with him. The Government need to set out precisely what they will do going forward, as well as reversing the cut that they made. I seek clarification on what the Minister’s adoption strategy is, beyond the delayed and unfair cuts that she has made so far for these children. In 2024, there were nearly 3,000 looked-after children who were adopted. Putting aside the fund that we have been talking about, how is she going to support those vulnerable children?

While the continuation of essential schemes remains, let us say, grey under this Government, adoptive families now cite a lack of support as a key barrier. Without essential support, the whole adoption process risks becoming what former MP and Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, called a “false economy”. The truth is that when we fail to invest in adoption, especially in kinship care, we end up relying more heavily on a state system that, in the long run, costs more and too often fails children. It leaves them more vulnerable to poor outcomes, including higher risks of criminal involvement and limited aspirations. When it is done right, adoption offers the security, stability and sense of belonging that every child deserves, and we should support it accordingly.

Likewise, the deeply flawed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill represents a major failure for kinship carers. The lack of statutory obligations and the concerns about the sufficiency of financial support highlight the need for continued advocacy and potential further legislative action to ensure that kinship carers and the children they support receive comprehensive support. Those carers typically receive little financial or emotional support, despite playing a vital role in keeping children out of the formal care system.

These often unsung heroes deserve better. That is why the previous Government introduced the social impact bond model, an innovative funding approach that backed targeted projects to support kinship families. They included initiatives such as training and guidance for carers; family group conferencing, where social workers bring family and carers around the table to discuss the most viable options for the long term; and other structured efforts to prevent the breakdown of kinship placement, which, if unsupported, can push children into the care system.

A notable example of such an SIB is Kinship Connected. Funded by private investment, it aimed not only to relieve pressure on local authorities but, more importantly, to enhance stability and wellbeing for the children at the heart of these families, by rehoming children with their grandparents when the immediate family had broken down. That ensured that siblings remained together and received consistent, supportive care within their extended family network. That approach prioritised emotional continuity and minimised the trauma often associated with foster care placements.

Kinship care and adoption offer vital, human-centred alternatives to the traditional care system, yet too often those pathways are undervalued. To truly serve the best interests of children, we must ensure that local authorities are supported and broaden our strategy to actively support and invest in family-based solutions beyond the boundaries of state control.

The Minister has been widely praised this afternoon by Government Members. This is the time for her to live up to that reputation, so I will close my remarks with four questions to her. How are the Government working with local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide the best care available for vulnerable children, especially following the cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Secondly, what steps will the Minister take to ensure sustained and equitable support for kinship carers, particularly in the light of the cuts to that fund and the absence of statutory obligations in legislation? Thirdly, how are the Government ensuring that private capital is not isolated by their state-focused strategy, so that that as much investment as possible can be awarded to worthy schemes for kinship care? Finally, how are the Government extending family group conferencing to ensure that children are kept within the family unit, where they can be safe and happy for as long as possible?

I agree with the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I will take up my pitchfork, too, and go to the Treasury to get the funding. We have a duty of care to these children. We need to support adopters and carers. If we do not, the financial cost will be great, but the human cost will be far greater.

Department of Health and Social Care

Debate between Joe Robertson and Gregory Stafford

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with all those things, and I am happy that the hon. Lady and I agree with each other. I hope that she acknowledges that £10 billion does not cover the basic requirements of the NHS. It delivers nothing more; in fact, it delivers less. The NHS will be able to continue to grow only if it delivers productivity gains, and it should.

[Gregory Stafford]

Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, that when the Secretary of State was in opposition, he was very clear that there would be no pay increases unless there were productivity gains and reforms to the way the NHS operates? Now that Labour is in government, that seems to have completely evaporated.

[Joe Robertson]

I remember that clearly. I would like the Minister to spell out how she will deliver those productivity gains through reform. We want to hear more detail so that we can be confident that the NHS is secure.

Let me turn to one area that the Minister might like to reflect on: the use of technology. Penny Dash, the candidate to take over as chair of NHS England, told the Health and Care Committee clearly that she would like technology to deliver and that she sees lots of opportunities. She herself remarked that basic technology in the NHS is not working. I recall that she used the example of nurses taking half an hour to turn on a computer system and having to use five passwords to access it. I said to her that it is hardly sensible to try delivering technology gains around artificial intelligence and all the opportunities that it might bring if we cannot deal with very basic, low-tech problems throughout the NHS. She agreed and accepted that is a challenge. I would like to see how the Secretary of State will, through the Minister, support NHS England in delivering that.

I would also like to see the dementia diagnosis target brought back into the planning guidance document for NHS England. It was taken out this year, in consultation with the Secretary of State—so he allowed that. Diagnosing dementia is the most important thing we can do for people living with dementia and their families. Taking that diagnosis rate target out is inexcusable. I accept the wider point that if everything is a target and a priority, then nothing is a priority, but I think we can all agree that dementia—the biggest killer in this country—must be a priority for the NHS. That target for diagnosis rates must come back into the planning guidance next year. Indeed, the word “dementia” does not even feature in the guidance, which is shameful, frankly.

Let me finish by talking about where the money is spent. We can have disagreements about how much is needed, but Lord Darzi was very clear that it is not being spent in the right places. Too much money in the NHS is being spent on hospitals, and not enough is being spent in the community. The Secretary of State will have to take some tough decisions, which he accepts, and one of them will have to be to reduce the proportion of money spent on hospitals. That is politically difficult, but across the House we are prepared to back him, if it is part of a plan to deliver meaningful change and to move more people out of hospitals and into communities, which is where they most want to be treated. Nobody wants to be in hospital if they have no medical reason to be there.

Finally, the Chancellor must understand that every decision she takes must be coherent and consistent with delivering the three shifts. When she came to the Dispatch Box to deliver the Budget in October, she recognised that national insurance increases were going to be crippling for healthcare. That is why she exempted the NHS from those increases. However, she failed to exempt other key providers of healthcare, particularly in primary care, such as GPs, so it is no good now saying that the GP pay deal is a record deal, because the money that they must pay in national insurance contributions represents more than 50% of the money that the Government have given them. The Chancellor must back up the left shift with the fiscal decisions she announced at the Dispatch Box.