Bernard Jenkin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the speech from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is an example of what we have seen throughout this debate, going back to the early 2000s: people peeling off from supporting assisted dying in principle and, certainly, peeling off from supporting this Bill. I am a case in point. I came into the Chamber to listen to Lord Falconer’s Bill in 2014 absolutely determined that I was going to vote for assisted dying. I sat through the debate and ended up voting against, because I thought that the arguments were not made in favour of the Bill. The second reason we should throw out this Bill is that it keeps changing. Even now, it is not settled. Even now, its advocates want changes to it. They are stuck with the reality that if the Parliament Act is invoked, they will only be able to invoke the Bill as it stands today. They will not be able to have their changes. So if in doubt today, the House must vote no. Thirdly, the question is far bigger, it turns out, than just a matter of conscience or an isolated matter to be decided. It is a massive question that affects public policy and has major public expenditure consequences. That has convinced me that we really should not see another Bill like this one until we have had a Government Bill go through the process of proper scrutiny within Government, with all the consequences laid out and dealt with. It must be a responsible and accountable Secretary of State that presents the Bill; it must not be a Back-Bench Bill. Maybe there should be a citizens assembly on this question—it is a subject that would lend itself to a citizens assembly. [ Interruption. ] Well, it would not take away any power from this House. This House would still be able to decide, but it would inform the debate in a way that the debate is still not informed. My mother and father passed away in recent years, and I am so grateful that my mother never had to confront this question. She often said, “Oh, I just want to die. I am just a burden on the family.” Though she would never have qualified for this Bill, I am so grateful that there were never any circumstances that would possibly have confronted her with this question. I advert to another conversation. I have a very dear friend—someone who has become a mentor—who is a very interesting, clever, intellectual, determined and courageous lady. She has scoliosis of the spine. The last time I went to see her, there she was, hardly able to sit up and in constant pain. We have open conversations, so I asked her, “If assisted dying were available to you, would you take it?” Without hesitation she said, “Oh, yes.” When I asked why, she said, “Because I am a burden to my family.” I said, “Well, I have been voting against assisted dying. I am going to have to rethink my position.” Then she said, without hesitation, “Oh, I don’t advocate it.” She understands the complexity of this, and she knows that it opens a can of worms that we really have not understood fully. I urge colleagues in the House to vote against the Bill today.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would very much have liked to have discussed the medical devices questions arising from the Bill. The Minister made an incredibly short speech about that important matter. It is quite clear that these provisions are part of the covert dynamic alignment with the EU and the covert rejoin agenda being pursued by the Government. It raises all sorts of constitutional questions, but those are not for today. I will concentrate on HSSIB. I rise to support amendments 1 to 4, which would remove the abolition of HSSIB from the Bill. The Government have singularly failed to make the case for removing this crucial safety investigation function. It did not exist until recently, and now they want to scrub it out. I suspect that is because too many people in the health system do not like being held to account by an independent investigative body.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the question of how the CQC leadership becomes conflicted, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in an Adjournment debate I held in July, the then Patient Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), made it clear that the person responsible for deciding what safe space information might be released would be the chief executive of the CQC? If the chief executive of the CQC is to see all that information, how would he or she not be able to use it, or be tempted to use it, when he or she inspects hospitals for the purposes of the CQC? Would the safe space not then be hopelessly conflicted, and therefore lose public confidence?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister shakes her head, but she is yet to give a good reason as to why this measure is in the Bill. When we had an Adjournment debate in July with the then Minister for patient safety, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), she could not answer the question of who would conduct independent safety investigations in the NHS after the abolition of HSSIB. She said that safety investigations would be conducted by the Care Quality Commission, but she could not actually claim that they would be independent; as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) demonstrated, they would not be. If, as it seems, it is intended that safety investigations should be carried out by the CQC unaffected by the transfer, why make the transfer at all? How much is this transfer going to cost? I asked the Minister, in a letter I sent her after the debate in July, to give us the information on how much the transfer of all this would cost. Nothing has arrived. I never had a reply to the letter. Of course, the Government have changed the Minister and the new Minister for patient safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is not in the House today. I rather suspect that she is more sympathetic to this argument than the Minister sitting on the Front Bench today. In our earlier exchanges we discovered and once again exposed how the safe space will be brutally compromised by the fact that it will be housed in a regulator with, inevitably, other ulterior motives. The chief executive of the CQC is wantonly conflicted in terms of looking after the safe space, so he cannot be the one left in charge of that function. The real point here is that we are missing the opportunity to save so much money. Governments keep having public inquiries. The EPUT—Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust—public inquiry, affecting my constituency, cost in its first year £5 million, and in its second year it is costing another £5 million. The whole budget for HSSIB was only £6.3 million a year, yet it does scores of investigations, not just one inquiry. The Ockenden inquiry cost £14 million. If we could save just a fraction of the cost of medical negligence, which is £3.6 billion a year, HSSIB would pay for itself.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Artificial Superintelligence · Hansard source

  More

  I am as keen as anybody to get on with discussing the Health Bill, but this topic is too serious an opportunity to miss, given that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has raised such important issues. I really commend his speech and his initiative. Everybody should read it. All I want to say is that a kind of unilateral disarmament on AI is not going to solve the international problem. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran: these are not respecters of international treaties or international laws, even if they were to sign such treaties or laws, and we do not want to disable our own industry. The jury is out on whether AI is an extinction-threatening phenomenon, but I really do commend the hon. Member for raising the topic. I hope he will forgive me for opposing the Bill because I want the debate to continue. Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to. Ordered, That Alex Sobel, Jess Asato, John McDonnell, Afzal Khan, Dr Allison Gardner, Bambos Charalambous, Sir Desmond Swayne, Charlie Maynard, Manuela Perteghella, Ben Lake, Yasmin Qureshi and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill. Alex Sobel accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 13 November , and to be printed (Bill 142).

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  Very briefly—I have a lot to say.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for this opportunity to evaluate the Dash review of patient safety, and I thank the Minister for the meeting with her this afternoon. I hope that the House and Penny Dash will forgive me, but in the interests of brevity and clarity, I shall be direct. Whenever asked to justify the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, Ministers refer to Dash, but Dash fails to make the case for what it recommends. This new clinical incident investigator was established less than three years ago. HSSIB is a new concept in healthcare, conceived to challenge the culture of denial and blame in the NHS. It is proving itself, even with its very limited budget. One early report on aortic dissection led to 300 more people receiving lifesaving treatment. The Minister now has a list of key recommendation impacts produced by HSSIB. A lot of them may seem small or piecemeal, but so far it is only a small body. After a boy suffered an avoidable death from cancer, HSSIB recommended to NHS England a new community language translation and interpreting services framework so that non-English speaking patients would get appointment letters for their children that they could read and understand. HSSIB recommended a protocol between prisons and ambulance services to avoid wasting ambulance time and new guidance for non-accidental injury of babies in emergency departments where no specific guidance had existed before. The Dash review shows no understanding of HSSIB’s purpose and no comprehension of coherent safety systems management. Dash gets facts wrong and misinterprets the law, either through a failure of understanding or because the recommendation to abolish HSSIB somehow reflected the desired outcome of the review, regardless of the facts. I will set out some specific questions, most of which the Minister has had in advance. If she does not have enough time to respond, I look forward to discussing them at a future meeting that we discussed having.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening very carefully to what the Minister is saying. She has engaged positively with the questions I have asked, but she has actually made the case for keeping HSSIB separate. Will she reflect on that? If the only thing she wants is for the CQC to own the recommendations, she should amend HSSIB and say, “The CQC must ensure that the recommendations are implemented.” In fact, the recommendations are directed at Ministers and bits of the health service that are answerable to her and to the Secretary of State. We should keep HSSIB separate, but by all means let us discuss how to ensure that the recommendations are implemented properly.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman. Recommendation 1 in the Dash review says that the new National Quality Board should “avoid unfunded mandates being imposed on the system without due consideration”. Public inquiries have certainly made well meaning but unaffordable recommendations—I think of the Francis inquiry recommendation on blanket standards for minimum staffing—but it is wrong to see safety as a cost in opposition to other benefits. The cost of safety failures is astronomic, with NHS clinical negligence costing £3.6 billion a year, despite all the public inquiries. Effective safety management is about the cost-effective management of risk, not risk elimination at any cost. If the air accidents investigation branch did not balance costs with effective risk management, aeroplanes would not fly. Can the Minister therefore point out which of HSSIB’s recommendations have been too expensive to implement? If not, where is the justification for abolishing HSSIB? Neither the NQB nor the CQC should control investigations. The AAIB cannot be prevented from making independent recommendations by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Transport Secretary or airlines themselves. Why should the NQB, which will be subject to political direction, be allowed to decide what safety recommendations should be made and what should be investigated, as Dash recommends? On page 31, Dash incorrectly states: “HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.” Why have the Government accepted that assertion as true? It is wrong in fact and law. The new statutory HSSIB did not take on maternity and newborn safety investigations, because they were commenced without the safe space protections, so their evidence is available for legal proceedings. That is not how HSSIB operates. Since 2023, HSSIB has been conducting its own maternity investigations. Indeed, when the Amos review was established, it took on the relevant investigations from HSSIB and then relied on HSSIB for assistance with them. With sufficient resources, HSSIB could conduct all maternity investigations much more effectively than the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme. Amos reported that MNSI investigations are not trusted by families, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) was saying, and are not consistent or effective in identifying learning or providing accountability. Amos also says that families should have access to an independent investigation if they lose confidence in the local investigations. Without HSSIB, who will provide those independent investigations? Finding 6 accuses HSSIB of having “expanded” its “scope of work beyond the original remit…For example, HSSIB was originally established, along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries, to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations.” That is what Dash says. It is complete nonsense. HSSIB is exactly equivalent to the AAIB, the marine accident investigation branch and RAIB, and was, like them, set up to conduct systemic investigations. That is why they are such effective bodies. The Health and Care Act 2022 does not limit HSSIB investigations to individual incidents. There is no reference whatsoever to “severe harm”, as Dash puts it, in the 2022 Act. It was always intended by Parliament that HSSIB should make systemic recommendations arising from the investigation of specific incidents or groups of incidents. I can say that with authority because it was my Select Committee that recommended HSSIB in the first place, and I also chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft legislation, so how can Ministers give any authority to the Dash review, which claimed that HSSIB has expanded its remit, when it has done no such thing? Recommendation 3 proposes: “Most investigations into safety incidents should continue to be managed within provider organisations”. This really is the fundamental flaw in Dash. Recent maternity investigations conducted by trusts have highlighted the deficiency of provider-led investigations, as Ockenden and Amos have pointed out. Do the Government accept that investigations by provider organisations are inherently conflicted? Just ask the clinicians, patients, families and patient safety organisations what they think about trusts marking their own homework. None of them has confidence, because providers are keen to protect themselves from litigation and reputational damage. How can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation that we should rely on investigations conducted by provider organisations?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Only an independent investigator can find the causes of the incident that may be part of the culture or practice of that provider, or of the system as a whole. It is like suggesting that airlines or aircraft manufacturers can protect passenger safety without the independent accountability provided by the AAIB. Of course, providers should have the capacity and capability of conducting patient safety investigations, but they must know that HSSIB can and will look at that work and will hold them to account. Recommendation 3 also says that HSSIB should continue as what it calls “a centre of excellence for investigations” in the CQC, but I am afraid that this is just a sop. The CQC, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator. How can the CQC also be an independent investigator? Dash also says that the CQC internal successor should collaborate through the NQB to agree the scope of any investigations it carries out and agree the recommendations. Dash is effectively saying that CQC investigations will be overseen by the NQB. That is a direct attack on the independence of investigations. Can the Minister explain who in future will conduct independent and unconflicted investigations into safety incidents in the NHS? For example, how would an investigation under the CQC be free to find that the CQC inspections themselves were causing unintended harm to patients, or is it back to the misery of litigation through the courts and more public inquiries? The recommendation also makes no reference to the statutory safe space raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) that provides for protected disclosure by patients and their families, clinicians and others in safety investigation bodies. It is a crucial safeguard, allowing people to speak. It allows for the duty of candour. I would just point out that the duty of candour does not work if it is just imposed on people. People cannot be forced to incriminate themselves. If placed under the CQC, confidence in the safe space investigations will collapse—and back we go to public inquiries. The Health Bill does attempt to address this by replicating the 2022 Act’s safe space provisions, but that Act also provided for disclosure in certain circumstances, which is allowed on the basis that the benefits for the safety of patients outweighs any impact on current and future investigations. But under this Bill, who will decide what protected information can be disclosed? How will the CQC give the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised as HSSIB? Finally, Dash fails to look at the comparative cost of HSSIB investigations versus the cost of public inquiries. HSSIB at the moment only costs £6.3 million per year. To save money, the Secretary of State should request that HSSIB conducts far more investigations into matters which he thinks are important, provided that he also provides the funding for the necessary capacity. HSSIB, for example, has conducted eight investigations into mental health suicides since 2023. Each was completed in a few weeks or months, costing a total of £850,000. In comparison, the Lampard inquiry into the Essex partnership university trust in my constituency—investigating the same problem—is expected to cost more than £5 million. Ockenden cost £14 million. This is very far from the best use of resources for conducting investigations. So I ask the Minister, why have Dash and the Government ignored the whole question of HSSIB’s value for money? Even if HSSIB only saves a fraction of the £3.6 billion in costs of clinical negligence, it will pay for itself many fold. I do hope that Ministers will reconsider the whole issue, reflecting on the fact that none of the Royal colleges, nor any of the patient safety organisations, nor the all-party group on patient safety support this unjustifiable policy.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend. He will note that I will pick up on those points during my remarks. I come back to the questions that I want to put to the Secretary of State. First, if HSSIB’s investigations are intended to continue unaffected by the transfer to the CQC, why bother with the expense of the transfer? Are Ministers simply using Dash as the pretext for what people in the Department or elsewhere in the NHS would like to have? HSSIB was deliberately started very small, but the intention was that over time it would take over more investigations in health and replace the need for wasteful, lengthy, inexpert ad hoc public inquiries. Over the years, inquiries have proved to be a chaotic means of investigation, assembling expertise from scratch, which is then lost after the inquiry, and failing to command public confidence or to fix the system. That is why, after the 1999 Paddington rail crash, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry in 2001 established the rail accident investigation branch. Since then, despite many fatal rail accidents, there has been no public inquiry into a rail crash—nor has the public felt the need to demand one—and rail safety has improved. Given that HSSIB is expert, full time, and can conduct much cheaper and quicker investigations than public inquiries, how can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation to abolish it? Why not consider expanding HSSIB to avoid the need for so many costly public inquiries? Dash complains about there being far too many recommendations—yes, there are—but, as Dash itself enumerates, it is the 30 public inquiries that, in its language, have “cluttered” the “landscape” with some 1,400 recommendations over recent years. HSSIB is therefore not the source of those recommendations. In HSSIB’s first 34 months of operation, it has produced only 56 recommendations. How can Ministers use that reason to justify HSSIB’s abolition? Dash refers more than once to “quality (including safety) of care”. That elides quality of care with safety. In any other safety-critical industry, safety is seen as a distinct, separate and overriding priority. It is telling that in the report, the words “including safety” are added merely in parentheses, as though safety is ancillary to quality, but that becomes justification for rationalisation while actually compromising safety. Safety system management is intrinsic to safety and public confidence in other safety-critical activities, such as aviation, but this is alien to NHS culture. I therefore ask the Minister again: without HSSIB, which independent body will promote a coherent understanding of safety system management in health, and who is to hold the NHS and Government to account for safety failures?