Dave Robertson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of finance, which I will touch on briefly, so I ask him to bear with me as I get to that part of my speech. Opponents say that the parental order process is really complex. The document that intended parents have to submit is 200 pages long, meaning that many will seek legal advice. Adam and Jamie say that they expect legal fees for their parental order to be in excess of £10,000. We have just heard from my hon. Friend that it can be even more costly in other parts of the United Kingdom. That money is very real, and intended parents face very real financial difficulties. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the process can cause real practical problems. In fact, I have heard of cases in which surrogates have had to dial in to medical appointments for their child in the US for months after birth, because the hospital at home is unable to recognise the intended parents as responsible for their child’s health decisions. Experts say that, in their experience, the most distressing part of the process for most intended parents is the court-mandated social worker visit. Supporters of the current arrangement compare it to a visit from a health visitor, but opponents say that there is no comparison. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is the agency that advises the courts on children’s welfare, and in the vast majority of cases it is involved where a child is believed to be at risk. However, CAFCASS is also involved in surrogacy cases. Its assessments for a parental order involve criminal checks, child protection reports, home visits with parents and a full, detailed report. Although it is incredibly rare to see CAFCASS reports on intended parents that are anything but wholly positive, parents find it extremely distressing to be questioned and scrutinised in a way that parents conceiving without the need for a surrogate simply do not experience. In 2018, as a result of those difficulties, a previous Government asked the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to jointly consider reforms to UK surrogacy law. It was a significant piece of work, and the report was published in 2023. It recommended “a new pathway to legal parenthood” in surrogacy cases, with the screening of intended parents taking place before birth, so that they could be recognised as legal parents from birth. The proposed pre-birth arrangements included an agreement between the surrogate and the intended parents, with independent legal advice provided to all parties, a preconception assessment of the child’s welfare, and the agreement of a regulated surrogacy organisation to recognise the surrogacy agreement. If the surrogate then withdrew consent, the existing parental order process would apply. If the surrogate changed their mind before the birth, they would be the legal parent at birth. If they changed their mind in the six weeks following birth, they would be able to apply for a parental order. The authors of the report strongly felt that that struck a balance between protecting all parties—the surrogate, the parents and the children—and, crucially, keeping the child’s welfare as the central concern. Having said that, it is really important to bring in the voices of Professor Hopkins and Professor Black, who made it very clear ahead of this debate that they never intended that part of their proposal to be carved out and delivered in isolation. They proposed a wider package of reforms, and they say that it was only part of a comprehensive solution. Although some who advocate changes to surrogacy law argue that the issue of parental orders can be dealt with as a quick win, the professors believe that it should be addressed as part of a wider package. That package includes, for example, creating a mandatory surrogacy register so that children could find out more about their birth mother and, with their consent, her family, if they wish. It is also important to note that the Law Commission’s proposal for a new pathway to legal parenthood for intended parents would only apply to surrogacy arrangements here in the UK. It is proposed that the existing parental order system would continue to apply when babies are born abroad via surrogacy. The Law Commission report concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that laws abroad are in line with what we would consider UK norms. That concern is flagged by some of the groups opposed to surrogacy arrangements, as the second most popular destination for UK surrogacy is Nigeria—a country currently subject to special restrictions when it comes to adopting a child due to child welfare concerns. In preparing for this debate, I heard worrying reports of surrogate mothers, often living in real poverty abroad, being pressed to sign legal agreements under extreme time pressure and without independent legal advice. That is far from being the case everywhere. However, it can never be acceptable, and we should make sure there are proper legal safeguards in place. The Law Commission’s hope is that, by maintaining the UK’s altruistic approach to surrogacy—that is, keeping it not for profit—and updating the law, more intended parents will be able to pursue surrogacy here in the UK and make use of a new parental pathway to be recognised as legal parents from birth. The petition focuses on a specific part of surrogacy law, but it feeds into a much wider debate. There are some quite stark divisions on the issue, which is understandably very emotive for a large number of people. However, what seems clear is that the current law on surrogacy is no longer working and that a wider conversation about how we should change the legislation in this area would be welcome. I know the Government have said that they will look at this issue when time and capacity allow, but I am very interested to hear more from the Minister about what that might look like and when we might be able to expect it.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess—that is always a pleasure. To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard— [ Interruption. ] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter. There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role. New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to “supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.” That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording. New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers—I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy committee. There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. There are concerns that if we roll some responsibilities into ICBs or councils, the Department needs to make sure that the issue does not get pushed to the side and that the funding does genuinely remain for patient voice. I am reassured that there will be a patient experience directorate within the Department. That will bring decision making and the patient voice into the Department while also keeping an eye on what is happening with those ICBs and ensuring that they have standards to hit. The Department needs to ensure that it is sharing good practice and keeping oversight of local authority commissioning of social care. The CQC is starting to do that, and there are some positive indicators. There is obviously more work to do, and we need to stay on top of it because, as I said earlier, there are risks whenever there are changes to healthcare. I am reassured that bringing the patient voice into the room with decision makers is the right way to enact change.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Healthwatch was established, at least in part, as a response to the Mid Staffs scandal. Mid Staffs came up three times in our evidence sessions, and the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned it just now. That scandal matters to everyone, but it has a particular resonance for my role in Parliament. Many of my constituents were harmed by the failing at Mid Staffs. I was born in that hospital, and I speak as a Staffordshire MP. None of us should ever forget what happened or allow it to be swept aside without examining it. There were a great many failings at Mid Staffs over a long period. Oversight was just not in the room when decisions were being made. Staffordshire county council’s health and care overview and scrutiny committee clearly did not do that job. The Francis report stated: “The arrangements for public and patient involvement, and for local government scrutiny in Stafford, were a conspicuous failure.” The report recommended some changes to ensure that Healthwatch, which was in the process of being set up at the time, was funded properly. In that light, the framing of this debate is important and timely. Healthwatch has been going for well over a decade. It is right that we now examine its impact, as it is a significant part of patient voice within the NHS. Despite the very best efforts of a great many hard-working staff and an army of committed volunteers across the country, the quality of local healthwatch organisations is pretty changeable. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. The feedback that I have received has ranged from, “My local healthwatch team is brilliant— I work with them really closely and they have really helped out with a huge amount; they deliver great things in my constituency” all the way to, “I have some pretty significant concerns about their impact.” In a couple of cases I heard, “What is Healthwatch? I have never heard of it.”

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just about to conclude, so I will allow the hon. Lady to come back when she makes her speech shortly. The final point I want to make is about local government. I hope the Secretary of State will issue guidance on how local government will commission adult social care services. I also hope we will get annual reporting from ICBs and local councils on how they are using the patient voice. I know that the Secretary of State will have the ability to intervene, and I would expect him to do so should those reports show that the patient voice is not being used, is not finding its way into the room or is not leading to the meaningful change that the Amos report suggests.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In isolation, that criticism would be legitimate, but, alongside other changes being introduced, there are ways to mitigate that problem. I am concerned that local healthwatch branches are not truly local. The healthwatch in Staffordshire has not held an event in my constituency for a number of years. I think its last three events were just volunteer fairs to get more volunteers involved. That is not to say that there are not significant numbers of people there who work very hard to support people in their engagement with the health service, but geographic changeability is real. On a national scale, Healthwatch England has a huge role to play.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Funding Healthwatch is really important, but to address the issue properly, we must make sure that Healthwatch is in the rooms it needs to be in. Funding needs to be part of the process that ICBs follow. I will touch on that later, so the hon. Member will hear further thoughts on the matter. Local healthwatch organisations across all our constituencies have an important role. At the local level, they are geographically bound to counties. In constituencies like mine and that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, those geographical areas are huge. The health disparities within my constituency, with two towns that are 4 miles apart, one with a significant mining—