Gregory Stafford MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As my right hon. Friend has just said, this is a unique system that will have unique benefits, but it will also have unique risks. Almost in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford, I do not think there is anything— [Interruption.]

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. On amendment 71, I ought to declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance. Although I do not own a shotgun myself, I represent a large shooting community and I have been on a shoot relatively recently, but without a gun, so I did not shoot anything. As I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I spoke on this issue in Westminster Hall some months ago, when it was clear to me that there was a significant level of cross-party support for the idea of mandatory markers for GPs. As mandatory markers for firearms licensing are technically a Home Office issue rather than a Department of Health and Social Care one, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), responded to that debate, but he was unable to reassure us that provision would be made. I did not understand the arguments he made, because I think mandatory markers are probably the way forward. Given that they are supported by organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance—organisations that one might not have expected to be in favour of them—the Government should look into the idea. There would clearly be a benefit to the proposal in amendment 71. If a patient who holds a firearms licence presents a serious medical risk because of a mental health crisis, suicidal ideation or behaviour that raises concerns about risks to themselves or others, an immediately visible marker would help clinicians to make informed decisions and take the appropriate safeguarding action. But a firearms licence is obviously not a medical condition, nor is it health information in any traditional sense. This goes back to the point I made in the debate on a previous amendment, about how broad the information that we keep on the single patient record will be. The inclusion of such a marker across the single patient record could lead to issues relating, as we talked about in previous debates, to who would want to see that information. For example, there may be people out there who are not in favour of recreational shooting, and someone may hold a firearms license for recreational shooting. Of course, section 2 firearms licences, especially for shotguns, are often held by farmers and people involved in conservation, and for all sorts of other reasons, including the control of pest populations. But if someone has a licence for recreational use, there may be people who, for whatever reason, find that to be against their own beliefs and opinions. That might lead to a patient being subjected to a level of intrusion or bias, or perhaps not receiving the care they deserve, because someone has made an assumption about what they are like based on that information. We need to be careful about that.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the purpose of clauses 45 and 46, as there is clear public interest in ensuring that providers that hold licences in our health and care system comply with the law. Patients, taxpayers and staff are entitled to expect high standards, proper governance and accountability. Where a provider delivers vital public services, it is reasonable for the licensing scheme to help to uphold those obligations. In that sense, the intention of the clauses is good. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham outlined a number of questions for the Minister. Could the Minister explain in more detail how clause 46, which essentially provides for the enforcement of the provisions in clause 45, will operate in practice?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have covered a lot of the points I wanted to make, so I will keep this relatively brief. Like them, I entirely sympathise with what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to achieve with the two amendments. I think we would all want to see more investment in primary care. As my right hon. Friend—a former Health Minister—knows all too well, we need to see growth in primary care. The fact that there is not a single dentist’s practice in my constituency taking new NHS patients is a real concern, as are the waiting times for GPs in my constituency. However, I do have some concerns. The first is that the standard, as the hon. Member for Winchester puts it, would be mandatorily enforced with a potential financial penalty. That takes away from what I think the Government are trying to achieve, which is local flexibility. As far as I can tell from the amendment, it makes no distinction between revenue spending and capital spending. I am still hopeful that my ICB is going to build a brand-new GP surgery and health hub in my constituency—it has been promising that for eight years and it is not here yet, so this may be hope over experience—and that would be a significant capital investment. Would the ICB be able to include that as spending on primary care services and get around the potential financial penalty? I also worry about pitting one part of health spending against another. The hon. Member for Winchester said that the proposed standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard, but I believe that the Government—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—have relatively recently changed the mental health standard to be in line with inflation rather than overall total spending. Therefore, if the amendment were to pass, primary care budgets would increase in line with total overall spending, whereas mental health budgets would increase in line with inflation. If those two things were out of sync, there would be a problem. I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve. We all want to see more spent on primary care. The Government’s stated intention is to bring healthcare closer to home, and that can only be delivered, in my view, through primary care services. But there are some unintended consequences of the two amendments, which at least need more exploration before I could vote for them.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, and I have mentioned that in relation to other clauses. I am perhaps a cynic in my belief that if stuff is being written into legislation, that probably means that the Department has some idea of what it wants to use those powers for. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what her and the Department’s intentions are for these powers. How directing or otherwise will they be of ICBs? Specifically, proposed new section 223GB to the NHS Act 2006, relating to service integration, also exposes that inherent contradiction. It enables the Secretary of State to require ICBs to allocate designated funding into pooled budgets with local authorities, and at the same time to impose centrally approved spending plans and performance objectives. It is not possible to take the clause forward without having some clarity on exactly how those powers are going to be used in future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, clause 44 is shorter. She covered most of the points that I was going to make, but I think the Government should explain how effective oversight of the system-wide financial discipline that we have talked about will be maintained in the absence of the provisions omitted from the 2006 Act and the Health and Care Act 2022 by the clause.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  While I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester, I note the irony that he is talking about how he wants more independence in this clause, whereas the amendments he tabled previously would have taken independence away from the ICBs—but hey, ‘twas ever thus with the Liberal Democrats. On the new powers in clause 43, we have previously discussed the power of the Secretary of State to direct how ICBs use and manage both financial and other resources, impose expenditure limits, require approval of local decisions and compel repayment of funds where directions are not followed. These provisions substantially weaken the operational independence of ICBs, transforming them from organisations that are intended to exercise local strategic leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, into bodies primarily responsible for implementing centrally determined priorities. Such centralisation risks diminishing the flexibility required to respond to local, demographic, clinical and population health challenges. The timing of these legislative changes also raises significant concerns, because they coincide with the abolition of NHS England, the redistribution of its functions and the requirement for ICBs to reduce their operating costs by at least 50%--and, in some cases, even more than that. Collectively, those reforms represent one of the most significant reorganisations of NHS governance. However, there remains little clarity regarding which responsibilities will remain with the ICBs. The clause makes it even less certain which responsibilities will transfer to regional teams or providers, and how accountability will operate across the system. Introducing substantially enhanced ministerial powers before the future operating model is fully defined, as we have discussed with regional mayors and other bodies, will essentially risk creating uncertainty, duplication and potentially gaps in oversight.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment and what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve through it. Does he have any idea of how a patient would nominate a carer in such a circumstance? Indeed, would it be done by the patient themselves? If not—for example, the patient might have mental health issues or capacity issues—could the carer be nominated by a health professional or a statutory body? Although I absolutely agree with the intentions of the amendment, could he give some examples? For instance, would a carer be able to access all of the patient’s record, or just the part for the period in which they have been providing care? It is entirely right that a carer should see the patient record relating to whatever it is they are providing care for, but—I am not trying to be flip—should carers know that at 17, the person who they are caring for was treated for a sexually transmitted disease or something similar, which the patient might not want them to know?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I expressed in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve with amendment 8. Whether by accident or design, he has allowed us to have a real think about—

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. It would be helpful to have more clarity on what the single patient record will look like. I will not repeat my earlier questions, but I think they are prescient. I hope that the Minister—even if she cannot answer now, which I accept—has those in mind when she and her colleagues start to look at this. Even if the Minister cannot provide detail, all I ask is that she provides reassurance that access to the single patient record will be based on explicit consent, limited to what is necessary for either the caring role—as in the amendment of the hon. Member for Winchester—or the clinical role overall, subject to some kind of regular review and supported by some robust audit mechanism. If we are to create a system on this scale, we must ensure that the safeguards are just as strong as the benefits.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right again: there is a lack of clarity in these two clauses, as I have highlighted. I am sure the Minister, having heard my hon. Friend’s question, will respond when she gets her moment.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be charitable and take him at his word. We have opened a vital conversation about who will have access to this record, how it will be shared, which bits of it will be shared, and how we ensure that the laudable aim of a single patient record—to ensure that a clinician treating a patient has all the vital facts in front of them—is balanced with that patient’s privacy. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we must make sure that the patient is put at the centre of this. We need to look at the amendment under that microscope of scrutiny. We must use our role as legislators to ensure that gaps in legislation are closed so that loopholes cannot be exploited. I am fully in favour of the Government’s intention on that. However, I have some concerns about privacy and access, and amendment 8 potentially highlights those. The amendment provides for a nominated carer to access a patient’s record, but who nominates the carer? Is it always the patient, and how will that consent be verified and continually checked so that if the patient wishes to remove consent for the carer to see their record for whatever reason, there is a way of doing so? What protections exist for vulnerable patients who may feel pressured or even coerced into granting access? If circumstances change, how easily can that access be withdrawn, by whom and through what process? Although I am not being critical specifically of the amendment, the Government will need to think about those questions when they introduce the single patient record. It is not as simple as saying, “Here is a wonderful record and everyone can access it,” because it will contain some of the most sensitive information an individual holds, including details of their physical and mental health. I entirely accept that carers often play a vital role in supporting patients, but unrestricted or poorly governed access could undermine patient confidentiality and therefore trust in the system. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Member for Winchester and think that, not just in relation to this amendment but as the record is pulled together, we really need to consider these vital issues. On amendment 65, like the shadow Minister, I have a lot of sympathy with the point about reasonable adjustments. We need to be careful when deciding as legislators the purpose of the single patient record. Is it simply a repository of treatments, illnesses, conditions and so on, or does it give a wider commentary on those conditions and treatments? In the example given by the shadow Minister, knowing that someone has hearing difficulties would be useful, but is the single patient record the appropriate place for that? I do not know the answer, but we need to discuss and decide that, because there is a danger of scope creep. If we try to make it all things to all men and women, it could lose the stated purpose, which is to ensure that a clinician has the full facts when dealing with a patient.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Very briefly, on clauses 27 and 28, I am sure the Committee is aware that special health authorities were initially established under the National Health Service Act 1977. Since then the number of special health authorities has expanded and contracted a number of times over the years to leave us with, currently, NHS Blood and Transplant, and the Business Services Authority, which covers pensions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned—I should declare that I have an NHS pension, albeit a very small one—as well as the NHS Litigation Authority, also known as NHS Resolution, and the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. The mood music and the direction of travel, certainly since 2006, has been to reduce the number of special health authorities. On my reading, clauses 27 and 28 suggest that the Government are potentially looking to expand the number of special health authorities, given the Secretary of State’s direction under clause 27 and the practical steps for staff transfers in clause 28. Is the Minister looking at, for example, a special health authority to deal with artificial intelligence? Clearly that is something the NHS will have to embrace—or deal with, depending on which end of the AI argument one is on—rapidly over the coming years. Is that a potential area for a special health authority? Perhaps the Minister could outline where she sees the special health authorities acting and what their remits might be.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We can go back to the record in Hansard , but I do not remember mentioning anything to do with hospitals in what I just said; I may have had some sort of amnesia at that point. If the hon. Member is referring to the plan of the last Government, which was fully costed, for 40 new hospitals, then I am afraid I did not mention that. On his wider point, Conservative Members want to understand how local authorities and deliverers of primary care—dental services and so on—will be included and can have influence over the plans and strategies that ICBs draw up. I fully support that ambition; I just feel that, if we are to have that ambition, we need to table amendments and new clauses that the Minister might actually accept, so that we can go forward.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s intervention neatly brings me to my next point. I have some sympathy for his viewpoint—and apparently the viewpoint expressed to him by governors—that in many cases, if not most, governors do not have the teeth, the influence or the ability to change things in the way they would like. My argument is very similar to the one we will expand on later regarding the abolition of the Healthcare Services Safety Investigations Branch and Healthwatch: the Government’s response to something not working as effectively as it could is to abolish it, but why not give those organisations the teeth—the powers—to achieve the things they were set up to do, unless the hon. Gentleman and the Government feel that there is no need, in Healthwatch’s case, for that level of independent scrutiny or, in governors’ case, that level of independent influence on boards? There is a fundamental difference here: the Conservatives would take something imperfect and make it better; the Government’s response is to take something imperfect and abolish it. That is the wrong way round.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. It is helpful to understand that the Liberal Democrats will not press the new clause to a vote, but if we are to use probing amendments effectively, they need to be drawn much more tightly, so that a Minister does not have the opportunity—I am sure that today’s Minister would not do this—to wriggle out of it because it is so poorly drafted.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On clause 29 and the relevant amendments, the membership model and the council of governors were originally introduced to give patients, staff and local communities a formal voice in the governance of NHS organisations. I worry that by removing them the clause concentrates power in the hands of the trust board at a local level and, potentially, the Secretary of State at a national level, while reducing opportunities for local scrutiny and public participation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, there is a real danger that organisations will be independent in name only. That brings us back to the never-ending tension in the Bill between the centralisation of power in the Secretary of State, through the abolition of NHS England and all the other bodies we have talked about, and the Government’s stated desire to have more accountability for decision making at a local level.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that there will be a gap in local decision making on these issues. It goes back to that tension I described some moments ago: the Government’s stated intention is to devolve powers locally, but they seem to be pulling so much power up to the Secretary of State that we will lose the ability to make local decisions for the benefit of local populations where appropriate. We have a stated ambition for neighbourhood health, but those neighbourhoods are rapidly expanding in this legislation to become areas of millions of people. Local people who are interested in their local health delivery or local hospital trust would not see that as local decision making, and there is the gap that my hon. Friend describes. I do not think that amendments 74 and 75 have been moved, so I will not talk about them. Government amendment 19 will require “NHS foundation trusts to have at least one executive director who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist and another who is a registered nurse or a registered midwife.” As also stated in the explanatory note, and as the Minister mentioned, regulations may create exception—for example, for ambulance trusts. That is the right decision, and it is important that we have medical experience on foundation trust boards. I am interested in understanding from the Minister, first, why she has chosen a medical practitioner or registered dentist. Does she see some equivalence in their expertise that could be substituted? I have great respect for doctors and for dentists, but they have potentially different clinical expertise. If a foundation trust does no oral healthcare or maxillofacial reconstruction, and does no dentistry or allied specialties, would it really satisfy requirements to have a dentist on the board? Likewise, given that the amendment also refers to a registered nurse or midwife, if a trust has no maternity services, would having a midwife on the board really satisfy the requirement of that trust to have nursing care input? I ask those questions, and I would be interested in the answers. Likewise, there is the exemption for ambulance trusts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I would be interested to understand from the Minister why she thinks ambulance trusts do not need a medical practitioner on their boards, given that they are doing medicine. Plenty of consultants work alongside paramedics and in ambulances, so again I am not quite sure why she is making that exemption. I would be interested to hear from her on that. I understand the intention behind Liberal Democrat amendment 36. Once again, it is trying to soften the Secretary of State’s power grab over decision making—like the hon. Member for North Shropshire, I am not saying anything against the current Secretary of State, but a future Secretary of State could be different. The aim is to try to temper that in some way. Unfortunately for the hon. Member—I have sympathy for the amendment—the stated intention of the Bill is to pull more power to the Secretary of State. The Minister may surprise me, but I fear that the amendment will not find favour with the Government, because the whole Bill is about pulling more power to the centre, certainly when it comes to appointments, and to the Secretary of State. However, the Minister should think about how future Secretaries of State may have to go through some process whereby their decisions are checked and justified, especially at local level. If we want local people to have influence and say over their local health systems and trusts, there needs to be some sort of bridging legislation or bridging process to ensure that whatever a Secretary of State decides, it has the confidence and support of local people and local service providers.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not convinced that clause 24 delivers the transformation that the Minister claims. At its core, it appears to be little more than a rebranding exercise. It replaces joint local health and wellbeing strategies with neighbourhood health plans, but does remarkably little to strengthen the underlying duties on local authorities or integrated care boards. Merely changing the name of a document does not improve patient outcomes, reduce waiting lists or deliver more integrated care. The duty created by the clause is also remarkably weak. Local authorities and ICBs need only prepare a plan and then “have regard” to it when exercising their functions. That is one of the least demanding obligations available in legislation. It requires consideration, not compliance. An ICB could acknowledge the plan, but decide to depart from it and still satisfy the legal test. If neighbourhood plans are genuinely intended to drive local health policy, the Bill should do a lot more to require decision makers to act in accordance with them, or at the very least to explain publicly why they have chosen not to. I am also concerned that the clause creates additional bureaucracy without any clear accountability. It requires the production of another planning document, another consultation exercise and another set of reporting expectations, but provides for no—for want of a better phrase—enforcement mechanism or measurable outcomes against which success can be judged. There is a risk that local systems will spend their time drafting plans rather than delivering services. Public involvement is of course essential, and indeed welcome, as we have heard, but the clause offers no detail about what meaningful involvement looks like and contains nothing to prevent a token consultation from satisfying the statutory requirement. If the objective is genuine neighbourhood-led healthcare, the legislation needs to be drafted much more tightly. Moving on to new clause 70, I do my absolute best not to be flippant when it comes to Lib Dem amendments and new clauses, but once again we have an idea that is fine in principle—in fact, I think we would all support it in principle—yet the hon. Member for Winchester could hardly articulate how the new clause would work and whom it would involve.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a prescient point. Has she thought about the word “limits”? To me, it is not clear from the clause as drafted—perhaps it is clearer to her—whether that is an overall limit on capital and revenue expenditure, or whether the clause is saying that the Secretary of State could impose limits on individual line items or departments. The word “limits”—plural—suggests that he or she may be able to do that.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to touch briefly on clause 39, Government new clause 20, and new clause 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon in her role as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I recognise the intention behind clause 39. Greater collaboration between the NHS, local authorities and other public bodies has the potential to improve the co-ordination of services and deliver a more integrated approach to population health, which I think we all welcome. However, it sits slightly uncomfortably with other clauses we have debated that appear to draw local authorities and the NHS further apart. In this case, it looks like they may be brought together. As the clause expands delegation and joint working powers, I would be interested to understand from the Minister where the oversight and safeguards for accountability for spending the joint budgets would sit. Would it be with the NHS, local authorities or somewhere else? We hope that everything goes well, but if services fail or financial problems emerge, the public deserve to know who precisely is accountable for those budgets. As I have said in debates on numerous other clauses, I continue to be concerned by the broad powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State. I have the same concerns about this clause. On Government new clause 20, bringing health services and wider local government functions together is really important, particularly where combined authorities have responsibilities that affect the wider determinants of health. However, once again, I am concerned about the fact that the new clause further complicates an already crowded accountability landscape. As more functions are delivered through pooled budgets and joint arrangements, it becomes harder to identify who is responsible for outcomes, spending decisions and—hopefully not, but potentially—service failures. I welcome the flexibility, which I think has value, but it must be balanced with transparency and democratic accountability. I am not convinced that the new clause gets that right. On new clause 26, as I have said before concerning amendments and new clauses that have come from the Health and Social Care Committee, it is often difficult to get entire agreement on these things because of the cross-party nature of the Committee. Therefore, new clauses and amendments that come out of the Committee are in some ways aspirational, rather than ones that hit the nail on the head. The new clause suggests that the Secretary of State carry out a review of how effective section 75 arrangements are—the hon. Member for Winchester outlined evidence that in some cases, the use of section 75 arrangements has not always been effective—consult NHS bodies, local authorities and anyone else considered appropriate; consider whether existing powers should be used to improve those arrangements; publish a report and lay it before Parliament; explain whether the Government intend to use their powers to change regulations or guidance and why; and complete all that within 12 months of the Bill passing, which I think is a reasonable timeframe. Section 75 arrangements already play an important role in bringing together health and social care. It is reasonable to ask, as the hon. Member for Winchester did, whether they are delivering the benefits in the most effective way possible. I would potentially say that this proposal does not go far enough. The new clause would require a review, a consultation and a report, but would not require any action to follow that. The Secretary of State need only “consider” whether existing powers should be exercised and explain the reasons for any decision. If the review identified significant weaknesses, there is no obligation in the new clause, as far as I understand it, to implement those changes. I agree that the new clause is well-meaning. It has some good recommendations, and I hope the Minister takes on board its sentiment, but it probably does not have the teeth and the power to make it an effective part of the Bill.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to carry on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston has just raised. He rightly says that there is a transparency element to this, so that the public and any other interested party can look at the individual accounts of an ICB or a trust. Going further than that on the technical elements, my understanding is that NHS England’s own guidance notes suggest that consolidation does not just bring accounting under one set of accounts, one umbrella or one document. Within that accounting, however, adjustments and eliminations of transactions between NHS bodies can happen. Therefore, the aggregated figures do not necessarily reflect the financial reality of individual organisations. I understand why that might be entirely appropriate from an accounting point of view, but it can make it harder for external observers to understand exactly where the pressures are coming from, where they are concentrated and, in a world where we want accountability, who should be held responsible for addressing them. That is all I need to say on that point.