Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and his point goes to the heart of the debate. Pharmacies are businesses that must make a profit, and pharmacists must pay their staff and make sure that they can feed their own families, but they are also public servants. They are people who have decided to work in our national health service to provide for our patients, and the Government should recognise that. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned independent prescribing. If properly supported, it will give patients quicker access to treatment, but it brings greater clinical responsibility, greater governance requirements and greater pressure on pharmacists’ time. Given the limited capacity that we have already talked about, I want to ask the Minister three questions on independent prescribing. Does she believe the sector is ready? Does it have the workforce and the capacity to do it? What additional funding and support will be provided? We also need clarity on the timetable. Pharmacists have trained to prescribe, and they should be able to use that skill. That brings me to the pharmacy workforce, because none of these reforms—independent prescribing, Pharmacy First or any other idea—will work without a sufficiently large and properly supported workforce. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members about recruitment and retention pressures, including concerns about the number of full-time equivalent pharmacists. At the same time, the demands placed on existing staff are increasing. We cannot continue to add responsibilities to community pharmacy without considering whether there are enough people to deliver them safely and effectively. The previous Conservative Government’s NHS long-term workforce plan included an ambition to increase pharmacist training places by 29%, taking them to around 4,300 by ’28-29. That ambition will clearly not be met under this Government, and we are still waiting for the long-promised NHS workforce plan. Despite my asking the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in July when the plan was coming out, we still have no answer. Finally, I will move on to medicines supply. Pharmacies are facing global supply chain disruption and rising medicine costs, with repeated price concessions adding further pressures. They cannot absorb these pressures indefinitely, so what are the Government doing to mitigate the impact of geopolitical disruption on medicine supply and prices, and what assessment has the Department made of the financial burden that these pressures are putting on community pharmacies? They are being felt by pharmacies across my constituency, including Vaughan James and Lalys in Farnham, Chase and Headley pharmacies and Day Lewis in Haslemere, and Grayshott pharmacy, all of which have contacted me about the issues that I have raised. In conclusion, community pharmacy has a crucial role to play in the future of our NHS. We all want to see care delivered closer to people’s homes. Pharmacy First has shown what can happen when we give pharmacists greater responsibility and trust them to use their expertise, but ambition needs to be matched by capacity. The Government cannot say that community pharmacies are central to the future of neighbourhood healthcare while making it harder for those pharmacies to remain financially sustainable. I urge the Government to recognise the cumulative impacts of their policies on businesses, to look again at the treatment of business rates for community pharmacies, to ensure independent prescribing is properly supported, to protect the supply of medicines, and to provide clarity on when the NHS workforce plan will be published. The fact is, we cannot ask pharmacies to take on more responsibility and deliver more NHS care while simultaneously making it harder for them to survive. The Conservative party believes that community pharmacy is absolutely central to the future of the NHS. If the Government agree, they must make sure that pharmacies have a future, too.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can use pharmacists and pharmacies much more creatively and in a manner that would in no way put patient safety at risk. In fact, it would allow patients more choice, and free up GPs and other health professionals to do other parts of their job, so he is right. Community Pharmacy England’s 2026 pharmacy pressures survey makes the scale of the challenge facing pharmacies clear. Drawing on responses from nearly 4,000 pharmacy owners and staff members, it found that 75% of pharmacies are currently losing money, while only 14% reported being profitable. There is little value in providing additional funding for services without recognising the wider cost and workforce pressures facing the sector: 30% of pharmacies have reduced their opening hours and 76% report an impact on patient care, including longer waits and delays in accessing medicine. That brings me—briefly—to the issue of business rates and the wider cumulative costs facing pharmacies. A pharmacy might occupy a storefront on a high street, but it is not simply another retailer; it is part of the national health service and is an essential provision in our community. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined, pharmacies are also part of our national resilience. The Government want pharmacies to take on more responsibility, but they face rising costs that have been caused by the Government. Pharmacies need to be properly considered within the system and not treated simply as another high street retailer. The same issue applies when we consider national insurance increases, and indeed the national living wage. These cumulative increases are having a real impact. Unlike a high street retailer, a pharmacy has contractual obligations to the NHS and a moral responsibility to its patients, so it cannot just increase prices or stop providing a service like other businesses could. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) rightly put it, the Government have to recognise the cumulative impact of these terrible decisions when considering future policy.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to her new role and congratulate her on her appointment. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing this most important debate. She spoke very powerfully about the pressures facing community pharmacies and I want to build on her speech by discussing what is happening both in my constituency and nationally. In Farnham and Bordon, we have access to 15 community pharmacies, which collectively dispense around 142,000 prescriptions every month and deliver around 6,500 flu vaccinations. The Government’s 10-year plan wants more healthcare to be delivered in the community, which is an aim that I think we all support. At the same time, however, the Government appear to be making it harder for those very pharmacies to deliver such care and to remain sustainable. The reality is that community pharmacies are being asked to do more while facing rising costs. We have seen higher national insurance contributions, increases in the national minimum wage, rising business rates and persistent inflationary pressures. At the same time, pharmacies are dealing with medicine shortages, higher procurement costs and disruption to international supply chains. The financial picture is impossible to ignore. Funding for community pharmacies in 2025-26 was actually £800 million less in real terms than it was in 2015-16. In the last year alone, the number of NHS-prescribed items dispensed by pharmacies and the service volumes increased by 2.3% and 17% respectively. As the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) has already highlighted—he was echoed by a number of Members around the Chamber today—the Government’s own independent economic analysis in March 2025 identified a funding gap for pharmacies of £2 billion a year, and trade bodies that have spoken to me identify a structural funding problem. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome additional funding, but pharmacy is not made sustainable by giving with one hand and taking with the other. We need to ensure the long-term viability of community pharmacy and I am very sceptical that the Government’s approach will achieve that. I turn now to Pharmacy First, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we make better use of the skills and expertise available within our NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is absolutely right to be proud of his Government’s record on this matter. Created and implemented by the last Government, Pharmacy First shows what NHS reform should look like—the right professional, with the right responsibility, delivering the right care in the right place. It should be a game changer and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for its introduction. Pharmacy First recognises that patients with seven common conditions can be safely assessed and treated by qualified pharmacists without there always being a requirement for a GP appointment. However, the scheme is currently limited and not as expansive as it is in Scotland, where it covers up to 30 common conditions. I would like the Government to move rapidly to expand Pharmacy First elsewhere. We should be ambitious about the skills and clinical expertise of our pharmacists.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Well—I just say carry on, that’s what I say!

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesperson say that she will not press the amendment, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for it if she did so. This important amendment sums up a number of our concerns about the Bill, and the commencement amendments to follow are also appropriate. As the hon. Member will not press her amendment, however, I will not speak for long, save to say that I have enjoyed the past few weeks on this Committee. I hope that the Minister is still in place when we return in September. If she is not, I wish her very well and thank her for all her hard work, not just in this Committee, but in her role over the past two years.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has just sat down. I was not sure whether she had finished her speech or was willing to take an intervention.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Hopefully, this is a pleasure postponed. I rise to support new clauses 81 and 82, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As legislators, we have a moral duty to ensure that patients are protected during times of disruption in the NHS. Nobody disputes the fact that NHS staff work incredibly hard. They absolutely do. The dedication shown by doctors, nurses, paramedics, midwives and all those who keep our health service running deserves enormous respect. Having worked in healthcare for pretty much all my career, including for professional organisations such as the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, I know at first hand how hard they work. Equally, we need to recognise that the NHS is not an ordinary service. Working for it is not like being a shop assistant, a bin collector or a tax inspector; in its importance to the health and safety of this nation, it is more akin to being a police officer or a member of our armed forces. It is an essential public service. When people are at their most vulnerable, whether that is because they are waiting for an operation, procedure or intervention or because they are in the process of having those interventions, they must have confidence that the care they rely on will still be there. The right to strike has to come with responsibilities. In the NHS, the consequences of industrial action are real: cancelled operations, delayed treatments, missed appointments and increased pressure on emergency services. When I raised some of these issues with Sir Jim Mackey when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee, he could not tell me, hand on heart, that people have not died because of these strikes. I suspect that they probably have. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, for someone requiring urgent surgery or for families relying on maternity services, the impact can be deeply serious and potentially even deadly. There is a moral obligation, both on NHS doctors and on us as legislators, to ensure that we have a universal, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service that is free at the point of use that patients can and should expect to rely on. I therefore support new clause 81’s minimum service requirements and new clause 2’s the removal of clinicians’ ability to strike. We must ensure that our NHS staff are supported, protected, paid appropriately and given the resources they need to do their job, but the corollary is that they should remain on the job to serve our constituents.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I had written a 25-page speech for this debate, but to the disappointment of my researcher—and probably the delight of this Committee—I do not intend to read out all 25 pages. [ Interruption. ] There are cries of “Shame!” from my own side, but I accept that there are a number of amendments and new clauses to get through. My stated objection to the puberty blocker trial is also well known and on the record, so I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long. I want to pick out five areas where I think there are problems. They are why I support new clause 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. My first point can be summarised as: “Don’t repeat a mistake to find out whether it was a mistake.” Thousands of children have already received puberty blockers through the former Tavistock pathway, and my view is that, before exposing a whole new cohort, the Government should complete the long-promised data linkage study to establish what happened to those children. That is probably the core argument. Secondly, if the Government rightly say that the drugs present an unacceptable safety risk, how can it be ethical to give them to children in a trial? It must still be an unacceptable safety risk, whether it is for the general population of those who wish for it or for the people in the trial. The Government banned routine prescribing because of the safety concerns, yet propose administering the same medicines in a research setting. That is a complete contradiction of the ban. Thirdly, clinical equipoise does not exist in the evidence if the evidence already points to significant risk and uncertain benefit. The Cass review concluded that the evidence base for puberty blockers is weak and that concerns remain over bone health, fertility and neurodevelopment. A trial should not proceed unless there is genuine uncertainty that justifies exposing children to those risks. Fourthly, children should not bear the burden of answering questions that the NHS should have answered itself. The failure to collect the robust, long-term evidence from previous patients, including through the data linkage trial, should not be remedied by recruiting another generation of vulnerable children. Ethical research requires exhausting the existing evidence first. Finally, even the medicines regulator—the MHRA—had sufficient concerns to halt the trial. The MHRA intervened to pause the pathways trial over safety and wellbeing concerns, reinforcing the idea that the scientific and ethical questions remain unresolved. A pause should lead to a complete reassessment, not simply restarting as soon as possible.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike that of the hon. Member for Guildford, my constituency covers both Surrey and East Hampshire, so I welcome the focus that new clause 72 places on our local area. Constituents regularly raise with me their concerns about seeing an NHS dentist. As I have announced a number of times in this Committee—although I have not checked today, so may not be true any more—there is not a single dentist in my constituency taking on adult or child NHS patients at the moment. For many people, the challenge is not simply one of convenience; it is about being able to access timely care when they need it. Good oral health is an essential part of overall health, and we cannot allow dentistry to become an afterthought in our healthcare system. The ability see a dentist for routine check-ups, preventive care and urgent treatment helps to reduce pressure elsewhere in the NHS by dealing with problems before they become more serious. The new clause rightly highlights the need both for urgent appointments and for improved access to routine NHS dental care. Prevention is at the heart of a sustainable healthcare system, and regular access to dental services plays an important role in achieving that. I welcome the accountability that the new clause seeks to introduce. In places where there are persistent challenges in accessing services—so-called dental deserts—local communities deserve transparency about what action is being taken and why improvements have not yet been delivered. As I have mentioned before, the spanking new dental surgery in Haslemere hospital has sat entirely unused since it was built, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to use it. That seems like a shocking waste of money and, more importantly, a shocking waste of a dental surgery that could be treating patients in Haslemere and the wider area. The hon. Member for North Shropshire always wants to place the blame with the Conservatives, and does not seem to feel the need to challenge the Government, but I gently remind her that there was a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care for five years, and apparently they did absolutely nothing to raise this issue. Although this issue is particularly important for Surrey and East Hampshire, it reflects a wider challenge facing communities across the country. Residents should not have to struggle to find an NHS dentist, and ensuring that provision is adequate must remain a priority. I hope the Government take that on board.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It did. If memory serves, that question was raised—although I cannot say more because it was in private. I do have concerns that the professor who was in charge and raised those concerns at the MHRA was recused. I cannot discuss the details of that, but it could show that there was a bias in the selection of the people who were pushing the trial forward. I am not saying that there was bias, but I think that, on an issue of such importance, the perception of bias is almost as bad. We need to be very careful about that. Either way, I think the trial is wrong for the five reasons I have outlined. The key reason is the moral and ethical issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East raised it in both the Health and Social Care Committee and the Chamber: it is clearly morally wrong to experiment on children just for the sake of experimenting. The fact that there is no evidence does not mean that we should put children through a trial to see whether the evidence exists.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Patient safety cannot be something that is discussed only after a tragedy has occurred. It requires a culture of accountability, transparency, and most importantly, action. That is why the new clause is such a sensible and important amendment to the Bill. It would not dictate the outcome of every review or every recommendation, but it would require the Government to respond properly. The new clause would create a straightforward expectation that when experts have identified changes that could improve patient safety, Ministers cannot simply leave those recommendations unanswered. The new clause pushes that forward, as recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash. There must be a clear process and a clear timeline. Such a process and principle are closely connected with new clause 98 and the Government response to the Hughes report on those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Those are deeply serious issues involving people who have suffered life-changing consequences and have spent years seeking recognition and redress. Last week, I think, at the Health and Social Care Committee, I questioned the current Secretary of State on this matter, and his answer was equivocating, dissembling and, I am afraid to say, frankly unacceptable to those patients who have suffered from both those. He could not even tell me whether the response would be published by the end of the recess—we probably have two hours until recess, so unless the Minister is going to tell me otherwise, I suspect it is not coming before the recess. It seems shocking—perhaps even a slap in the face to those victims—that the Secretary of State could not even give an answer on that issue. However, they received some positive news on Tuesday evening, when the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—presumably the incoming Prime Minister—raised this issue in the House during the debate on the remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I hope the Minister has had the chance to speak to the right hon. Member—unlike the rest of us—so that she understands his priorities and when redress is coming. If her new boss has given his stamp of approval, Labour MPs on the Committee should have no problem supporting these Opposition new clauses.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister back from her son’s graduation —I hope it went well. I rise to state my support for new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a clear roll-out plan for fracture liaison services across England and report annually to Parliament on progress towards universal coverage by 2030. It is not about creating a new target, because the target already exists: both this Government and the previous Government committed to achieving 100% fracture liaison service coverage by 2030. The question before us, as proposed by the shadow Minister, is simple: how will that promise be delivered, and how will Parliament know whether meaningful progress is being made? Fracture liaison services are one of the most evidence-based interventions in osteoporosis care. They systematically identify people aged over 50 who suffer a fragility fracture; assess their bone health; initiate treatment where appropriate; and monitor patients to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. Given that around half of patients who sustain a hip fracture have previously broken another bone, those services represent a vital opportunity to intervene before a life-changing injury occurs. The human cost is considerable. Osteoporosis affects millions of people, particularly older women, and fragility fractures can result in a loss of independence, reduced mobility, social isolation and significant pressure on health and social care services. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that around 180,000 fractures each year in England and Wales are attributable to osteoporosis. There is also a compelling economic case: the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that investing around £30 million in fracture liaison services could prevent approximately 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures, saving the NHS around £665 million and freeing up some 750,000 bed days. Few preventive interventions offer that combination of better patient outcomes and substantial savings for the NHS. The Government frequently point to their commitment to universal coverage by 2030, but as the shadow Minister pointed out, progress has been achingly slow. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I questioned him on that issue directly. While he confirmed that the Department remains committed to meeting that 2030 target, which was first established by the previous Conservative Government, no plan—or indication of when a plan would come—was given. A commitment alone is not a delivery plan. There are also growing concerns that the Government have overstated the progress that has already been made. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has confirmed that more than 97% of the fracture liaison services counted by the current Government were already in place before the change of Government. So, rather than that representing any significant expansion in national coverage, this Government have gone slow. I think it is therefore very reasonable—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket—for Parliament to be entitled to ask what additional progress has actually been made since the commitment was reaffirmed. New clause 47 would also require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of access in every integrated care board area. It would also require annual milestones, because, at present, there is no publicly available timetable showing where the services will be established, or which areas will be prioritised or progressed between now and 2030. Crucially, the new clause would require the Government to set out how integrated care boards will actually be supported. Ministers rightly point out that fracture liaison services are commissioned locally by integrated care boards, but if the responsibility for delivery rests locally while responsibility for national targets rests with central Government, there clearly needs to be a well-thought-through national framework explaining how those boards will be supported through funding, guidance, workforce planning and accountability. This is, therefore, a straightforward request for transparency, accountability and, most importantly, delivery. If Ministers are committed to achieving this by 2030, they should have absolutely no objection to publishing a plan that shows how they intend to get there. For those reasons, I support the new clause.

• 14 Jul 2026 · NHS Workforce: Sickness Absence · Hansard source

  More

  As the Health Secretary is a numbers man, perhaps he will be interested in these figures. Research from Policy Exchange shows that sickness absence in the NHS costs £6 billion and removes 8 million clinician days from the frontline. What will the Secretary of State do to get staff back to work, to get patients treated, and to get this ridiculous level of staff absence down?

• 14 Jul 2026 · NHS Workforce: Sickness Absence · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps he is taking to reduce sickness absence in the NHS workforce.

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

  More

  I rise briefly to speak on this as well. I should note for the record that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities. The hon. Member for Winchester, on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, made the case very strongly. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we took evidence as he described. The lack of a statutory obligation in the current EHCP process is a fundamental problem. We need to ensure that the health elements are put on the same footing as the social care ones. As I am sure is the case in every hon. and right. hon Member’s constituency inbox, the number of children who are receiving or require support with special educational needs and disabilities, and the frustrations with the process both locally and nationally, are rightly something that we, as parliamentarians and policymakers, need to get a grip on.

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

  More

  I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s penultimate point: we need to support home-grown clinical academics and the life sciences industry in this country. As he has drawn me down that line, I declare that my wife works in the life sciences industry in the UK. I entirely agree with him on that point. However, if he is saying that a corollary is that we should not do pharmaceutical trade deals with other countries, I do not agree, because UK patients need the best medicines no matter where they come from. If that was not what he was saying and I am putting words into his mouth, I apologise, but that is how it sounded to me. I agree that we should support the home-grown, but obviously we need access to medicines from around the world. That brings me to my concerns about new clause 76. I understand why the hon. Member for Winchester supports it, but the way it is written means that, for the lifetime of the Act, any trade deal with America would have to follow those strictures. Although I accept that he does not like the current deal or the incumbent in the White House, it seems odd that we are singling out in statute, and putting a stricture on, one country over every other. I still probably would not have voted for it, but the new clause might have been more acceptable had it referred to any trade deal with any country, or even a group of countries—I know he is a big fan of one particular group of countries. That might have made it difficult. It would be dangerous essentially for the Bill to put a stricture on a trade deal with one specific country—especially one that is probably our strongest ally. I think that sits very badly.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Like the shadow Minister, I will be relatively brief. [Interruption.] It was not clear whether that was a sound of appreciation or disappointment from the Minister. I will assume that she receives everything I say with the same noise and grace. Yesterday, the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I sit—and was questioned at some length by the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), about the UK-US trade deal. It was striking that the Secretary of State appeared unable to answer the basic question of whether an impact assessment could be presented to the Committee—under whatever terms of secrecy or confidentiality the Department wanted to place on it—to allow us to assess the costs, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, and, one would hope, the benefits. The Secretary of State was very clear that there were benefits, but he was unable to outline what they were. He cited commercial confidentiality, which I do understand; there will be commercially confidential elements to the deal. What was really striking, however, was that even though the Select Committee was very happy to receive the information under whatever strictures he wanted to put on it, so that we could scrutinise it, it was not given. That is serious cause for concern. I understand what the hon. Member for North Shropshire seeks to achieve through new clauses 15 and 76, but there are some problems in their drafting. There will be commercially confidential elements to the deal, so laying it before the House essentially completely unredacted, as new clause 15 would require, might pose real problems. Likewise, I assume that the intention of new clause 76 is to focus specifically on the UK-US trade deal as currently formulated.

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

  More

  Is that not part of the problem with the wording of the new clause? It is not clear, from the new clause, what is NHS data and what is the patient’s data, and who owns which bit of it. The problem with the drafting of the new clause is that it appears to cover every single piece of data held by the NHS, whether it directly relates to a patient or not. Additionally, if the Government were to collect any other sort of data, even if on an aggregate basis, it would come under this. That would be totally unworkable and put an enormous burden of bureaucracy on the health service.

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

  More

  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?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public do not want to hear about the last 14 years or the rhetoric around them.

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

  More

  It is very important that we consider these new clauses and amendments carefully, not least because, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, the hon. Member for Worthing West, who tabled them, has considerable expertise, being a public health consultant herself. I have the pleasure of sitting with the hon. Member on the Health and Social Care Committee and she brings her expertise to every single sitting. I am sure that the Minister has welcomed her questioning when she has appeared before that Committee. It is really clear that, if we are going to make a success of the Bill, public health in all its guises needs to be at the forefront of our thinking about how we achieve better patient outcomes, better health and, more specifically, the Government’s stated aims in the 10-year plan to, first, shift care closer to home and, secondly, focus more on prevention rather than treatment. I am sure that across the House we agree with that ambition and therefore I can totally understand why the hon. Member for Worthing West has tabled these new clauses. I suspect that the new clauses are also a reaction to something that we have already discussed in this Committee, which is the dislocation and now the separation of local authorities from ICBs, with the removal of their statutory functions on those boards, to be given to strategic mayoral authorities. Some of those strategic mayoral authorities exist but, as we have discussed at some length in the Committee, many of them do not exist and might never exist. I can see why the hon. Member for Worthing West is trying to ensure that the vital work of directors of public health in local authorities for their population areas is somehow safeguarded and included in the Bill. That being said, I have some reservations about how these new clauses are currently drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already outlined many of them. Although strengthening public health leadership is an essential objective, new clause 24 defines the statutory role and legal status of directors of public health in this context without providing sufficient clarity about accountability or governance, or about how these new powers would interact with existing NHS and local authority structures. Potentially, there is a risk of creating overlapping responsibilities, blurred lines of accountability and additional bureaucracy at a time when integrated working should be simplified rather than made more complex. Obviously, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not here to answer my questions. I ask the Minister this: if these new clauses are not pressed to a vote, or if they are but are not accepted by this Committee, how can she reassure me and the hon. Member for Worthing West that public health will still be at the forefront of the Bill, and that the removal of local authorities from ICBs will not have the impact that I think the hon. Member, who tabled these new clauses, is concerned about?

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

  More

  I look forward to the new Prime Minister coming in and, I hope, providing a position where the hon. Member is able to achieve some of that. [Interruption.] I note for Hansard that that received acclamation across the Committee Room. Getting back to the Bill, as you have suggested I do, Dr Huq—I take your suggestions very seriously—the social care element is extraordinarily important. It is important to ensure that people do not enter the secondary care system if at all possible, especially through attending A&E. When I worked on the Getting It Right First Time programme, our accident and emergency reports put forward some interesting methods that could potentially help with that. Some of that has been implemented and some has not, but I recommend all hon. Members look at that report, because it contains a number of interesting proposals. This is not only about stopping people entering the system, but about ensuring that people come out of the system in a timely manner, freeing up the capacity we have just talked about. In my constituency, Haslemere hospital had 16 step-down inpatient rehabilitation beds. Unfortunately, last year, that service was “temporarily paused”—that is how it was described, but it has been over a year now, so it has essentially stopped. That service is not happening in my constituency, which is down to the fact that it was a GP-run service and the trust could no longer get a GP who was willing to run that service. Haslemere hospital and the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust that runs the hospital have some really fantastic ideas, very much in keeping with the Government’s push towards neighbourhood health, and I fully support those proposals, but it is a shame that we have had 16 beds sitting empty for more than a year, which could have been used for rehabilitation. We as a body politic should be looking at how we can improve and expand our step-down/step-up capacity, so that people do not have to go into acute settings. I turn briefly to the specifics of new clause 12. I am concerned about subsections (3) and (4), which talk about a tribunal system. I do not quite understand how that would work. The way it is set out almost gives it an adversarial, inquiry-type, case-by-case element. It would include patients, bereaved or affected families, and frontline NHS staff. I can see how that kind of body might work if one was investigating a failure around a single patient or at a single trust, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member for North Shropshire could expand on how she sees the national report coming forward and then a group of people being selected to interrogate it. It is also not clear what would be the consequences of the interrogation, or otherwise, once it has happened.

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

  More

  I am, too.

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

  More

  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?