partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Julia Lopez

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

   I thank Members across the House for their contributions to this Bill over many months and for their relentless scrutiny. I have never known a Minister to be in such a rush, with three hours of protected time left. I am grateful to officials both in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and in Parliament for their hard work in getting this legislation to its final stage. I particularly recognise the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and his team in providing such top-notch scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the House. The Opposition have remained at all times supportive of the principles behind the Bill. It was the previous Government who recognised the need to increase cyber-resilience standards for critical digital infrastructure and services, including managed service providers and data centres. It is welcome that those entities—which are so vital to the functioning of the economy, public services and our daily lives—are now covered. However, I said on Second Reading that opportunities to legislate in this area are few and far between, and we need to ask two questions to assess whether this law is fit for purpose: will it work, and is it enough? There was already an urgent need to strengthen our cyber-defences. However, AI is equipping hostile states, criminal gangs and opportunists alike with tools capable of eroding our national defences at speed and at scale, in ways that will affect businesses, the public sector and our infrastructure. It is right that Parliament legislates to raise the collective security bar, but the nature of the cyber-security risks that necessitated this Bill have developed rapidly as we have been taking it through this House. That demonstrates the difficulties we all face as legislators in dealing with the constantly shifting sands of the digital age. We may need to be ready to return to this subject sooner than we had hoped. It is right that critical digital infrastructure such as data centres will fall within the scope of regulation, but we need to recognise that no security measures or standards are 100% effective. Government and businesses need to ensure that essential data and workloads are stored and processed in a way that keeps them secure and operational even when they are under attack. Resilience is key—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ apparent targeting of Amazon Web Services sites in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain earlier this year has shown that digital infrastructure is becoming a prime target in times of conflict. It would be irresponsible to assume that these facilities will not also be targets for cyber-warfare, which is why we have to look closely at concentration of risk, our overall resilience, and any leverage we can build in maintaining access to the best technology going forward. From work on the security of our telecoms infrastructure to scrutiny of the platforms on which critical Government services run, we must now be thinking extremely carefully about our procurement of digital technology. A further significant development since this Bill was introduced is the rapid advance of AI systems capable of identifying cyber-vulnerabilities, particularly in poorly protected legacy IT across Government and public services, including the NHS. It highlights the urgent need to address the Government’s extensive legacy estate, which is especially exposed to exploitation. Nothing in the Bill addresses that need, yet the Government are creating a broader digital architecture for hackers to attack through their plan for Government-issued digital IDs. If public trust is to be restored, especially after the Government’s abortive attempt to introduce mandatory ID last year—still, I fear, a risk by the back door—such systems must always remain both optional and secure. It is therefore concerning that the Public Accounts Committee felt compelled to write to the permanent secretary at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in April to criticise the lack of urgency in reviewing legacy IT equipment, given both the sensitivity of the data involved and the scale of the cyber-risk. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge set out one of the most significant threats that this Bill fails to address: the intensifying cyber-security risk posed by the Chinese Communist party and its affiliates. It is regrettable that the Government have, for a second time, voted down amendments that would have compelled the Secretary of State to create a register of hostile state actors threatening the cyber-security of essential networks and information systems. Those concerns are not restricted to Conservative Members, which is why the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) attracted cross-party support. The risks posed by cellular IOT modules have been set out expertly in the Chamber today. IOT modules supplied by Chinese manufacturers are now embedded in nearly all internet-connectable products and devices, from smart TVs to electric cars. They can be used to intercept data and track locations, and can even be controlled remotely. The scale of the cyber and physical security threat from IOT modules is the tip of the iceberg, with components that can be used for espionage or cyber-attacks or disabled remotely woven into countless aspects of our critical national infrastructure. This is an issue that is not going away. In summary, although this Bill is necessary and goes some way towards enhancing our cyber-resilience in critical areas, it will not be enough in isolation. It heaps all the burden on the private sector, yet it would have been insufficient to prevent the Jaguar Land Rover incident. It does not address public sector vulnerabilities, and it falls far short of meeting the moment that the now former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), lamented that this Government were missing in their approach to our collective defence and security. It speaks to this Government’s continued inability to grapple with and address the red lights that are now flashing on the national dashboard. The “corrosive complacency” that Lord Robertson called out in the Government’s approach to investment in defence can also be seen here, in the Government’s ongoing refusal to address the urgent threat to our national cyber-security caused by our reliance on technology and components from nations that have demonstrably malign intent. We are living with the uncomfortable reality that the end of history was a dangerous illusion; one that has led to us gradually outsourcing our critical industries to our geopolitical rivals and competitors, only to have their wares sold back to us in the form of latent time bombs. That is why this legislation, which we support, can only be a discrete tool in addressing a much wider challenge. Cyber-security is no longer a niche compliance exercise; it is about protecting the fundamental economic and defence interests of our nation. That is why I suspect we will be returning to cyber issues in this House before too long, and with greater urgency.

   Hansard source
2. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (First sitting)

   Q HSSIB is obviously an investigator and CQC is obviously a regulator—two different roles. I suspect there was a good reason why you were asked how the CQC can be investigated by a body that becomes part of it. Are you aware that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the UK Civil Aviation Authority are separate? If you are, why should that fundamental separation, which benefits air passenger safety, not apply to the safety of patients in the NHS? Dr Dash: Yes, I am aware. The analogy is continually made—and it has been made several times—and to be honest, 20 years ago, I would have shared the view that healthcare was similar to airlines. Indeed, I did quite a lot of talks about that at the time. However, the more I have looked into it, the more I think there are limits to that analogy. We are running out of time and this is a much longer conversation, but if I look at the specific examples that people bring up from the airline industry, it is about spotting some very specific things. An example was used at the Health and Social Care Committee about spotting a bolt that is not working properly. The equivalent of that within the NHS is actually something like the MHRA, which is separate. If we spot a drug, an anaesthetic machine or a cardiac device that is not working properly, that is for the MHRA, which is separate from the CQC. The CQC is there to be the independent regulator of the quality of care more generally, which is more the space that HSSIB has been in. HSSIB has been looking at things like the use of digital triage in general practice and corridor care, and it has done some work on surgical safety and so on. All of that is part of a bigger landscape of quality of care, which the CQC is responsible for. The more that I looked at this issue and the more I spoke to people, I became less sure that it is analogous to the airline industry. It is much broader and more complex, and certainly the airline industry does not have 150 different regulators and quasi-regulators.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (First sitting)

   Q If responsibility for managing and safeguarding the single patient record is to sit with general practice, if that is what the Government want, can you tell us, Kay Keane, as chair of the Institute of General Practice Management, what the implication would be for workload, and particularly workforce, in practice management? Kay Keane: I think it is impossible, really, for me to understand that. It is a large part of our job already. As Dr Dickson said, we act as a small business. We do all the things that any other small business does, so being able to manage that record on top of that would take a huge amount of investment into general practice. I would argue that maybe the investment into general practice should not be on data, but should be in the wider workforce. We are really good at looking after our data now. We care about it, we hold it close to the care of the patient and we share it only when appropriate, but in our view to then be the data controller of other information is too much and is unmanageable for a general practice to do. Equally, our data is very personal to us, and we want to keep hold of that. We do not want our patients worrying about the stories that they tell us, so a model where we feed into something else and have responsibility for the bit that it is fed into sits more comfortably with the Institute of General Practice Management. Dr Dickson: I do not have much to add to that. The devil is in the detail of where it sits and how we reassure patients that we are trusted with their data—that we are sharing what they have given us appropriately for their health, but not for spurious reasons. I think people’s understanding is that we share an awful lot more than we do, so there is a gap. People perceive that we are going to overshare, whereas actually this will allow us to come up to the level that we should be at.

   Hansard source
4. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (First sitting)

   Q The safe space principle is arguably under threat by the merging of HSSIB and the CQC. From the evidence you gave to the Health and Social Care Committee, I understand your argument that if you get rid of the independence of HSSIB, staff members who have witnessed wrongdoing and unsafe practices will not feel there is anywhere they can go, when they feel compelled to disclose things they see, where there is no consequence to them. Can you just comment on that? Sir Jeremy Hunt: Maybe I should just clarify, because I think Dr Dash referred to those comments. The CQC is incredibly important to hospitals and GP surgeries because it gives them a rating—“outstanding”, “good”, “requires improvement” or “inadequate”—and they really care about that. If a staff member is talking openly to HSSIB about a failure of governance in their organisation, and that is the same organisation that could decide whether they get stripped of their “outstanding” rating and downgraded to “good” or “requires improvement”, my concern is that some people may worry and say, “Maybe I shouldn’t be open, because this could affect my hospital’s rating.” Obviously, I would always want staff members to be completely open with HSSIB, but we have to be really careful that people still have confidence in the safe space function if this merger goes ahead.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Professor Croisdale-Appleby, the local healthwatch on the Isle of Wight has proven invaluable in amplifying patient voice, gathering patient experience and helping those who are democratically elected—MPs and councillors—to hold health leaders to account. My concern about that function being folded into the ICB is that the ICB has often been on the sharp end of critical analysis by Healthwatch, and so the ICB will end up marking its own homework. We will lose the critical voice that has, I am sure, led to better decision making. How can we possibly resolve that fundamental issue, if Healthwatch is folded into ICBs? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: You make a pivotal and focused point. The independence is vital, not just because of the quality of what Healthwatch produces, but because of the confidence that it gives people that they are speaking to an independent organisation. In the background, some communities distrust being critical about the care that they receive in case it rebounds on them. If the same organisation is responsible for marking its own homework, as you put it, that problem will be much greater than it has been in the past. In terms of what to do about it, I think that you stick to some basic principles. If we are moving forward positively, we have got to be locally driven. We must reach out to communities. They will not reach into us; we have to reach out to those communities and the individuals within them. I mentioned the value of qualitative evidence. It is not always easy for big institutions to go through all the work of evaluating qualitative work. It is easy to look at quantitative statistics, but the patient voice must be highly visible and central to policymaking. That was the basic idea behind the Bill: it would be about the patient and the patient voice, putting the patient right at the centre of the multiple discourses. As my colleagues have said, we should be totally transparent about priorities, impact and holding people to account. If all five of those principles are followed, it will work. If they are not followed, it will not.

   Hansard source
6. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Hospital pressures on the Isle of Wight are particularly severe, and part of the way of dealing with so-called corridor care is for the hospital and local authority to look at discharging some frail patients to the mainland, including those living with dementia, which is plainly not a solution by anyone’s normal interpretation. Is there anything in this Bill, notwithstanding that it does not deal with the fundamental problems of social care, not only that can help to resolve those sorts of situations, but that could help to resolve them if it went a little further? I am looking for opportunities to use the Bill to try to do a little more in and around discharge and social care. Sir Andrew Dilnot: That is a very good question, to which I do not have a very immediate answer. Well, I do have an immediate answer, which is that, as far as I can see, it is nothing very substantial. The single patient record offers some prospects here, and it is terribly important for people receiving social care, which again reflects how much longer we are living. There is much more multiple morbidity now. Many of the people who can and are benefiting from social care will have quite complicated medical experiences and histories. That is the kind of group that could particularly benefit from a single patient record, so that we are not having inappropriate prescription and so on. That is going to help, but it will be a second-order issue. Let me be very blunt. There are two fundamental challenges facing the social care system. The first is that the means-tested bit of it, where we say, “If you don’t have any resources of your own, the state will look after you,” must be a minimum for any humane society. Essentially every year for at least the last decade, the Treasury has announced emergency funding for that in year. That money then does not get spent well. Honestly, if you are announcing an emergency package every year for 10 years, it is not an emergency package. You should wake up, pay attention, have a mature response and fund that system properly. That is the minimum. The second is that the only big risk we all face that is not pooled is social care. Our risk of healthcare is pooled by the state, our risk of having a car accident or our house burning down is pooled by private insurance. This is the one risk that is not pooled, and the reason is that the state does not, and the private sector cannot. The reason the private sector cannot is that it is too far ahead for a private insurance market to deal with it, so only the state can pool the risk. If there is any area where the case for social insurance is absolutely clear, it is social care; the case is even more powerful in social care than it is in health. At the moment we have a situation where often people will feel that the best thing that can happen to them, if they think they might have a social care need, is that they die before too long. It is a bit like standing in the middle of the road with a lorry driving towards you and hoping that the best thing that might happen is that you die before it hits you. That is not a good way to be running any kind of society or country. Those challenges—the lack of adequate funding of the means-tested system and the lack of any risk pooling for the population as a whole—lead directly to the kind of experience that you are describing in the Isle of Wight, where there is simply excess demand and so we are trying to ship people across to the mainland. It is a reflection of the fundamental challenges that we have ignored for 35 years.

   Hansard source
7. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jack Rankin

   Lifelong Learning: “University of the Air” White Paper

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this debate, and for sharing with us his personal journey to becoming an Open University graduate and the opportunities that higher education opened up for him. In his remarks, the passion of his political world view shone through, and though the very nature of my sitting on the Conservative Benches might mean we have some differences, I am a Lancashire man from working-class stock, and I agree with him forcibly that education should be available to all and applied with hard work—that is the most powerful action for social mobility. I pay tribute to my honourable Unionist friends from Ulster, the hon. Members for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their contributions. They eloquently made points about skills beyond education and the wider personal growth available to people who attend the Open University, and particularly how important the Open University is in Northern Ireland. The two examples of the women’s centres made it clear that the Open University’s accessibility has been transformational to some of those young ladies’ lives. The hon. Member for Strangford also made an interesting point about UCAS, which I was not aware of, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to that. This year marks 60 years since Harold Wilson’s Government published the “University of the Air” White Paper, which, seeking to capitalise on the advances in television and radio programme learning, set out plans for an Open University to provide higher and further education for those unable to take advantage of courses in existing colleges and universities. Envisioned as a way to tackle pressure on university and college places following the post-second world war baby boom by providing home study to university and higher technical standards, the plan for the “University of the Air” was to provide high-quality education to more adults through television and radio lectures, correspondence courses, residential courses and tutorials, and study groups at community centres. Those ideas formed the basis of what we know today as the Open University. Like the hon. Member for Southport, I pay tribute to the late Baroness Lee of Asheridge, Jennie Lee, who was instrumental in setting up the Open University, for all her work to promote lifelong learning. When it first opened to students in 1971, the Open University offered 25,000 places. Today, it has provided courses to more than 2.3 million people. It is clear that the Open University’s flexibility helps make adult education and lifelong learning a reality for thousands who might not otherwise be able to access traditional campus-based study. Last academic year, 67% of Open University students worked full or part-time during their studies. That speaks to a culture of ambition and opportunity that lifelong learning helps to cultivate. More than just statistics, we can see the real impact of the Open University and lifelong learning in the individual stories of those whose lives it has transformed. I know how transformative lifelong learning can be from my own early childhood memories. My first memories were of my parents going to night school—in their instance, further education—on alternate evenings; my father got his electrical qualifications, and my mother got her accountancy qualifications. They set up a small business that was transformational for mine and my brother’s life. Many others accessing the Open University, whether they be working parents, people with caring responsibilities or simply adults looking to grasp the opportunities that, for whatever reason, were not available or accessible to them when they left school, have benefited from the empowerment that comes from being able to take their education and their future into their own hands. I also want to recognise just how hard-working and motivated many adult learners are, and the courage it must take to return to education later in life. As we heard during the debate, the ways in which learning can change lives, and the things that many people who have sought out training or upskilling go on to achieve, are truly extraordinary. The previous Government were clear about the value of adult education. I am proud of the Conservatives’ record, which included introducing the apprenticeship levy, skills bootcamps and free courses for jobs. Together, those initiatives have helped to give adults opportunities to learn the skills that employers are looking for, which will lead them to better jobs, better wellbeing and better opportunities for the future. The Conservatives also welcome the upcoming launch of the lifelong learning entitlement, which I understand will be available for courses from January 2027. Although the Minister may wish to take some credit for it, the LLE was put forward by the previous Government to give adults a loan entitlement of up to four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime. Crucially, the previous Government envisaged the LLE for a whole range of adult education, including full courses at higher technical and degree level, and new modular funding. I am glad that the first of the new modular courses will be launching next year. Raising awareness of the new overhaul of post-18 education funding will be crucial if we are to ensure that it can help unlock learning for as many adults as possible. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is raising awareness of the new funding options that will soon be available for post-18 education. How does he plan to attract learners who might not have traditionally sought out lifelong learning and training opportunities? The current Government say that they are committed to increasing funding for adult education. However, since entering office, they have instead cut the adult skills budget by 6%. Industry was rightly shocked, calling it a “shortsighted” move that will undermine economic growth, set back organisations and learners, and undermine trust in the Government’s vision for the country. Key sectors in our economy are calling for growth in adult education, not cutbacks. I turn to lifelong learning in other forms, including apprenticeships. Although, as demonstrated today, we all know that a high-quality university degree can set someone on the path to success and that higher education plays an important role in lifelong learning, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that it is not the case for every course. It is frankly a scandal that too many traditional university courses do not deliver jobs in the industry that they claim to serve. Some courses will draw people in with the promise of a stable and fulfilling career but deliver nothing but mounting debt and a dead end. That is why, if we really want to support lifelong learning, we must be honest about the real issue of funnelling young people and adults into courses that do not get them the jobs that they are seeking and do not allow them to repay their loans. It is also why we must ensure that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18 and beyond, and a viable, equally esteemed alternative to university. We have a serious skills shortage. Nearly half of vacancies in the construction sector and skilled trades are the result of skills shortages. As has been discussed, the Opposition are concerned by the Government’s decision to withdraw public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, cutting support for the highest-level apprenticeships that provide vital routes for adult learners into skilled careers such as nursing. It is a major blow to social mobility for adult learners, shutting out talent from disadvantaged backgrounds and taking opportunities away from adult learners. Not only will culling level 7 apprenticeships hurt employers, but it is destabilising for university providers. It will hit institutions that have tried to open up opportunities for those who traditionally do not go to university, including, of course, the Open University. Since the announcement last year, what engagement has the Minister had with institutions, including the Open University, about the impact of axing level 7 apprenticeships? For much of the last 30 years, our approach to higher education has hinged on the underlying assumption that successfully completing a traditional university degree is one of the best ways to boost a person’s opportunities in life. Young people and adults who pay tens of thousands of pounds to complete their degree, whether up front or through repayments, rightly and reasonably expect that it will boost their job prospects and income. If we really want to encourage lifelong learning, we must ensure that issues with low-quality and dead-end traditional degrees are addressed. A more flexible option may be part of the solution. Lifelong learning should be for everyone. Whether that is someone taking on a new qualification to advance their career or pursuing a high-quality university degree as an adult, the empowerment and opportunity that comes from learning is truly life changing. The Open University has played an important role in opening up opportunities for millions of adults. The Government must be prepared to address the serious issues that exist with both the current welfare system and low-value university courses to ensure that those who invest in education at whatever stage in their life are rewarded with the opportunities they deserve.

   Hansard source
8. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

   Health Bill (First sitting)

   Q I should declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Apologies, Dr Dash, I have questioned you on this many times, but I am going to continue to do so. When the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation were in front of the Health and Social Care Committee and they talked about bringing HSSIB into the CQC, all three of them said very clearly: “Don’t do it.”. In fact, I can find almost nobody apart from you and the Department who thinks that moving HSSIB into the CQC is a good idea. Does that give you any pause for thought about whether you are recommending the right thing? More specifically, if, as you said to the Health and Social Care Committee, the safe space element would be retained and HSSIB would operate as an independent organisation, how can you square the fact that it would remain independent and yet be part of the CQC? If it does remain independent, what is the need to bring it into the CQC? Dr Dash: The point of bringing it into the CQC, as I said before, is that we are trying to simplify this landscape. There are so many different organisations continually commenting and doing reviews—often replicating the same reviews that other people have done. The concern is that it is distracting rather than enabling. The hope that I had when I made the recommendation, and still have now, is that by bringing HSSIB into the CQC, you can align the work of the two. For example, if the CQC is going round the country and spotting a particular problem with the way in which anaesthesia is being given or with managing patients post-surgery, the CQC could then say to HSSIB—that team of people with specific expertise—“Can you go in and take a look at this? Can you do a detailed focus review of this particular area of care that we are spotting through our visits and which seems to be a particular challenge?” It is that bit about enabling the CQC to identify a problem and then asking HSSIB to review it in detail, and HSSIB bringing its expertise in investigations into the CQC to enable the CQC to go deeper and then come back to the NHS with particular areas, but also to supplement the work of the NHS. I would like to point out that since HSSIB was established, the NHS has established its own much more rigorous, much more robust investigatory teams and processes. Of course, I am not saying that they are perfect—we can all see that—but I encourage all colleagues here today to look at the work they are doing, the specific areas they are reviewing, the outputs of those reviews and the ways in which those are leading to improving care. That feels to me to be a much more systematic way of addressing the concerns of patients, families and staff in the place where those concerns happen, having mechanisms to escalate those through the NHS so you can bring them to regions—some investigations get done at the NHS England level—and having the CQC as an independent body that can separately review and spot if there are problems but also ensure that those investigations within the NHS are happening well.

   Hansard source
9. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

   Health Bill (First sitting)

   Q What happens if the problem is the CQC? Dr Dash: Well, we then have to deal with that as a problem. That is the same as saying, “What happens if the problem is this organisation or that one?” We have 150 organisations—150. What if the GMC is a problem? What if the Nursing and Midwifery Council is a problem?

   Hansard source
10. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Sarah, when we were at the Health and Social Care Committee, you and your fellow panellists seemed to suggest that the Government could achieve what they needed to in the 10-year plan without this reorganisation. Could you delve into that a bit more and tell us why you think that is the case? Sarah Woolnough: The Government have an incredibly ambitious agenda, which is partly articulated in the 10-year plan. Our ongoing concern has been that some of the biggest-ticket items that the Government rightly want to achieve to fundamentally shift power to patients—delivering a shift towards prevention, moving care closer to home and allowing more digital enablement—do not require this kind of legislation or a reorganisation. I go back to my first answer: what is honestly the opportunity cost of doing some of this at the expense of more focus and attention on, for example, delivering care closer to home? There is a lot of energy and activity in that area, but the Government want to make really good progress over the next few years. To take that example, if you are really serious, you need to understand what the barriers are to delivering more care in the community, closer to people and patients, and wrapping services around patients. It requires you to flow money differently and to have a different incentive scheme, but that is nowhere near this piece of legislation. Our worry has been about what is not in the Bill, and what is the rightly and fantastically ambitious agenda to improve health for people and patients, versus the opportunity cost of a largely technical piece of legislation that reorganises some central functions.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Would you agree with that, Mr Lant? Jacob Lant: Yes. I kind of think, as the debate goes on, that—with the changes to Healthwatch in particular—you could achieve so much without legislation. You could beef up the internal functions for listening to a patient and engaging with them without legislation—there is no requirement for that. You could invest more resource in that, and you could do the same with Healthwatch. You could think about the resourcing of the structures and the support they receive, so you could make that whole system better without legislating to get rid of it. As Sarah said, the NHS changes are a distraction at a time when we should be moving on with focusing on patient care.

    Hansard source
12. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q I reiterate that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Dr Benneyworth and I have had many conversations about this issue. I have two questions. The first is about the safe space. We have seen written evidence, and we have heard when others have attended the Health and Social Care Committee, about the fact that if HSSIB is placed inside the CQC, you could have the farcical situation of one set of CQC lawyers, who are representing HSSIB, suing or attempting to sue another set of CQC lawyers, who are looking out for the CQC situation, because they are trying to get information out of part of their own system. Is that parody or is it a possibility and real problem? Dr Benneyworth: It is a problem and something that potentially could happen. I hope that we would work effectively to try to avoid that. Essentially, and just to reassure the Committee, if we see something of a criminal nature, if there are significant regulatory concerns, we have protocols in place to be able to escalate that. But there is a real risk that potentially, if we held information that the CQC needed in part of its regulatory function, in its enforcement function, we would not be able to share that, because of our legislation, and we would not want to share it, because we want to maintain the trust in the system. It would need to go to the High Court to be able to get hold of it.

    Hansard source
13. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Just so that I am clear, you have internal protocols that would raise stuff if you saw something criminal, and if you were investigating something and potentially could not share the information, that would not prevent any of the multitude of other regulators that we have out there from investigating on their own something similar. Your investigation would not preclude them from being able to investigate as well. Dr Benneyworth: No.

    Hansard source
14. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Dr Dash, in her evidence, said that—I am slightly paraphrasing, so I hope I have not got this wrong—NHS England has a number of investigatory bodies that it has established recently, and that although they were not perfect, they were much better, and they could be doing this job. What is your response to that? Dr Benneyworth: NHS England has an investigations unit that commissions regional and national investigations, sometimes from private organisations. We work very closely with the NHS England patient safety team. As I said, we have supported their work in rolling out local investigations around the patient safety incident response framework. We have been instrumental in supporting the training and education around that. We are the only safety investigator with protected disclosure. There is no other body that is like us and can do the same type of investigations in this country, and we are internationally looked at. In fact, I am doing a podcast with Canada tomorrow. Numerous countries are looking at us and saying, “We want the same thing.” There is a handful of investigators like us in Finland and Norway, and they have excellent safety outcomes for their patients, but the rest of the world is looking at us and trying to learn from us, and I am frequently asked to speak internationally about this.

    Hansard source
15. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q You are saying that you are a world leader. Dr Benneyworth: We are—

    Hansard source
16. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    I think the answer was, “We are.”

    Hansard source
17. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q This question is to the Royal Berkshire. In response to my colleague, you talked about the benefits of your council of governors. As a foundation trust, you have significant autonomy. The Bill will allow the Government to cap your day-to-day spend, strip away your FT status and make governance changes. What impact will that have on how your boards can carry out their duties? James Blythe: With a lot of foundation trusts, as the NHS has moved into a period of increasingly tight financial control and as we have needed to recover from the covid pandemic, far closer working has been required between all NHS providers and the centre, to manage both the financial implications and the pandemic’s implications for patient access and patient quality. Having recently moved from a senior leadership, board-level role in an NHS trust to two roles as chief executive in a foundation trust, I do not feel that in the day-to-day relationship with the centre and with our local and regional representatives there is an enormous difference in how we balance quality, finance and performance now. Those foundation trust freedoms were most relevant when we were in a system in which expenditure on health could grow and we were not trying to recover from the challenges that we have had recently. Day to day, the relationship between NHS trusts and foundation trusts feels quite consistent now, so I am not sure that the changes proposed in the Bill will necessarily make a huge difference. As I said in response to an earlier question, it depends entirely on whether the provisions of the Bill are used to set a small number of priorities and let NHS organisations get on with delivering them, or whether they are used more regularly to intervene more directly in our day-to-day operations. A lot comes down to how the regime is operated.

    Hansard source
18. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q On the streamlining point, you have articulated very clearly why you think it is inappropriate, as have members of this Committee, and most of the evidence we have received suggests that it is not appropriate. What do you think is the reasoning behind the Government’s real push for this, when the evidence against it is so clearly strong? Is it simply that they want to save money, in your opinion, or is there an alternative motive? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: If we talk about money— I will be quantitative here—Healthwatch England currently costs £3 million per year and the network receives £25 million per year. To people like me, £3 million and £25 million is a lot of money, but in the greater scheme of things it is not a significant amount, particularly when you think what is being produced for it. I cannot speak appropriately, in my role as chair of Healthwatch, about Government policy. It is not my job to do that; it is the Government’s job. If you want to ask me a question on a purely personal basis so I can step outside of that role, I will be happy to answer, but I always have to draw a very distinct line on anything that I say. Everything so far has been said in my formal position as chair of Healthwatch as opposed to any personal views, because I certainly do not want to comment on Government policy.

    Hansard source
19. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Ms Higson, given that you are a director of transformation, and that this is, in a wider sense, a transformation of the NHS, if you had the money, resources and political capital that the current Government have, would you do this or would you do something else? Maria Higson: Any time we go through an NHS reorganisation, it is distracting—that is the reality of such situations. It is unfortunate that, over the past 15 months, this has been a large distraction for people who are genuinely trying to deliver the three shifts—prevention, digital and neighbourhoods. It is true that it has been a distraction. I am not sure that this Committee is the right space to go into these, as I am aware that we are here to discuss the Bill, but there are probably opportunities to go further on some elements, which may help us in future.

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Can you give a couple of examples? Maria Higson: To take one example, I would love to see an NHS where we step away from short-term activity metrics, and towards outcomes—that is mentioned in the Bill. The constant firefight on activities is quite challenging, so how can we move that dialogue to ensure genuine transformation? That is an example of where we could potentially go further than the Bill suggests, but I am conscious that I am supposed to comment on the Bill, not give my own random thoughts.

    Hansard source
21. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate, and for outlining the issues that her constituents—and, indeed, many constituents across the country—are facing. It is something of an irony that I find myself speaking on NHS dentistry for the second time in as many days, having co-sponsored yesterday’s Backbench Business debate on precisely this issue, but if anything, that underlines the scale of the issue we are dealing with. The hon. Member for Chichester will know that West Sussex borders my constituency, which spans Surrey and Hampshire. Many of my constituents in Haslemere and the surrounding villages routinely access services across that boundary, and would regard West Sussex as part of their natural health economy. I am sure the same is true vice versa, because dentistry does not respect administrative lines, and access to care either exists or it does not. Let us be clear about the scale of the problem. Oral health is not a luxury issue; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) set out so clearly and passionately, it is fundamental to dignity, confidence, employability and overall health, yet access to NHS dentistry has become a postcode lottery. Nearly 14 million people are struggling to access care, and in many areas more than 70% of practices are not accepting new NHS patients, including children. As far as I can tell, not a single dentist in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon is accepting new NHS patients. It is often suggested that we simply have a workforce shortage, but the issue is not that we do not have enough dentists; it is that, understandably, too few are willing to work within a contract that no longer makes sense. The 2006 NHS dental contract, introduced under the last Labour Government, is based on units of dental activity. It pays the same whether a dentist carries out one filling or six, rewards volume rather than complexity, and actively discourages preventive care. That contract is central to why the system is struggling. The Government came into office promising a dental rescue plan, including urgent appointments, contract reform, workforce expansion and a greater focus on prevention. Those commitments were clear and repeated, yet delivery has not matched the rhetoric. In practice, the additional appointments that have been rolled out amount in many cases to only a small increase in urgent capacity. According to the British Dental Association, they are equivalent to a couple of extra slots per dentist per month. At the same time, the long-promised NHS workforce plan has still not been published and, without it, there is no credible road map for how capacity will be met. Warm words about recruitment are no substitute for a clear and funded strategy that tells practices and patients what the future looks like. We also need to recognise inefficiencies within the current system. In some practices, around one in seven NHS appointments is missed, costing individual surgeries tens of thousands of pounds a year. That is not just a frustration for clinicians—it is lost capacity in a system that is already under extreme pressure. However, rather than addressing the structural incentives that contribute to this, the Government’s response has been piecemeal. The consequences of all this are not evenly distributed; rural and coastal communities are particularly badly affected, with some having as few as 10 NHS dental practices per 100,000 people. These so-called dental deserts are not accidental, but the predictable outcome of a system that does not align funding, workforce planning and local need. There is a striking example of underused capacity in my local area. In Haslemere, the hospital contains a fully equipped dental suite that remains unused despite clear local demand. That facility could serve patients across the West Sussex border, given the natural geography of where people access care. Instead, it sits idle. I think everyone in this Chamber agrees with prevention in principle, and with the need to move away from a purely treatment-based model. The challenge is delivery. Likewise, workforce expansion is essential, but announcements without a credible plan do not translate into appointments. Ultimately, what is required is straightforward in principle, but urgent in practice: a properly funded and credible workforce plan, contract reform that rewards prevention and complexity rather than volume, and a serious strategy to address dental deserts that reflects real geography and need. We should also acknowledge the previous efforts of the Conservative Government, including the dental recovery plan, which did attempt to address these issues through recruitment incentives, training expansion and support of overseas qualified dentists. I accept that some measures had limited uptake, but they were at least an attempt to respond to a growing crisis. The question now is whether this Government build on what works or continue to drift without clear direction. Patients do not care which Government designed which contract or which plan; they care about seeing a dentist when they need one. I end with three straightforward questions that I asked the Minister in yesterday’s debate, but to which I did not get an answer. When will we see a fully funded and credible NHS dental workforce plan? How many additional dentists, hygienists and therapists are required to meet demand? What is the plan to ensure that dental deserts do not become a permanent feature of our healthcare system? Patients deserve these answers not in the future, but today.

    Hansard source
22. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Russian Oil Sales

    4. What diplomatic steps she is taking with international partners to help prevent the sale of Russian oil to companies in China, Turkey and India.

    Hansard source
23. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Russian Oil Sales

    While diplomatic pressure on China, India and Turkey is essential, we must also do more militarily to disrupt the shadow fleet carrying Putin’s oil. I pay tribute to our armed forces who, this weekend, boarded a Russia-linked tanker in UK waters under new Government powers. Since those powers were announced in March, 184 sanctioned shadow fleet vessels have made 238 journeys through UK waters, including 94 journeys into territorial waters, without a single interdiction until now. What is the Department doing with the Ministry of Defence and international partners to ensure that this is a sustained approach, rather than a one-off?

    Hansard source
24. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    Topical Questions

    My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly challenged the Government on the use of Chinese slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels. Chinese companies also dominate the mining companies using slave labour to extract cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so how much more needs to happen for the Government to challenge this evil use of slave labour, particularly by the Chinese state?

    Hansard source
25. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    Thames Water

    I have a huge list of complaints about Thames Water across Mid Buckinghamshire, and I am sure it is identical to that of the Secretary of State next door in Wycombe, so I add my voice to my hon. Friends’ calls for real detail about the plan, rather than just ambition. In the meantime, there is something that is causing Thames Water and every other water company to chase their tails: their inability to have a proper voice in the planning system. When a village such as Ickford in my constituency, which already has its sewage pumped away by road in tankers because the system just cannot cope, is told that it has to connect another 90, 100 or 150 properties, it is never going to work. Given the huge demand for house building and data centres in Buckinghamshire, what action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the water companies can have their say and say no when they cannot connect areas?

    Hansard source
26. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Topical Questions

    I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government have previously stated that Hamas must voluntarily disarm in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, but that is clearly not happening. What is the Government’s practical strategy to ensure that Hamas is compelled to give up its weapons, cannot rebuild its military capabilities, and does not divert humanitarian aid?

    Hansard source
27. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q In her evidence earlier, Dr Dash said that one of the reasons for her recommendations in her second review of changes to the regulatory and investigatory landscape is that it is a problem for the provider landscape that there are so many different organisations making so many recommendations. You have just said that HSSIB makes very few recommendations. Will the merging or folding—however you wish to characterise it—of HSSIB into the CQC lead to any meaningful reduction in the number of recommendations that organisations have to cope with? Dr Benneyworth: No, we do not make recommendations to provider organisations at all. All our recommendations go to national organisations. I completely agree with Dr Dash that there are too many recommendations. In fact, HSSIB raised that concern through our work two years ago and flagged it to Dr Dash. We wrote a report called “Recommendations but no action”. We are very concerned about the plethora of recommendations going to providers, which create a huge amount of noise but, distressingly for the families involved, do not lead to the changes needed. I completely agree that there are far too many recommendations. I am leading some work to address that—we are setting up a recommendations hub with the Department of Health and Social Care—but we are not that problem. We have made 39 recommendations since investigations launched and HSSIB started three years ago, and they are all to national bodies. We might reduce the burden on national bodies by taking that away, but it will not have any impact on providers.

    Hansard source
28. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I know that in this conversation some have highlighted that patients have stated that their experience has worsened or not improved, but I would argue that is not a Healthwatch failure; it is actually down to the NHS or ICBs not acting on Healthwatch recommendations. It seems to me perverse to give that voice to the organisations that are actually part of the problem through not acting. As a Minister, I was on the receiving end of some quite sharp recommendations from Healthwatch, but they were always constructive. Whether right or wrong, my fear is that this measure risks a perception among patients that it will be down to NHS managers and ICBs essentially to make recommendations that reflect their priorities, rather than the priorities and voices of patients. Professor, even if the principles that you have enunciated that might mitigate that risk were applied to the new model, are you really confident that they could mitigate the risk to patients’ confidence that their voice is genuinely and independently heard, loud and clear, however unhelpful it is perceived to be by bits of the NHS? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: I cannot be confident of that, because we are in the foothills, not up the slope, and the details have not been given. ICBs have received something approaching a 50% cut in their running costs. I will not comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of that, but one has to be realistic and think about how high a really informed patient voice—particularly one that seeks out the views of both communities and individuals where the health inequalities are the greatest—will be on the priority list. I would question that, but I will leave it there.

    Hansard source
29. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Having been both a local councillor and a Health Minister, I am very conscious that the real test of any joint working arrangements between different bodies comes when budgets start getting a little tighter. We see that tension growing a little bit with the cuts made to ICBs’ budgets. I was the Minister who created ICBs, and I sat on that Bill Committee with the current Minister for Secondary Care. I am getting a sense of déjà vu—we are on different sides of the Chamber now, but we sat through the Committee stage of the Health and Care Act 2022 together. I deliberately created ICBs to match the geography of upper-tier authorities because health and social care is essentially one system. If one bit does not work, the other bit does not work. Since then, we have seen significant mergers and larger areas, further removing them from that direct relationship and read-across. Although the good ones do, I fear that a lot of NHS ICBs do not fully reflect the intention behind their creation, which was to see them as a genuinely collaborative exercise with equal voices in the room. My question is: if we see ever-larger areas or fragmented areas, whether through neighbourhood health plans or mergers and acquisitions among ICBs, how do we maintain genuine local accountability and the relationships that underpin any structure written in law, on a piece of paper or in guidelines? Notwithstanding what is being done about the health and wellbeing boards’ increasing involvement, do they actually have the teeth they need? In my experience, however good the collaboration, it is within the ICB boardroom that the decisions are actually made. However well things have been discussed beforehand, the ICBs will make their own decisions based on their own priorities. Does the removal of that voice from the ICB strengthen or weaken the ability to see this as one local system and to deliver a genuinely holistic local solution? Councillor Wright: It will probably weaken it, unless we are given more say in our local health and wellbeing board. Our Thames Valley ICB has one director of public health. Thames Valley ICB I think has nine local authorities, and one chief executive and one director of public health sit on the board, so already the voice on it is quite small. If we lose that voice, where would we have those conversations? That brings me back to the whole thing about health and wellbeing boards needing to be stronger, definitely. Sally Burlington: We would agree with that. If you take away the voice that is able to speak on behalf of social care, public health and wider public services, it will be harder and an additional job to bring in that consideration. It will be even harder to expect there to be notional teeth in that relationship, so we have concerns about that. Maria Higson: It is also worth recognising that the delivery of any strategy or plan will require partnership working with local authorities, so whether or not they are in the room, they will be needed for delivery, and the proof is always in the pudding. For me, the partnership is somewhat non-negotiable in order to achieve delivery.

    Hansard source
30. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Hudson

    Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations to the Committee. It is good to see the Government building on the progress made by the previous Conservative Government, who laid the foundation for digital waste tracking to be introduced by passing the landmark Environment Act 2021. Additional measures introduced by the Conservatives that sought to tackle waste crime include increasing the upper limit for fixed penalties to ensure proportionate and effective enforcement action. The previous Government also provided 30 local authorities with grants to enhance resources to tackle fly-tipping. The grants supported a range of projects such as CCTV, anti-climb fencing and better waste infrastructure.

    Hansard source
31. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Hudson

    Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026

    I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government passing the landmark Environment Act. We consulted and brought forward measures to tackle waste crime, and I am very pleased that the Labour Government have taken the baton forward and are enacting some of the measures that we started. Sadly, my constituents have also been faced with the blight of fly-tipping in our communities, with many serious cases caused by shameless criminals who should face the full extent of the law. It not only harms communities and the environment, but threatens the precious wildlife and biodiversity that the forest of Epping Forest is so privileged to enjoy. I must pay tribute to the litter-picking groups across Epping Forest, including the Waltham Abbey community group and Theydon Bois parish council, who regularly roll up their sleeves to fight the scourge of waste carelessly dumped. I have had the pleasure of joining that fantastic community in action on many occasions. When I have joined community groups on litter picks, it has been particularly concerning to see an abundance of discarded large nitrous oxide canisters. They are used illegally for drug misuse and then discarded on the side of roads to be cleared up by those who do the right thing. Any activity to clear up waste, such as the measure we are discussing, needs to address this issue as a priority for urban, rural and semi-rural communities alike. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to tackle the illegal use of nitrous oxide and the damaging discarding of those dangerous canisters in our environment? I welcome the cross-party support for tackling waste crime. Not only does it cost the English economy about £1 billion a year, but it has become interlinked with criminal gangs who profit from breaking the law. We should all be deeply concerned that an estimated 20% of all waste is illegally managed. Importantly, the regulations have the full co-operation of the devolved Administrations, which is vital to ensure that we have an effective regime that works for waste operators. As the Minister will be aware, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the Government need to clarify exactly how the digital waste tracking regime will interact with the new extended producer responsibility —she made some comments on that point. Under the packaging scheme, producers will have to pay the costs of dealing with household packaging waste and provide information about its disposal. I hope she can provide further clear and practical information on that, particularly as many businesses have expressed strong concerns about the timing of the implementation of the EPR regime, which will add costs to businesses when the Chancellor is already taxing them hugely and making their lives very difficult. The Minister might be aware that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition hosted a food and farming emergency summit last year to which key stakeholders, including food producers, were invited. A key demand from that summit was a call for the Government to conduct a rapid review of EPR for the food, drink and hospitality sectors. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), wrote to the Government to ask them to act on that. It was disappointing that the Government did not consider the merit of such a request from the businesses directly affected by the policy. Ministers are always keen to emphasise their desire to transition to a circular economy in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract maximum value from them, minimise waste and promote resource efficiency. That goal is shared by all. However, aside from introducing individual measures here and there, the Government have yet to publish their clear circular economy strategy. As I understand it, the circular economy taskforce was established for the very purpose of creating a strategy. Will the Minister clarify when she anticipates further details will be published?

    Hansard source
32. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Community Hospitals

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing the debate. It is fantastic to have the chance to champion community hospitals and what they stand for and provide. I put on record my thanks to the Hinckley and Bosworth Community Hospital, which does fantastic work in my area, in Hinckley. Also, only last week, I was lucky enough to go to the one-year anniversary celebration for my community diagnostics centre—a £24 million investment, set up by the last Government, that we have now carried through. To date, it has served more than 59,000 patients, and it is expanding the delivery of services that it can provide, meaning that services that are provided within the community and people do not have to travel to the likes of Nuneaton or into Leicester. That is exactly what the leftward shift is all about: bringing those services to the community. It may come as no surprise that I have a personal connection to community hospitals—you might expect me to talk about my job, Sir Jeremy, but it actually began much before that. My father was a GP down in Dorset; on Christmas days, before we were allowed to open our presents, we used to visit the community hospital and do the ward round with all the patients. As a child I really looked forward to that—first, because I got to meet Father Christmas, but secondly, because of the family feel of that community hospital had. That is the essence of what these places provide: that ability to be within our communities, to give the support and the family feel that we want to keep hold of and treasure because it is so important. Especially when dealing with healthcare, we often forget about wellbeing, and that is what these community hubs can provide. Looking at the Government’s direction of travel, it very much sets out how neighbourhood health centres should look, but it is not quite so clear about how that dovetails with community hospitals. How do integrated health hubs fit in with community hospitals? It is not clear in the 10-year plan, and it is certainly not clear in the documentation coming out. Given that the Government are expecting ICBs to commission those hubs, and given some of the stories that we have heard—for example from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who is championing and fighting for the services in her area—the worry is that the Government are not explicit on what ICBs should be doing on community hospitals. We have this intention and general belief, but the actual direction of how this will work is clouded. I therefore pose a question to the Government: are they considering a national strategy for community hospitals—or even a definition? That is one of the biggest problems when we look up community hospitals. What is the definition of a community hospital? Are community diagnostic centres included in that, or not? What about intermediate care? What about step-down care? What about clinics that provide endoscopy? I must admit that, when I look at community hospitals, I am never quite sure what the definition is; looking into the detail, I struggle to find any definition that the Government have come up with. Those are key questions about the leftward shift. I think we all agree that that would be welcome, but it is about the delivery plan. Of course, the 10-year plan has no delivery chapter, which again leads us back to the questions for the Minister today. I appreciate that this is not her portfolio, but these questions will keep coming time and again: how do we actually deliver, and what does this look like in the guise of neighbourhood health centres? On that point, when it comes to delivery, I would like to pose something to the Minister: it was reported in the news over the weekend that NHS capital spend could be under threat to fund the defence investment plan. I hope she will be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that that is categorically not true—but that is going to be important. That leads me on to another question that I would like to pose to the Minister. The response to a written question about the abolition of NHS England and its impact on services stated: “The abolition of NHS England is causing no disruption to the development of new services.” Will the Minister state that from the Dispatch Box? Certainly, from what we are hearing on the ground, the ICB changes—losing 50% through redundancies—are having a significant impact on the way in which services are planned and delivered. I am therefore keen to understand the rationale behind that statement. To finish where I started, community hospitals really are the healthcare that feels human. They are local, they are close to home and they are something that we across this House should aspire to. That family approach is where we all want to be; it is how we get there that is the question for the Government.

    Hansard source
33. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Community Hospitals

    The Government have set out a great ambition, but the Minister is talking about neighbourhood health centres and we are talking about community hospitals. Where do they dovetail and how do they fit? What definition is she using to put this together?

    Hansard source
34. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Community Hospitals

    I am sorry to hammer this home, but every single point that the Minister has made has been about community services. She is spot on, but the question is where community hospitals fit in. Are they the correct vehicle that the Government want to use to help deliver some of those services, or are the Government moving away from the community hospital model and into further hubs? Both would be reasonable approaches and could be defended or pulled apart. The question is what the Government are choosing, because it is not clear from the Minister’s answers which it is.

    Hansard source
35. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, a member of the British Medical Association and an NHS consultant paediatrician.

    Hansard source
36. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Good morning, Dr Dash. What effect is the abolition of NHS England having on its current day-to-day functioning? What sort of number of people are working solely or mostly on the transfer, and is that affecting your ability to deliver on your core business? Dr Dash: I do not believe it is affecting our ability to deliver. Much of the work to date has been led by a joint team of people from across NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, who are working together, have put together a process and have been going through all the things you would expect of any integration process. That has been a fairly confined team. As they are starting to look at what needs to happen in each of the different functional areas—the different directorates—that we have set out, they are working with the directors general or the executive directors leading each of those to understand what different functions we need to enact within each of those directorates, and what their teams could look like. They are putting time into that, which is good—that is what we want them to do, not least because they are also looking at ways of working, not just at numbers of people—but I would not say that it is a distraction. In fact, in some ways, I would say it is really helpful, because it is helping to define the core priorities and the key things that we need to focus on, and how we can continue on the journey of seeking to improve health and healthcare services. That is across those executive directors and directors general. The team who are putting a lot of time into this, not surprisingly, are the people working in the HR functions. That team are spending a lot of time going through the mechanics, and they have been managing things like the voluntary redundancy programme. I would hope, and I believe, that there is no negative impact on our focusing on what we need to focus on.

    Hansard source
37. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q You wrote a report about the CQC that was not hugely flattering, and you have also written a report about the patient safety landscape. First, why did you choose to roll HSSIB into the CQC, given what you said about the CQC and the clear and obvious conflicts of interest that it creates? Secondly, you identified in your findings that a large number of clinical nursing staff were being moved into more managerial roles, with an effect on clinical capacity. Which of your recommendations would have dealt with that, or what would you recommend now? Dr Dash: On the first question, as you say, my first review looked at the CQC, and that there are a number of considerable challenges there. I would have hoped that, by now, many of those challenges had been addressed. Some of them have been, but some of them have struggled. It has already gone from the previous chief exec to a new chief exec, and it is now out looking for another chief exec, and the chair has changed too. That has definitely impeded progress. As I said, it has made considerable progress in some key areas, in particular the use of technology, but it still has a way to go, and we all need to acknowledge that. I note that the ministerial team in the Department of Health and Social care has suggested that the integration of HSSIB into the CQC should happen only when the CQC is in a more stable position, which sounds sensible and pragmatic to me. On the second review that I did, I was asked to look at the regulatory and quasi-regulatory landscape. I was referred to a report that had been done by Professor Carl Macrae and others that talked about 126 organisations. When I looked, I found more than 150, and I listed all of those in my report. I spoke to many people—well over 200 people who joined various roundtables and so on—and the very consistent theme was that this is so busy and confusing, and keeps leading to all sorts of different recommendations from different organisations, but also to people having continually to respond to all these different bodies asking for people to fill out a form, asking questions and doing reviews. As a result, our clinical staff—not just our nurses, but all our clinical staff—are having to spend considerable time filling out those forms and going through tick-box exercises. You will hear people talk about that a lot. The concern is that this very busy landscape is distracting from what it is there to do, which is to improve quality of care. I was asked by the Department of Health and Social Care to look at that landscape. I was asked to focus on six organisations, which are listed in my report, of which HSSIB was one. Across the six—of course, six is a small number out of that 150—I was asked to look at where there were opportunities for rationalisation and simplification. The observation was that colleagues in HSSIB have some great skills and capabilities in carrying out investigations into healthcare, highly complementary to the work of the CQC, which is equally there to understand how well different organisations are performing, to give the public confidence, to give ratings and to identify problems, and therefore putting those two organisations together would create significant synergies and opportunities for them both to work well.

    Hansard source
38. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q What about the risks of that—the conflict? Dr Dash: I do not see a conflict. I think they are complementary and this is all about improving the regulatory landscape in the healthcare system.

    Hansard source
39. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Sarah, the King’s Fund report said that the potential cost savings of abolishing NHS England “would be minimal in the context of the entire NHS budget”. Many MPs across the House have struggled to get numbers and costings in questions both oral and written, particularly in relation to staff redundancies. We have not received information on the full arrangements of where NHS England’s functions are going to go yet. How can we be sure that its abolition will save any money at all? Sarah Woolnough: I think, on the basis of the question, we do not know. Our worry has been about the opportunity cost. The Government, when in opposition, said that they would not launch wholescale reorganisation, because they understood the potential opportunity cost on time and other resources. As this has played out, taking longer than anticipated, we have had multiple examples of teams left in limbo about where they will end up in the target operating model. Our ongoing concern has been, “Is the benefit worth the cost?”

    Hansard source
40. 16 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (First sitting)

    Q Yes, although yesterday we received an answer to a written parliamentary question saying that the abolition of NHS England is causing no disruption to the development of new services. That is the Government’s view. Sarah Woolnough: It is inevitable that, in any large-scale change in an organisation, there will be opportunity cost. These arguments were very well rehearsed by the previous Secretary of State. He undertook personally that he would not follow this course of action, exactly because these things take longer and cost more, and because the benefit realisation case is not always clear. It is also quite hard to tell—we have grappled with this as a think-tank—whether there is good evidence of what you are delivering at the end, and whether the benefits will be realised as you stated they would be up front. It is harder to get the granular evidence and costings to prove the case, but our ongoing concern has been whether you need to wholescale reorganise to drive the sorts of benefits that the Government have said they want to deliver. We absolutely understand and agree with those who say, “Let’s reduce duplication. Let’s streamline. Let’s make sure that we’re getting value for money and spending taxpayers’ money wisely.” Do you need to launch a large reorganisation—a mass rearranging of the deck chairs of this nature? Our view has been, “You shouldn’t and you don’t.”

    Hansard source