Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work

   The truth is there is no just transition. Everybody can see that except for the Government Front Bench. I spoke to a woman in Aberdeen just yesterday, born and raised in that city and raising her family there. She had worked in oil and gas and, actually, was proud to be playing her part in developing the energy technologies of the future. She was a lifelong Labour voter—no longer, because she has now been made redundant. Like so many others in that city, she is now looking overseas because of this Government. What does the Minister have to say to Aberdonians like her?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work

   We have been over this before: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca Energy and, just this morning, Xodus Group are all laying people off. Xodus specifically blamed the slowdown in the roll-out of renewables due to the decline in oil and gas in the North sea. The former Health Secretary the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), Tony Blair, academics, Scottish Renewables, the chair of GB Energy and apparently quite a number of the Cabinet agree with us on the Opposition side of the House and with the public that we must keep drilling in the North sea while we have a demand and while it is there. When will the Government listen to everyone else, end this ideological obsession, overturn this and get Britain drilling?

   Hansard source
3. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

   The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed a cosy relationship with Ministers at the heart of this Government, yet he has refused to hand over his mobile phone and Ministers, many of whom he had as close friends, seem simply to have accepted that refusal. Does the Minister really expect this House to believe that full transparency has been achieved when Mandelson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Health Bill

   I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as Secretary of State. The point about ICBs and the devolution of responsibility for NHS eye tests is one that we often forget to talk about in this place, as is the case with eyecare—I know that there are some ophthalmic experts in the Chamber. On that point, can the Secretary of State assure me that the changes will not result in a postcode lottery in the provision of eyecare tests? At the end of the day, NHS sight tests are a universal entitlement, so can he ensure that that will continue?

   Hansard source
5. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Topical Questions

   I associate myself with the words of the Chair of the Defence Committee on the need to get to 3%. Given that we are one of only two countries in the European continent to run a nuclear programme, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we knock out the nuclear programme, we are actually spending more like 1.7% or 1.8% on our conventional defence, and that that compares rather more with Spain than it does with countries such as Poland or Estonia, which are spending more like 4% or 5%? Does he therefore agree that we need to uplift immediately?

   Hansard source
6. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Health Bill

   I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his new post, and thank him for sharing his very personal story about what the NHS means to him. I look forward to our future exchanges, however long he is in post. I also pay tribute to the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), with whom I have had a few moments across the Dispatch Box. I know that the NHS has also been very important to him personally. During my time in hospices, I saw the incredible work that the NHS does, and despite the politics that we may have—and I will be referring to the right hon. Gentleman a bit more later on—we all care deeply about the national health service and want the very best for it. There are moments in politics when one almost has to admire the confidence of Governments—not their competence, necessarily, or their judgment, and sometimes not their timing, but certainly their confidence—and nowhere has that confidence been more magnificently displayed than in the presentation of the Health Bill. If one had listened carefully to the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the past two years, one could conclude only that this Bill was not merely legislation, but apparently the parliamentary equivalent of the second coming. In every speech, interview and carefully staged hospital visit with sleeves rolled up, they delivered the same message: at last—at long last—the NHS was to be modernised, integrated, digitised, streamlined, revolutionised and transformed into a gleaming technological marvel, where patients floated frictionlessly through a system powered entirely by innovation, efficiency and ministerial self-belief. I say gently to Ministers that whenever a politician begins using the phrase “once-in-a-generation change” on such a regular basis, it is usually wise to place one’s hands protectively over one’s wallet, given the sheer cost of what is to follow. What became increasingly striking was not simply the scale of the promises, but the sheer showmanship of them, with the former Health Secretary speaking less like a Cabinet Minister wrestling with one of the most complex public services in the world and more like a man auditioning to narrate the trailer for his own leadership campaign documentary. And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we arrive at the great political twist: the man who spent two years announcing the future has departed before the delivery date arrived, like an architect unveiling magnificent blueprints before quietly moving abroad just before construction begins. Into this situation walks the new Health Secretary. Members can imagine the scene: the Prime Minister sits stubbornly in No. 10, grinning with all the reassuring confidence of a man standing knee-deep in a flooded rowing boat insisting that the situation merely requires a modest redistribution of water. Into this bunker is summoned the new Secretary of State—formerly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the very man who helped to allocate the famous £202 billion funding settlement now repeatedly cited as proof that every problem in British healthcare has theoretically already been solved.

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Health Bill

   I would point the hon. Lady to how the NHS was being run in Wales—it certainly was not the great success that she is trying to allude to. In politics there are difficult jobs and there are impossible jobs, and then there is inheriting a Department after one’s predecessor spent two years promising the electorate that this is the one Bill to rule all Bills and fix virtually everything short of death itself. This was not just a hospital pass, but a hospital pass delivered by catapult. One can almost hear the poor Secretary of State gulping. “Thank you, Prime Minister,” he replies faintly, in the tone of a man accepting command of the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg. Off he trudges to the Department of Health and Social Care, where the automatic doors open and his nostrils are struck immediately by a strange, lingering aroma. It is not the scent of modernisation or the smell of efficiency, and it is certainly not the fragrance of falling waiting lists. No—it is the unmistakeable odour of political panic, mixed delicately with the perspiration of failed leadership manoeuvres and lightly seasoned with the ashes of abandoned promises. There waiting for him, naturally, is Sir Humphrey—because however much Governments modernise, digitise, integrate, recalibrate or synergise, Whitehall always produces a Sir Humphrey. I can imagine the conversation. The new Secretary of State says brightly, “Good news, Sir Humphrey. I understand that my predecessor has already solved everything through the Health Bill.” At this point, an eerie silence descends. Civil servants suddenly become more fascinated by ceiling tiles, and one junior official attempts to escape through a stationery cupboard. Sir Humphrey clears his throat in the way only permanent secretaries can; a sound rather like an early—

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Health Bill

   Give me time, give me time. “Well, indeed, Minister,” says Sir Humphrey. “I understand,” says the Secretary of State, “that abolishing NHS England will instantly reduce bureaucracy, improve accountability and unleash vast efficiencies.” “Well, Minister, it will certainly create a large number of meetings.” “And the single patient record will revolutionise healthcare, won’t it?” “Yes, Minister—assuming the NHS IT systems eventually stop communicating with each other via what appears to be medieval semaphore.” “But we have delivered 5 million more appointments.” “Certainly, Minister—only 1.5 million appointments behind the last Conservative Government.” “And integrated care boards now answer directly to Ministers.” “Yes, Minister.” “So accountability is now indisputable.” “Well, Minister, blame certainly is.” And so the conversation goes on. The Secretary of State asks, “And what about the workforce plan?” “Still developing, Minister.” “And social care?” “Still delayed, Minister.” “And mental health implementation?” “Still proceeding at approximately the speed of continental drift.” “And pharmacies?” “Still under pressure.” “And GP contracts?” “Still alarming GPs.” “And productivity?”, the Secretary of State asks desperately. “At present, Minister, the NHS measures productivity in the same way that astronomers in ancient Greece measured distant planets: with great optimism and very limited visibility.” At this point, the Health Secretary clearly begins searching the office for the exit map. “But Sir Humphrey,” he says, “surely my predecessor left me with a fully deliverable programme.” After a long pause, Sir Humphrey replies, “Well, your predecessor was primarily focused on a different pathway.” “A different pathway?”

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Health Bill

   “Yes—the pathway to No. 10.” And now I will give way to the right hon. Member! [Laughter.]

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    Well, let me say directly to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been a lot of announcements from the Government. We know all about the fall in waiting list figures, and not just from comments from us in this Chamber challenging what is really happening—we are receiving email after email from people who have been taken off waiting lists despite still needing treatment. Patients are being taken off waiting lists, sometimes without their knowledge. This has not been about more appointments for patients—it is about massaging the figures, and he knows it. There is a lot in this Bill that we will support, and there are many areas where we would like the Government to perhaps go further, but there is also a rhetoric that needs to be addressed, because there are unresolved problems still. Social care is unresolved. Workforce pressures are unresolved. Mental health backlogs are unresolved. Productivity is unresolved. Pharmacy pressures are unresolved. GP satisfaction is unresolved. The Secretary of State is inheriting not just a Department but an expectations crisis, because the greatest danger in politics is not under-promising; it is convincing the public that complexity itself can be announced away. The Bill abolishes NHS England and centralises significant powers to be governed by the Secretary of State. It takes control out of patients’ hands.

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is exactly the sort of issue that will need further scrutiny in Committee. I note that local authorities will not have the same seat at the table and that it will be transferred for mayoral regions, but what about regions that do not have a mayor? That measure will create a real democracy deficit in the NHS. I hope that we can look at this in detail in Committee, because that serious oversight absolutely needs addressing.

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    My hon. Friend raises a very important point; it is an area that the Committee will have to look at very carefully. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I believe that he wants there to be a patient voice, but there is a serious flaw in the Bill. Abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB is a terrible mistake, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for the work that he has been doing on this. The reality is that HSSIB gives members of staff who work in the NHS the confidence to come forward and be a whistleblower. We need that. We need people to feel that they are in a safe environment. The CQC is a totally different beast in the minds of people who work in the NHS and social care, so to put those functions within that organisation is a terrible mistake and one that I hope the Committee will look at very carefully.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    I am genuinely concerned about that. Members of Parliament from across the House have often brought to the House some very serious cases—things that have gone terribly wrong for their constituents, services that have been commissioned in their area, and awful things that have happened to patients. It is because of organisations like Healthwatch and the HSSIB that those issues have come to light, and work has gone into improving those services. That is what we all want to see, but I am really worried that that progress will be lost. If those functions are absorbed into the Secretary of State’s office, I really do not think it will be able to cope with the sheer volume. It needs to be done on a much more localised basis.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    That is exactly one of the issues that needs to be ironed out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Committee considers the impact for devolved Administrations, particularly where they have responsibility for health in their areas. I hope that he will raise that with members of the Committee.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    I gently remind the hon. Lady that it was the former Secretary of State who said that he did not want to go through another reorganisation, because it would be very costly. We still cannot get a clear answer from the Government about how much this is all going to cost the taxpayer, and there are estimates of £1 billion. There are still serious questions to be answered. The hon. Lady talks about democratic responsibility and accountability, and she is right to do that. She is fortunate—depending on one’s point of view—to have a mayor, but my constituency and county do not. Will my constituents get less of a voice in their NHS than her constituents in Shipley? That does not seem fair to me.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    I am talking about trying to get accountability down to the local area. That is where it matters, and that is where my constituents want to see it. They know their local services and the hospitals in their areas, and they are the ones who should have their voices.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Health Bill

    Yes, and this is—[Interruption.] It is slightly patronising to say to someone, “Read the Bill”. Clearly my hon. Friend has, and we have been talking about this in great detail. There is a real concern here. We need much clearer answers to these questions, which many of our constituents will have. Those who give up their time to work in organisations to make the NHS better deserve decent answers to those questions and concerns. I certainly hope that reflection will be taken on those points. At its heart, the Bill is not simply a debate about technology or bureaucracy; it is about who holds, controls and safeguards the most personal data that any of us will ever possess. This is one of the most significant reorganisations of the NHS in modern political history, but it is wrapped carefully in the language of managerial simplification. Perhaps part of the Bill will help, and of course some reforms are necessary. Conservatives are not afraid of reform—definitely not. Indeed, if the NHS is to survive the demographic, technological and fiscal pressures ahead, modernisation is essential. That is because technology matters, innovation matters, integration matters, data matters, prevention matters, productivity matters and, yes, accountability matters too. That is why, where we see good work in the Bill, we will back it, and where we think there are questions that need to be drilled down into, we will do so. We want to ensure that the Bill works. There is a difference between modernisations rooted in political realism and announcements designed primarily for political theatre, and too much of the approach we have seen so far is Whitehall talking to itself; meanwhile, outside this Chamber, reality continues uninterrupted. Patients still wait, ambulances still queue outside A&E, the family still worries, the exhausted nurse still works a double shift and the GP still battles impossible demands. Here is the truth: the NHS does not primarily suffer from a shortage of announcements; it is marked by a persistent lack of grip and direction. The Government today increasingly resemble a man frantically changing labels on a filing cabinet while the building itself quietly catches fire. The Government say that abolishing NHS England will reduce bureaucracy—perhaps it will—but let us not forget that Whitehall sometimes possesses a remarkable historic talent for abolishing bureaucracies ceremonially before quietly recreating them under another name with slightly different headed paper. We need to ensure that that does not happen in this instance. We also have to think about the huge amounts of public money involved—yes, nearly £202 billion; an extraordinary sum of money. We understand that pressures rise—of course we do—we understand about ageing populations, we understand that medical advancement increases costs and we understand the aftershocks of the pandemic. But when a Government spend record sums while presiding over delays, workforce uncertainty, transformation paralysis, productivity collapse and public frustration, eventually the British public are entitled to ask a simple question: where has all my money gone? The Government are not judged by the size of the press release; they are judged by whether the thing actually works. We must now do everything to ensure that the Bill goes through with great scrutiny, as it needs to do, because healthcare is difficult, trade-offs are real and workforce shortages cannot simply be rebranded as opportunities. Indeed, the public increasingly suspect something very different here: they suspect that too much of modern politics has become performance without consequences, announcements without accountability and presentation without delivery. That is ultimately why the Bill matters. If this enormous centralisation of power succeeds, Ministers will claim vindication, but if it fails and bureaucracy persists, waiting lists remain stubborn, workforce pressures deepen and promised transformation dissolves into another cycle of reorganisation, the Government will no longer possess anyone else to blame—not NHS England, local structures, quangos or the system—because the Bill places responsibility squarely where the Government claim it belongs, on the shoulders of Ministers. Perhaps that honesty will prove the Bill’s greatest contribution. The British people are patient, but they are not naive. They can distinguish between serious transformation and political choreography, and they increasingly understand that there is no technological shortcut around the fundamental challenge facing healthcare. The Government cannot run a service this large, pressured and so deeply connected to people’s lives and wellbeing primarily through presentation. Eventually, every Government collides with reality, and reality—unlike leadership campaigns—cannot be managed through slogans. That is the inheritance facing the new Health Secretary, and that is why the House should approach the Bill not with breathless excitement but with very hard-headed scrutiny indeed so that we get the NHS we all want to see.

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Child Sexual Offender Data

    My point flows from the important case that my right hon. Friend is making and from what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said. A key element of transparency is finding patterns of behaviour in covering up the crimes. It is not only about patterns in offenders; we also need transparency about where crimes were covered up and the patterns in that.

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Child Sexual Offender Data

    This issue is very real. Very close to here, a fun run organised by Tower Hamlets council did not allow women over 13 to join in. I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but let us be clear: it is happening, it is happening frequently and it is happening very close to where we are having this debate.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Child Sexual Offender Data

    I pay tribute to the amazing work that my constituency neighbour has done over many years on this issue. The issue of taxi networks in the north of England, particularly those operating in Bradford and Keighley and in my area of Skipton and Ripon, is an example of the fact that analysing broader issues properly will require more funding.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Lead Ammunition

    2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of lead ammunition for defence purposes.

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Lead Ammunition

    I thank the Minister for the answer. According to the ammunitions industry, the upcoming ban on lead in commercial bullets is going to cause significant problems for the police and armed forces, in terms of cost and supply. Viking Arms, in my constituency, which supplies the military and the police, is deeply worried about this issue. Will he meet it and any other suppliers to hear their concerns about the problem?

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Armed Forces Day

    I fear I know the answer to this question in advance, but I shall ask it anyway. Would one way of reconnecting society with the armed forces at Armed Forces Day not be to revisit the testimony given to the then Defence Committee in March 2017 by four eminent professors of law? It showed how it is possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. Will the Government re-examine it and reinstate the immunity and the investigative processes that enable that protection to be done?

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), we have seen in the first tranche the box note that was sent from the Prime Minister’s private office to the Prime Minister setting out the issues and asking whether Peter Mandelson should be appointed, but that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record of the Prime Minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. There is apparently no record of either. Is the Minister saying that it does not exist, and if it does not, why not?

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Child Sexual Offender Data

    I want to make a small point following the strong and powerful point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the gang-related stuff. The petition that the public signed does not selectively go for gangs only. It refers to all offenders, including gangs. Surely the key is to get the knowledge. That sunlight will help us to solve those other crimes.

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Child Sexual Offender Data

    I just want to point out a clear example of why this is necessary. In 2022, the Home Office asked police forces to collect ethnicity and other data to have a display of evidence. Out of 43 forces, only one complied. That is why it must be statutory and enforced; does my right hon. Friend not agree?

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has not deleted any of the messages that he received electronically on any personal or Government devices in relation to Peter Mandelson?

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    I see that he is nodding; that is very helpful. In my experience, these scandals are always made much worse by any covering up, so I am sure that the Minister will want to be completely open. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and it is strange that the Prime Minister seems to have so little involvement in this whole affair. I am reminded of the wartime film, “The Man Who Never Was”. Does that sum up this premiership—the man who never was?

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I congratulate him on his appointment. He has inherited this policy—it is not his own. I assure him that the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is a dreadful mistake, because which other investigative function in the healthcare system is completely unconflicted in what it does? By abolishing HSSIB he is taking its functions into the CQC, which is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator, so that there is no longer any independent, unconflicted body conducting healthcare investigations. Has he consulted the royal colleges about this? I have not spoken to a single royal college that is in favour of the abolition of HSSIB.

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    I very much welcome the idealistic vision that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) sets out for us, but I am afraid that it is far from what is in this Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), I shed no tears for the demise of NHS England; it was never an organisation independent of politics, but always looked upwards at the political leadership and did what Ministers wanted. It was created as an unnecessarily complex organisation. However, I ask myself whether reasserting the principle—unspoken in this debate—that somehow the man in Whitehall knows best is not reverting to the previous failures of the system, when we need to be looking for a much more organic and local system. I speak in this debate to lament the demise of HSSIB, as proposed in this Bill. It is a profound mistake. It represents a downgrading of safety as a priority in this Government’s health policy, because HSSIB is the only organisation that can independently investigate safety incidents in the NHS and is not conflicted by any other function or role. It does not compromise any other functional role in the NHS, yet the Government have decided to get rid of it. It will not save any bureaucracy. This tiny organisation costs a few million pounds, yet it is pioneering a new system of safety management in the NHS that the NHS culturally barely understands. We forget that NHS reform is really about people and leadership, not management structures and organisational structures. HSSIB was one of the catalysts that was beginning to transform attitudes towards safety. It was a safety valve for clinicians and patients and their families. It was the one place they could go to tell their story, without fear nor favour, in a safe space, and it was instructive.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    Well, no, and the abolition of HSSIB is an example of that. It was the one organisation that could independently hold any part of the system to account. If its functions are transferred to the CQC, those functions will be compromised in their independence —and they are explicitly intended to be compromised. The Government set great store by the Dash review, but it is a flawed and dishonest document that misleads the public by what it says. The Dash review is not about patient safety. It puts far more emphasis on quality. It elides quality and safety, which are not the same thing, even if many people believe them to be so. That concern is reflected by the fact that there are too many recommendations flying around and too many resources being diverted to recommendations that the NHS does not want to implement. All those recommendations are coming from this plethora of public inquiries that Secretaries of State keep setting up. Surely we want to replace the public inquiry system with something much more effective, as we did for rail accidents. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, we replaced public inquiries with the rail accident investigation branch in the Department for Transport. There has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because we have the rail accident investigation branch. There has not been a public inquiry into an aviation accident since 1972, because we have the air accidents investigation branch. Why can we not have the same principle for safety in healthcare, instead of this ridiculous Dash review, which is full of falsehoods and misleading statements? I will give the House just one example of that. The review says: “HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.” That is wrong. It had to give them up, because it did not have the capacity to do them.

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    Clause 59 states: “The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is abolished.” It is going to be abolished.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Health Bill

    I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the HSSIB question. The Dash review accused HSSIB of exceeding its remit. That is completely wrong in law, and it was always intended to look at systemic problems across the system. The new investigation function in the CQC will not be able to do that, because it will not be independent.

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    First, through the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, may I thank all of the officials at the Cabinet Office who have dealt with this matter in a very thorough, professional and—as far as I am concerned—courteous way? For that, I am grateful. Casting forward, it is probably perfectly correct that a Prime Minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassadorial position, but there seem to be two key lessons that need to be learned here, and I wonder whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could say a word or two on both. The first is that as a matter of course, vetting should be conducted prior to making public an announcement of appointment. The second is that there seems to be confusion—the earlier pages of part I, published today, indicate this—about what being a member of the Privy Council, a Member of the House of Lords, or a former member of the Cabinet means for what type of vetting is required. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister assure the House that those key lessons have been learned, and that very clear direction has been given to those who are charged with this important and sensitive job, so that they know precisely how and when to do it, and so that there is a level playing field for applicants?

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Topical Questions

    The SDR acknowledges that a significant proportion of the reserves work in the NHS and that, if they were to be deployed, there would be significant issues. Given that defence medical services and the NHS have to work together, will the Government set out what plans they are putting in place for this?

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Health Bill

    As an active user of the NHS, I welcome steps that can be taken to help improve patient experience and care, but the NHS is a delicate ecosystem: mistakes and errors do not just lead to a loss of money—they can be life-changing and, quite literally, a matter of life or death—so it is absolutely essential that we get these changes right. Conscious of time, I will focus on a few points that I want to raise. The single patient record has already been mentioned a number of times. There is no hospital within the boundary of my constituency of South Northamptonshire, so my constituents can be treated at a variety of hospitals, including Northampton, Milton Keynes, Kettering, John Radcliffe or the Horton. Working cross-county and across the country, I can see the value in creating a single patient record, ensuring that notes are available. It really could transform care co-ordination. For example, the wife of one of my constituents was almost given medication that would have killed her—she would have had an allergic reaction—because of the use of old notes. Only her husband’s presence saved her life. We cannot allow that in this day and age. As the Royal College of Nursing has indicated, we must ensure that any new system has robust safeguards around data privacy, transparency, access, procurement and secondary uses of data. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has put an emphasis on looking at that, but I think we all need more assurances. Even the Royal College of General Practitioners is asking whether the Government will provide any assurances around indemnity for GPs to protect against liability if there are breaches of data protection regulations or instances of mishandling patient records. All in all, the single patient record will work only if the system has the confidence of patients and staff. Nursing staff have been asking through the Royal College of Nursing if they will be involved in the creation and design of the single patient record, to make sure that it will actually work in practice. Will the Minister confirm whether that will be the case? Without careful safeguards, structural changes could risk undermining some of most significant advances that we have seen in recent years. As many Members will not fail to know, I am a type 1 diabetic and I will always passionately talk about diabetes. Diabetes UK has highlighted concerns about some of the changes. We have seen some incredible movements in diabetic technology, including the development of continuous glucose monitoring and, most recently, of hybrid closed-loop systems, which I am wearing and using as I speak. Central co-ordination has ensured that funding agreements are secured and access is prioritised. A shift to purely local decision making risks fragmentation and widening inequalities. Many new treatments are being created and progressed. For example, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill about type 1 diabetes screening in children. We need to ensure that this is prioritised, along with access to emerging immunotherapies. As this is an incredibly specialised area, it requires expert national oversight and co-ordination. It would be inefficient and potentially ineffective for such developments to be pursued on a purely local basis. We want to ensure that we do not see any progress falling through the cracks as changes are made. Finally, I want to touch on patient voices. The abolition of Healthwatch England has been mentioned numerous times during the debate. Many patients have to be incredibly vocal about the care that they need. Often, they cannot make those points as strongly as we might, so it is vital that we maintain bodies that can speak on their behalf, especially those that ensure the voices of young children and youth are prioritised. I am supportive of some of the changes that are coming, but we do need to exercise some care and caution.

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Health Bill

    The shadow Secretary of State is making an excellent speech, and I commend his speechwriter! I am sure my right hon. Friend wrote it himself. On accountability, the Secretary of State spoke repeatedly about devolving powers, but this Bill is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State, and our constituents will not get the accountability that they crave and that some of the reforms we implemented in 2022 gave them. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern?

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jun 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Health Bill

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), not least because I agree with a lot of what she just said, especially around accountability and the impact on integrated care boards and Healthwatch. I will try to speak quite swiftly in the time allocated to me. I campaigned for ICBs, because when I was a new Member of Parliament I had to deal with clinical commissioning groups. In summer 2020, the CCG that I was dealing with told me that I was going to get two new urgent treatment centres at the cost of about £1 million each, but I had a call with the same CCG a month later and it denied ever saying that to me. Luckily, one of my staff members had been on that call. I went to see the Health Secretary at the time, and I thought, “This is not possible.” I am not a health expert, but I have been in business, and accountability and transparency really matter. That is why I supported the Health and Care Act 2022 and the introduction of ICBs. The consequence of the Act was much more local accountability and delivery. That is why, since 2020, we have seen the introduction of an urgent treatment centre at Solihull hospital, a locality hub, state-of-the-art surgical units with robotics, and the second-largest community diagnostic centre in the country. That was opened under this Government, but it was allocated and instigated by the previous Government. I am a big advocate for transparency and accountability, which is why I have great concerns about the Bill. I have great respect for the Minister, but I hope she will appreciate that the cross-party concern on the legislation is very valid. There is a bit of a power grab going on here; the central pillar of the Bill is to centralise powers. Despite the Secretary of State—I would welcome him if he was in his seat—saying that the Bill is not about politicisation, it is inevitable that that centralisation of power will be a politicisation. In fact, the integrated care boards in the form that we created them reduce politicisation. I will not stress that point more than the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington did, because I was in total agreement with her. Moving on to Healthwatch, I will start with a compliment to the Department of Health, because I wrote to it last year on 12 September and had a response on 15 September. That is pretty good going—long may it continue—but my compliments will stop there, because I am greatly concerned about the abolition of Healthwatch. The Secretary of State kept talking about integrating it into ICBs, but the response I had from the Minister clearly says that the changes will close local healthwatch organisations. I do not agree with the term “integrated”; a new mechanism is being created that will take away patient voices and patient independence. Healthwatch plays an important role in gathering local intelligence. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington talked about inequality, and I have great concerns about that. Two of the most deprived wards in the country are in my constituency, and Healthwatch also plays an important role in giving a voice to the voiceless. I was not reassured by the Secretary of State that that role will be preserved as those powers are taken into the ICB or centralised into the Department of Health, where the Secretary of State will be an important arbiter. There was one question that I wanted to ask the Minister. The inequality I referred to includes huge amounts of digital exclusion, another area in which Healthwatch plays an important role. When I talk about the voiceless, I mean the people who do not have the strength or confidence to address those issues. What work has the Department of Health done regarding the digitally excluded? That is a really important question, and I share the concerns about accountability and transparency that have been expressed. I hope the Minister can address them.

    Hansard source