Health Bill

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis]

I absolutely agree, and I was a Labour councillor and leader of the council’s Labour opposition back then. I was also married to a special educational needs co-ordinator who was employed by the local authority. I was employing my own professionals to get through this process and ensure that the health aspects of the EHCP were upheld. The situation is absolutely abhorrent. Many parents who do not have the opportunity and insight that my wife and I had cannot ensure that accountability for their child. When my borough received that judgment of systemic failings, that issue really came to the fore.

I would be grateful if the Minister or Secretary of State could outline how the Government intend to address the issues addressed by my amendment and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. My amendment intends to ensure that we deliver basic objectives, set clear expectations for how long disabled people should wait, set consistent standards, and ensure meaningful accountability for ICBs when services fall short.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support.

I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill.

A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know.

Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Labour Members who had that commitment in their manifesto may want to reflect on how much more commitment we have to constituents because they are our constituents than we would if we shared constituents from day to day. We often go out of our way—I hope—to look after our constituents because of that sense of ownership and obligation. It is only because we are allocated those people and they are our responsibility that we go that extra mile. Why would doctors not be the same, and can colleagues not see the sense of what my right hon. Friend is saying?

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS.

There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice.

People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done.

The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to.

At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

There is lots in this Bill that is very positive, but I want to raise a couple of local issues, including one relating to my local Stepping Hill hospital. I thank the Minister for meeting me and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), to discuss the hospital, because it is at the heart of healthcare provision in my town of Stockport. It serves around half a million patients per year and is one of the four specialist hub centres for emergency and higher-risk general surgery in Greater Manchester.

I appreciate that 14 years of austerity, imposed by the coalition Government of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, and by subsequent Conservative Governments, have taken their toll on the NHS. The Labour Government have been trying to fix things over the last two years, but Stepping Hill hospital is a huge issue locally. I have mentioned the condition of the hospital a number of times in this Chamber, and a number of constituents frequently get in touch with me about the state of the hospital. At one point, Stepping Hill hospital was reported to be delivering only 51% of its usual outpatient services, which is simply not good enough. The staff do an amazing job, and an amazing set of volunteers support the hospital, but so much more needs to be done.

The backlog of repairs at the hospital is estimated to cost around £138 million. The Government have allocated £2.5 million for targeted essential repairs, fire safety and other works, and the foundation trust has been allocated £75 million by this Government over the next four years. That is a positive step, but I urge the Minister to go a bit further for Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport, Greater Manchester.

The second issue I want to raise is NHS-funded IVF treatment, which I have also mentioned previously. We live in a country where we have a postcode lottery in NHS funding for IVF treatment, and that should not be the case. I have signed new clause 104, tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which is about ensuring that the provision of NHS-funded IVF is in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

Once again, a number of parents in my constituency have been in touch with me about this issue. Sadly, NHS Greater Manchester ICB has taken the step of reducing provision. It conducted a consultation a few months ago, and 74% of respondents either disagreed or completely disagreed with the proposed one-plus cycle offer. I have submitted a freedom of information request to NHS Greater Manchester ICB regarding the cost and resources that went into the consultation, because it did the consultation and then proceeded to reduce the provision. The change disproportionately impacts low-income women and people from poorer backgrounds, and that is simply not good enough. Greater Manchester has a population of almost 3 million people, and this is a regressive step.

The Government need to do a lot better on mandating legal access to NHS-funded IVF. Current data from a fertility unit in the north-east—one of the only two areas where an ICB funds three full rounds of IVF treatment—shows that the chance of a woman under 40 having a baby after three cycles of treatment is 70%, but the figure for people who get access to one cycle is just 46%. In England, we need standardisation of IVF treatment.

I also support new clause 108, tabled by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I will not say much on this point, because I have spoken on three separate occasions in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber about data hygiene and safety. I have had a very large volume of correspondence from constituents on this issue. Many people in Stockport are worried about foreign tech firms having access to their sensitive personal medical records. People need to have confidence that the personal details and data that they provide to the NHS will not be misused.

As I said earlier, this Government have achieved a lot in the last two years, but we need to recognise that there is so much more to be done. Labour Governments always fix things in the long run, but I ask the Minister specifically to go a bit further on Stepping Hill hospital and IVF.

Patient Safety Review

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to evaluate the Dash review of patient safety, and I thank the Minister for the meeting with her this afternoon.

I hope that the House and Penny Dash will forgive me, but in the interests of brevity and clarity, I shall be direct. Whenever asked to justify the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, Ministers refer to Dash, but Dash fails to make the case for what it recommends. This new clinical incident investigator was established less than three years ago. HSSIB is a new concept in healthcare, conceived to challenge the culture of denial and blame in the NHS. It is proving itself, even with its very limited budget. One early report on aortic dissection led to 300 more people receiving lifesaving treatment. The Minister now has a list of key recommendation impacts produced by HSSIB. A lot of them may seem small or piecemeal, but so far it is only a small body.

After a boy suffered an avoidable death from cancer, HSSIB recommended to NHS England a new community language translation and interpreting services framework so that non-English speaking patients would get appointment letters for their children that they could read and understand. HSSIB recommended a protocol between prisons and ambulance services to avoid wasting ambulance time and new guidance for non-accidental injury of babies in emergency departments where no specific guidance had existed before.

The Dash review shows no understanding of HSSIB’s purpose and no comprehension of coherent safety systems management. Dash gets facts wrong and misinterprets the law, either through a failure of understanding or because the recommendation to abolish HSSIB somehow reflected the desired outcome of the review, regardless of the facts.

I will set out some specific questions, most of which the Minister has had in advance. If she does not have enough time to respond, I look forward to discussing them at a future meeting that we discussed having.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that one of the common themes in all the maternity scandals that we have been discussing in recent weeks, sadly, has been how a blame culture in the NHS makes it hard for NHS staff to speak openly about why tragedies have happened, and that that is why they welcome HSSIB, with its safe space protections? Is he worried that that could be undermined by putting HSSIB into the Care Quality Commission, which has a legal duty to act on information it receives, therefore creating the worry for people talking to HSSIB that the information that they give to it may no longer be protected in the same way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend. He will note that I will pick up on those points during my remarks.

I come back to the questions that I want to put to the Secretary of State. First, if HSSIB’s investigations are intended to continue unaffected by the transfer to the CQC, why bother with the expense of the transfer? Are Ministers simply using Dash as the pretext for what people in the Department or elsewhere in the NHS would like to have?

HSSIB was deliberately started very small, but the intention was that over time it would take over more investigations in health and replace the need for wasteful, lengthy, inexpert ad hoc public inquiries. Over the years, inquiries have proved to be a chaotic means of investigation, assembling expertise from scratch, which is then lost after the inquiry, and failing to command public confidence or to fix the system. That is why, after the 1999 Paddington rail crash, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry in 2001 established the rail accident investigation branch. Since then, despite many fatal rail accidents, there has been no public inquiry into a rail crash—nor has the public felt the need to demand one—and rail safety has improved.

Given that HSSIB is expert, full time, and can conduct much cheaper and quicker investigations than public inquiries, how can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation to abolish it? Why not consider expanding HSSIB to avoid the need for so many costly public inquiries?

Dash complains about there being far too many recommendations—yes, there are—but, as Dash itself enumerates, it is the 30 public inquiries that, in its language, have “cluttered” the “landscape” with some 1,400 recommendations over recent years. HSSIB is therefore not the source of those recommendations. In HSSIB’s first 34 months of operation, it has produced only 56 recommendations. How can Ministers use that reason to justify HSSIB’s abolition?

Dash refers more than once to

“quality (including safety) of care”.

That elides quality of care with safety. In any other safety-critical industry, safety is seen as a distinct, separate and overriding priority. It is telling that in the report, the words “including safety” are added merely in parentheses, as though safety is ancillary to quality, but that becomes justification for rationalisation while actually compromising safety.

Safety system management is intrinsic to safety and public confidence in other safety-critical activities, such as aviation, but this is alien to NHS culture. I therefore ask the Minister again: without HSSIB, which independent body will promote a coherent understanding of safety system management in health, and who is to hold the NHS and Government to account for safety failures?

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and agree about how shocking the failures in maternity services are, particularly because these failings and the failure to listen to women happens at a point when they are at their most vulnerable. It is at that moment when they are let down. When they need the NHS the most is when the NHS fails them, and that is one aspect of this that makes it truly devastating.

My right hon. Friend also rightly highlights the impact on black women and their babies, who are at more risk than white women and their babies, and the inequalities that exposes. As I mentioned during my earlier statement, we will begin by ensuring that the perinatal equity and anti-discrimination programme is extended to all trusts by the end of next year, but that is an immediate measure we are taking rather than the sum of all measures that we will take on this front. Inequality, racism and discrimination will be a central part of the action plan that the taskforce develops.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I strongly agree with the comments of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), about the need for getting the culture right with accountability. When I was Secretary of State, we passed the duty of candour regulations. They were supposed to make it—well, they do make it—a criminal offence for trusts not to tell the truth to families when a tragedy has happened. Yet to this day, trust lawyers advise doctors, nurses and midwives not to be open about what has happened when there is the prospect of legal action further down the line. Does the Secretary of State—I know he is very committed to this—agree that we will clear up this anomaly in the Hillsborough law so that it is just not possible for trusts not to tell the truth and so that trust lawyers always advise their own doctors, nurses and midwives that they must tell families exactly what happened?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. Again, I agree with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on the importance of accountability for changing culture. During the statement on Donna Ockenden’s report last week, he commented that this is about having accountability structures embedded throughout the system, because this is not something that the top of the NHS, the NHS chief executive, the Secretary of State or the ministerial team can control throughout the NHS. The structure has to be embedded to ensure that accountability happens at every level—something I very much took to heart and agree with when it comes to what we need to do next.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the Hillsborough law and how that will address the issue that he refers to about legal departments effectively advising a cover-up, that sounds concerning, so I will look into that as part of our work to ensure that the system works properly. The expectation with the duty of candour, which will come in under the Hillsborough law, is to ensure that we never again have a situation as happened in Nottingham—I could not quite believe it, if I am honest—where many senior clinicians simply refused to take part. It is outrageous. It is unacceptable that so many senior clinicians were able to, and felt able to, just say no. That is not accountability if it is optional, and that is what we need to change.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and questions. As well as thanking the families for what they have done to drive the report forward, she also thanked Donna Ockenden for her critical work in producing this report, and to those thanks I add my own. My hon. Friend asks about the timetable for action. The national taskforce, which I chair, will draw together all the national recommendations, all the recommendations from Donna Ockenden’s report, the recommendations from Baroness Amos’s report, and any other report on failures in maternity services, and the taskforce will report by the end of the year. That will be the timetable for us ensuring that there is a comprehensive plan of action. I know from my conversations with families that some have wanted a public inquiry and others have had different views. Let me be clear that, for me, no options are off the table.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

It is a matter of profound shame for all of us in the House that in a society that we call compassionate, a baby’s body could be disposed of as clinical waste. I add my thanks to the families and salute their courage, including the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), and particularly Jack and Sarah Hawkins, and all those families who have shown such courage in coming forward with these utterly appalling stories.

I commissioned a number of maternity reviews, and I am afraid that today I feel a terrible sense of déjà-vu. I worry that a lot of the recommendations, and the things that I suspect the Government will end up doing, amount to central direction and central control, which we know usually does not work in the NHS. I was encouraged that the Secretary of State, in his thoughtful comments, used the word “accountability”, because the core problem is a lack of clinical accountability. For his solutions, will he consider a complete overhaul, so that every mother, the moment she knows she is pregnant, is given a small team, including a doctor and midwives, and is told, “This is the team, this is the person who is responsible for the safe birth of your child”, so that she always knows who to go to? That is where things are currently falling between the seams. Ensuring that people always know who is responsible and who to go to is the only way that we will stop these things happening time after time.

[James Murray]

I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have a great deal of respect for him, as he knows, so I very much appreciate him making his suggestions in that manner. Let me add to what he said about Jack and Sarah Hawkins, who I met last week in Nottingham. Their sheer determination to push for accountability and justice is incredibly humbling. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of clinical accountability, which gets to the core of how to drive change in the NHS—as he knows, and as I now know, that is not always possible through central control, or by instructions being sent out from the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England. We must ensure that the entire system is structured in the right way to provide that accountability and to drive change and action, and I will put under careful consideration his suggestion about how that might be achieved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to present those issues and to be honest about the challenges that have been raised in his local trust. I assure him that following an inspection by the CQC, NHS trusts take action to address the recommendations cited in the report. Already, £40 million in funding has been allocated to Wythenshawe hospital to ensure that safety issues are addressed, with work scheduled for completion by 2028. In addition, through the new maternity and neonatal taskforce, the first meeting of which I have already chaired, we will act swiftly to translate the final recommendations of the independent investigation into a new national action plan so that services improve in my hon. Friend’s part of the country and across the whole of England.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

The Secretary of State and I are equally frustrated that more progress has not been made despite numerous inquiries dating right the way back to the Morecambe Bay inquiry in 2014, which I commissioned. Does he agree that one reform that could make an enormous difference would be full continuity of care for every pregnant mum, so that from the moment someone knows they are pregnant, a team of clinicians led by a named senior clinician would be responsible for that mother and child, from pre-birth to birth to post-birth, and no one would ever be in any doubt about where the buck stopped?

[Wes Streeting]

There is so much evidence to underpin the importance of continuity of care. I do not want to get ahead of the recommendations of the Amos investigation, but there is much to commend what the right hon. Gentleman says. Even with the best planning, the challenge for maternity units is that they are often both elective and emergency, with women arriving when they are not necessarily expected to, so we have to bear those considerations in mind, but the idea of women and partners knowing the team that will be responsible for their care in advance is a compelling one.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for calling this debate.

I would like to use my short time to tell the story of a young man who made me understand the tragedy of ME six years ago. He was a very promising first-year student at Durham University called Tom. He was on track to get a first in maths. He was a big hockey player, but in his second year, he started struggling, first to walk upstairs and to climb hills, and eventually he found that he could not wash himself, eat by himself or even read. Then, to his enormous frustration, he dropped out in his third year. When all his friends were starting a new life with their first job, he had to stay at home and go through the nightmare of first trying to get a diagnosis and get someone to agree that he had a problem, and then trying to get treatment for it.

Tom felt that he was going in circles: doctors were not really persuaded and he was not getting any answers. He was very lucky because he had two remarkable parents, Alex and Denise, who could afford to go to America. In fact, they moved to America and they got him enrolled on clinical trials. This story has a positive ending, because six years on, he is doing incredibly well. He is actually thriving; he has a job and a partner, and his life is back on track—except, sadly, in America rather than here.

As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, there are 400,000 people with ME or with long covid symptoms that are like severe ME. For some of them, it is already too late. Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis tragically lost their lives, and coroners issued prevention of future deaths notices.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Sarah Lewis was my constituent. I have here the prevention of future deaths report that was issued after the inquest. She took her own life, but was severely ill with ME. One thing that comes through very strongly is that she did not feel she was believed or taken seriously, or that her symptoms were recognised by the medical profession. It is so important that we challenge the medical profession to take this more seriously.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for talking about that very sad case. I actually think that the NHS is better than it was because of long covid.

The real cause for hope is Edinburgh University’s DecodeME study, which the chief executive of Action for ME, Sonya Chowdhury, described to me as being like a treasure hunt map with eight crosses where there is a genetic code that matches ME, but where we then have to go and dig up that treasure. That is what is now waiting to happen, and why funding is so important.

Ultimately, with the quality of research in this country, there should be no need for anyone to have to go to the United States or Germany for their treatment. During the pandemic, more lives were saved through treatments and vaccines discovered in this country than any other country in the world. We have amazing research happening here.

My plea to the Government is this: the last Government started the process by ignoring some of the scepticism in the medical community about whether ME was really a serious condition. It would be fantastic, and it would give so much hope, if this Government could now finish the job and invest in research that will transform the lives of so many people like Tom.

Baby Loss

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I thank him for working with me and the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) to secure the debate, and I thank my many colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. I would also like to thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for being here himself today. It means an enormous amount to families up and down the country to see that commitment from him. I know it is an issue in which he has taken enormous personal interest.

I think the most difficult meeting I had when I was doing his job many years ago was with a man called Carl Hendrickson, who came to see me a few days before I stood at that Dispatch Box to give the statement on the Morecambe Bay inquiry. Carl lost both his wife and his son at Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. A midwife mistook some fitting by his wife as just fainting. His wife died an hour later from an embolism. The next day, his son Chester died from brain damage. He came to see me with his 11-year-old son, Conrad. I will never forget it, because it was obviously going to be a very difficult meeting and I asked him whether he would like his son to sit outside with some of the civil servants while we discussed what happened. He said no, because he wanted his son to know, for the rest of his life, that he had taken his concerns about what went wrong right to the very top and asked awkward questions. And that was what he did.

I owe a great debt to the Morecambe Bay families: to Carl and to Simon Davey, Liza Brady, James Titcombe and many others. The American thinker Margaret Mead had a saying:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

For me, those Morecambe Bay families were that small group of thoughtful, committed people, along with the families from Mid Staffs, Shrewsbury and Telford, East Kent, Nottingham and many other places.

As we reflect in this very sad and meaningful Baby Loss Awareness Week about what has gone wrong, it is also important to remember that progress has been made since then. Since the Morecambe Bay inquiry, the overall number of baby deaths is down by about 20%. That is about 700 fewer a year, or two fewer a day. The NHS is better than it was about being honest about mistakes. There have been a lot of reforms. We have a chief inspector of hospitals and a CQC that is set up to call a spade a spade when there is poor care. We have the duty of candour, which will be further strengthened by the new Hillsborough law. We have medical examiners, we have Martha’s rule and we have “freedom to speak up” guardians.

Despite those improvements, there are some warning signs. Since the pandemic, the decline in baby deaths has plateaued. The number of maternal deaths has actually increased. As the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen just said, there is big inequality. You are far more likely to die as a black or Asian mum. You are far more likely to die as a black or Asian baby, or a baby from a deprived background, than other babies. Still we have a third of NHS staff, according to the staff survey last year, saying that they are afraid to raise safety concerns, and half saying that they do not think anything will happen if they do.

The thing that is so important to remember—I have said this to the House on many occasions—is that if you are in a birthing unit and present at a C-section and something goes wrong, there is nothing as a professional that you want more than to be open, honest and transparent about what happened, so that lessons can be learned and you can make sure that mistake never happens again. But our system makes that practically impossible. We have the CQC, the NMC, the General Medical Council and the trust. Lawyers get involved and people worry. There is jeopardy for clinicians: that if they are honest and open about the ordinary human mistakes that anyone can make, they will be punished for it. The result is that the one thing that needs to happen more than anything else—truthfulness to the bereaved families and learning the lessons so that the tragedy is not repeated—can be the very thing that does not happen at all. Instead, we get a five-year legal process happening and the truth is not established for maybe five, six or seven years after that.

So what needs to happen to put it right? We all have our lists of things, and I echo absolutely everything that was said in the wonderful speech before mine. For me, first of all, it is absolutely essential that we get the CQC back on its feet. It went badly wrong, but under new leadership that the Secretary of State has put in place, I believe it is now going in absolutely the right direction. We must return to the one-word ratings so that parents and families know absolutely whether the care in their local hospital or NHS organisation is safe. That is really important.

Secondly, we have a litigation culture. At the moment we spend about £3.5 billion annually in maternity awards for where maternity care has gone wrong, which is not far off the £4 billion total cost of all NHS maternity units. It has gone so badly wrong that many parents think that when something goes wrong, their only friend is not a doctor but a lawyer—that cannot be right. We need to have much better accountability. The Government are rightly absolutely committed to bringing back family doctors. People having their own GP would make an enormous difference, because at the moment there is no one inside the NHS to turn to when these things go wrong, and going back to the system of everyone having their own GP could make a really big difference to that.

We need to support the work of brilliant charities such as Tommy’s, Sands, the Clinical Human Factors Group and Baby Lifeline in their contribution to making maternity care safer. We also need to tackle the dangerous culture of “normal” births, which still sees too many mothers steered away from getting a surgical intervention when that would be the safest route for them and their baby. Those are all important changes.

I would like to say one final thing, which is that we must not return to a targets culture. I have some concerns about the new NHS league tables. I know they are set up with the best of intentions, but safety and quality is not one of the factors that ensures a move up the list. I know the Secretary of State will take great care in the way that those are implemented, but I think it is really important that there is always a bottom line—a floor—on safety and quality below which the system never goes.

What I really want to say to the House, in conclusion, is that we must not lose hope. If we had the same levels of maternity safety as Sweden, one fewer baby would die every day; if we got to the same levels as Japan, two fewer babies would die every day. If we could get the NHS back on the trajectory it was on in the years leading up to the pandemic, we would be able to get to care as safe as Sweden’s in the next five or six years, so it really is something within our grasp.

I will finish by saying this. The NHS was set up on the premise of equality, and the idea that no matter who we are—whether we are rich or poor, young or old, from the north or the south, from the city or the country—everyone should be able to access the healthcare they need. Everyone means every baby, too. We talk about safety more than any other healthcare system in the world. In this very sad week, when we remember all the people who have lost their dear babies and their dear loved ones in the process of having babies, let us redouble our efforts to make the NHS the safest, highest-quality healthcare system in the world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

That was just one of many instances in which my hon. Friend has made the voices and views of people across Barrow and Furness heard loudly and clearly in this place and across government. In response to her question, I say yes, absolutely: on such an important matter her local commissioners should be meeting her, as the local Member of Parliament, and I think I can commit to that on their behalf. While such decisions must be made locally and clinically led, they must also be made in partnership with the local authority and the local community. We must ensure that we are engaging democratically elected representatives, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend secures that meeting.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

My constituents in Cranleigh have no train service and no direct bus service to the Royal Surrey County hospital in Guildford, which is a big issue for older residents who do not drive. Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the empty rooms in Cranleigh Village hospital could provide a very good opportunity for the expansion of neighbourhood health services, and if he has not been briefed on this pressing issue by his officials, may I brief him, or one of his Ministers, on it in the autumn?

[Wes Streeting]

That sounds like another bid for a neighbourhood health centre in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am sure that local commissioners will be delighted to hear the case he has made, given the experience that he brings to bear.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I certainly can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We launched the biggest consultation since the NHS began. We had over 270,000 contributions, 250,000 thousand responses and almost 2 million visits to the change.nhs.uk website, so I can absolutely give people the assurance that staff and patients’ fingerprints are all over the plan. That is why we have such a rich plan, in which people can have confidence.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

There is much to welcome in today’s plan, particularly the proposal to bring back family doctors, which I tried to do but frankly did not succeed in doing when I was Secretary of State, so we all wish him well with that, but does he agree that as we seek to transform out-of-hospital care, it is vital that we do not take our eye off the ball and allow another Mid Staffs inside hospitals? Does he also agree that it is essential that the CQC gives overall ratings and calls a spade a spade when it comes to the quality of care in hospitals, so that we know whether the care delivered by hospitals in our constituencies is outstanding or good, and if not—if it requires improvement or is inadequate—that action can be taken, and lives can be saved?

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with my predecessor on that. It is important that the CQC’s reports and judgments can be understood by the public and the people responsible for carrying out the improvements that it recommends. Via the NHS app, we will have much more transparency for patients about the range of providers, the quality of services and the views of other patients. That will give patients the freedom to choose, in a more data-driven way, where and when they are treated. There is also the importance of data-driven face-to-face inspections by experts. We can also have early warning systems that would alert people who hold his office and mine that something is going seriously wrong, so that we can intervene before more lives are lost unnecessarily.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I want to place on record my thanks to Baroness Merron for her leadership of the Bill’s progress in the House of Lords, and to thank Members on both sides of that House for their contribution to scrutiny of it. I particularly thank Baroness May of Maidenhead for the constructive way in which she has engaged the Government, and for commissioning Sir Simon Wessely to undertake the review of mental health that underpins so much of the Bill.

At the general election, Labour stood on a manifesto commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983, and I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise in the first Session of this Parliament. In doing so, we are providing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to profoundly transform the way in which we view and support people with serious mental illnesses. The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, and when it comes to the treatment of people with serious mental illnesses, we are falling well short of the humane, compassionate society that we aspire to be. Patients live 15 to 20 years less than the average, and they are often accommodated far away from their families and loved ones. The facilities in which they are housed can be completely unsuitable. During his investigation last year, Lord Darzi found nearly 20 patients in a mental health facility who were forced to share two showers and live among an infestation of rats and cockroaches.

Patients are denied the basic choice and agency that is awarded to NHS patients with physical illnesses. People from ethnic minority communities, especially black African and Caribbean men, are more than three times as likely to be sectioned. Although they are very different conditions, people with a learning disability and autistic people are often lumped in with those who have mental illness, reflecting an outdated lack of medical understanding.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

The Health Secretary will have been briefed by the Minister for Care about the tragic murder of Christopher Laskaris, the son of my constituent Fiona Laskaris, and the lack of a voice for parents, who know their own children extremely well, in very difficult situations like this. Have the Government considered whether they might table an amendment to make things like Christopher’s tragic murder less likely in the future?

[Wes Streeting]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I place on record my thanks to Fiona for her campaigning work in circumstances that are completely unimaginable for those who have not walked in her shoes and experienced the kind of grief that she is experiencing. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) has been campaigning assiduously on this issue; similarly, we have had representations from the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), who is in his place, and the right hon. Gentleman. We are carefully considering the arguments that have been made, and looking at what we can do in this Bill to advance things in the way that Fiona and others like her would like to see. We will continue that engagement throughout the passage of the Bill, and see if there is a workable way in which we can improve it to ensure that others do not have to go through the unimaginable heartbreak that Fiona is living with every day.