Dr Caroline Johnson

I will try to keep my remarks brief. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for all the hard work he has done over the past year in holding the Government to account on health and social care, the whole Conservative health team for their support, and every member of the Committee that, as the Minister said, scrutinised the Bill in detail in such a hot and sticky room before the summer. I also thank my parliamentary team for their support. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on her reappointment and thank her for the time that she has taken to engage with the Opposition on the Bill. I must also declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. This is not a small Bill. It runs to more than 200 pages, and there are almost as many pages of amendments, with around 180 different MPs signing or supporting different amendments. I do not agree with every one, but I welcome thoughts and ideas from right across the House—well, from most of the way across the House; we did not see much from Reform. The Bill has scale, but does it have direction and clarity of purpose? Leadership sets direction—a destination—and from that follows a path, as smooth as possible, from A to B, with appropriate milestones. However, the Bill, like so many of this Labour Government’s, came as an announcement without enough thought. Let us go back. The Government started with the Darzi report. I will not restate the arguments about why it was done or the weakness of the claims that it is independent, but suffice to say it is their report, published by a Labour peer and former Labour Minister for a Labour Government. It says a few things about reorganisation. Lord Darzi wrote that “a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and Integrated Care Boards is neither necessary nor desirable”, yet the Government decided to abolish NHS England, restructure the ICBs and halve the ICBs’ budgets all at once, without properly planning for what would come next. That is clause 1—abolishing NHS England. One of the main arguments provided related to the unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of staff. As a Conservative, I accept that there is a strong case for efficiency: the Government must use taxpayers’ money wisely. In a letter that the permanent secretary sent to the Public Accounts Committee, officials estimated savings of £1 billion a year by abolishing NHS England and redundancy cost payments of approximately £1 billion to £1.3 billion, but we have not seen the calculations behind that. It was announced in March 2025 that the restructure would be completed in two years, yet we are now 18 months in and Ministers do not seem to be on track. From March 2025 to July 2026—a year, and three quarters of the time they have given themselves—total headcount across NHS England and the Minister’s Department decreased by 12.9%, which is nowhere near what the Government need to deliver their promised savings. We have therefore tabled amendment 102, which would require the Government to publish a full workforce transition plan, and new clause 153, which would require the Government to publish precisely how many people they make redundant. I would like to raise a contradiction: the Government talk a lot about devolution and local decision making, but the Bill does the opposite. It will remove councils of governors from foundation trusts, give Ministers the power to hire and fire health leaders, and put an end to local Healthwatch. It will give the Secretary of State the power to set and adjust annual funding allocations for ICBs, and direct them to ringfence funding for service integration. It takes away local decision making. The Bill is also inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said the other day. In response to a question about the Bill, he said: “I do not like the idea of a postcode lottery in the national health service.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 61-62.] But if decisions are taken locally, they will be different in different areas, which will lead to a postcode lottery. Will Ministers shed some light on what they actually believe? Do this Government want decisions made locally and accept that those will be different, or do they want decisions made centrally? Lord Darzi said something else in his report: “Constant reorganisations are costly and distracting. They stop the NHS structures from focusing on their primary responsibility to raise the quality and efficiency of care in providers.” Indeed. In fact, that is not too dissimilar from what the Minister for Secondary Care herself previously concluded, when in opposition. She said: “The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 809.] How is the NHS performing? Let us take a look. The total number waiting for appointment has gone down a bit, as the Government have said, but in trauma and orthopaedics, ophthalmology, cardiothoracic surgery, elderly medicine and gynaecology, it has gone up, and in some cases is higher than it was before the election. For those waiting for an admission who need a procedure or an operation, it is not only going up month on month and year on year; it is higher than it was at the time of the general election. What about accident and emergency? The number of people waiting for more than 12 hours after a decision to admit was 29% higher in July 2026 than in July 2024, and that is despite the fact that there were fewer such admissions in July 2026 than in July 2024. How have the Government performed in other health areas? Childhood vaccination rates are in decline. The workforce plan has not been published, despite the Minister saying it was “imminent” months ago. Fracture liaison clinics have not been delivered, despite allegedly being one of this Government’s planned “first acts”. I could go on, but we do not have much time, and I think I have demonstrated the point: NHS reorganisation is distracting from delivery. One of the things I want to talk about that the Government are not delivering is the response to the Hughes report. I thank Dr Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, for her hard work on the report. When the trauma and suffering that some people, particularly women, have experienced from mesh repairs, and the harm that children have suffered because of exposure to valproate in the womb, became apparent, we were all horrified. The previous Government changed the way that valproate was prescribed and commissioned regional surgical centres of excellence to provide care for women who suffer from the effects of a mesh repair. The Conservative Government also commissioned the Hughes report, published in February 2024, that investigated compensation schemes for those affected, but the general election was called just three months later, so delivering compensation and on the report became the Labour Government’s job. Sadly, Ministers have dithered and delayed for more than two years now. We have had written question after written question, several debates and a lot of warm words, but still no response to the report. It is simply not good enough. Those suffering should not have to wait any longer, and that is why we have tabled new clause 145, which would provide a legal backstop, ensuring that the Government publish their response to the Hughes report within 30 days of the Bill becoming law at the latest. That is still not soon enough for those affected, but it is the only way of putting in an effective backstop so the Government can stop fobbing off victims and start delivering justice. Let me turn to other amendments. The Government announced out of the blue that ICB running costs will be halved. Why 50%? I have no idea, but ICBs scrambled to respond. We know from those inside the health service that it has been a major distraction, with a massive opportunity cost for patient care. When the Bill came, Ministers chose to change the composition of ICBs, too, removing the voice of hospitals and primary care from boards as well as the voice of local authorities, severing that link with social care. Integrated care partnerships will also be abolished. There will instead be a focus on mayoral representation, even for mayors where there is little role, if any, in delivering social care. In Lincolnshire, for example, instead of a local authority and an ICB on the same geographical footprint working together over the same area to cover health and social care, we now have the Government conspiring to give us an ICB covering three counties, with no voice for the local authorities, which are unsure after today’s announcement whether they will be split up. We discussed at some length in Committee the importance of health and social care working together, so I welcome the Government’s U-turn on day one of this term to reinstate local authority representation, but I urge the Minister to consider, as the Opposition parties have proposed, reinstating primary care and secondary care representatives, too. Given the time, I will speak briefly to the three amendments on workforce. First, new clause 154 would require the Secretary of State to increase the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32. Why? Put simply, because they promised they would and they have not. Secondly, new clause 152 is on merit-based applications. Doctors used to be allocated their first jobs through a system based on performance—that was the case when I was a junior doctor. Now it is done by computer algorithm prioritising choice. This is unfair, demoralising and destroys the incentive to study hard. We believe in meritocracy, and I urge the Government to accept the new clause. Thirdly, I urge the Government to support new clause 144, which would address the plight of a small but significant group of people: a group of medical students subject to a great injustice. These are British citizens studying at a British university, predominantly Queen Mary University in London, who were told four and a half years into their degree that they would not be able to have places on the foundation programme but would be at the back of the queue. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 has meant that non-prioritised doctors got only 1.8% of the jobs—the last 1.8% left. That was the point of the Bill, but the Government should put this particular group of British citizens into the priority group. We will no doubt talk about our other amendments in the Lords. New clause 155 on self-care would give people more autonomy over their own care. New clause 101 is on the national commissioning of low-volume, high-complexity services, and would ensure that the Government cannot just move them into ICBs without a proper consultation and plan. Amendment 95 on the patient choice duty would ensure that patients have choice over the care they receive in neighbourhood services as well as hospital services. Amendment 88 is on the single patient record. The single has the potential to be truly transformative, bringing the NHS in line with other modern healthcare systems. It can prevent people from having to repeat themselves. But there are lots of questions for the Government that have not been answered. This is another example of making an announcement without thinking it through. How will existing health records be linked? How will patients, carers and clinicians have access? Who will control the data? How will it be kept safe? Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to publish a full plan before making changes. There are some parts of the Bill that the Opposition can support, but in the Government’s hurry to make announcements, they often do not seem to think things through properly. That is the story of local government reform that we heard in the House earlier today; it is the story of the much-delayed workforce plan; and it risks becoming the story of this NHS reorganisation. In health, there are life and death situations, so we cannot afford for the Government to get it wrong. The Opposition have made a series of sensible amendments and will be grateful for the Minister’s support.