Dr Caroline Johnson
MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham · Conservative · United Kingdom
“So someone was watching to make sure he was safe, and I am so glad that was the case, but it is so very rapid, as others hon. Members have testified. There is no single test. There is no single thing we can monitor or measure that helps.”
“I want to mention group B streptococcal infection, which I have seen in paediatric practice, particularly in babies. It is a common bacteria that lives harmlessly in the gut or lower reproductive tract, but there is a risk that it can enter the bloodstream, causing neonatal sepsis when passed to newborns.”
“The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation met in July 2026 and suggested an increase in the vaccination schedule for those young people.”
“I remember sitting in this Chamber a little over two years ago—I am sure you were there too, Madam Deputy Speaker—when the then Member for South Thanet, now Lord Mackinlay, received a rare standing ovation from the House and from the Gallery as he returned to Parliament following his remarkable recovery from sepsis.”
“That was a good start, but of course, as always with medicine, there is more to do, and it was pleasing to see the previous Starmer Government build on this work by introducing the modern service framework for sepsis. We have modern service frameworks for other diseases, and it seems good to have one for sepsis specifically.”
“I remember seeing a patient whose mum had got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom—not something she did normally, and she was not quite sure why she had on that particular night—and when she was walking back along the landing, she thought, “It’s a bit cold—I’ll just check.” She checked her son had his blankets on and was war…”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Dr Caroline Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“If the hon. Gentleman reads new clauses 81 and 82 together, he will see that one of them would require doctors not to go on strike, because they are involved in the clinical decision making across the piece, while the other would make provision for staff across the NHS to be on minimum service level provision. That is something that I maintained under the previous Government as well: I do not think that doctors should go on strike, in the same way that the police and the military do not go on strike. Medical professionals are key to the functioning of a hospital in a way that means they should not go on strike.”
“I hope they would want to make sure that patients were getting care, and I hope they would recognise that, in a universal service, they are essentially causing harm to the patients around them, who are their friends, their neighbours, the people who live on their street and the people who would look after them. However, the evidence suggests that that is happening, so I am afraid that these new clauses are necessary. We need to put a minimum number of staff in place to support the doctors, and doctors should be at work to make sure that patients are safe.”
“New clause 82 would make it “an offence for medical practitioners to undertake strike action”, and would provide for the Secretary of State to repeal any necessary clauses of other employment regulations in order to do so. New clause 81 concerns the minimum service levels provided across the NHS. There are staff who provide an important and valuable service but whose jobs may not be clinical; for example, services may be able to run with slightly fewer porters if they want to go on strike. I hope that no member of NHS staff would want to go on strike.”
“For generations, it has not needed to be the law: doctors did not go on strike, because they recognised what would happen to patients if they did. Now that we know that doctors will go on strike, the landscape has changed. Consultants—I should say that I am an NHS consultant—have just balloted to go on strike, which will be fundamentally unsafe. The Government have a duty to keep people safe; first and foremost, that is the Government’s job. Doctors going on strike is fundamentally unsafe and should not happen. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket that morally it should not need to be the law, but I think the evidence suggests that it does.”
“The Minister says that if doctors want to go on strike, that is a failure of the system. The consultants have just balloted to go on strike. What failure in the system does she think has caused that?”
“I understand the Minister’s interest in the balance between trade unions and patient safety. My personal view is that we should focus on patient safety. I am aware—anecdotally, to be fair—of examples of individual clinicians who were asked during previous strikes to come off the picket line to help and did not. I am also aware of many instances in which clinicians did, so it works both ways, but ultimately the Government’s job is to protect patients and put patient safety first. I will therefore press the new clauses to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“We need to focus on clinical need and the best possible staff, not on trying to gerrymander some sort of social engineering.”
“It was designed, I believe, to improve equality of opportunity, but it is being used to gerrymander equality of outcome instead. That can mean discrimination—against different groups of people, but discrimination nevertheless. That is clinically objectionable, because it means that health and social care staff may be recruited for reasons other than their clinical abilities, which are what we need and are most important. We have parts of the health service spending their time working on cultural learning classes and pushing paper around, rather than on patient care. We must get the health service back to basic healthcare, ensuring that it delivers the very best healthcare, free at the point of use, to all individuals based on their clinical need, not their ability to pay.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. In their final months in office, the last Labour Government introduced the Equality Act 2010. That consolidated several pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, which was welcome, but it also introduced a new public sector equality duty, requiring public authorities to have “due regard” to preventing unlawful discrimination and fostering equality of opportunity between groups. The public sector equality duty also requires authorities “to…encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.” Unfortunately, that has become a vehicle for social engineering.”
“I will keep my remarks brief, because we have a lot to get through, but the Government need to respond to the Hughes report. Too many people, predominantly women, but men also, are waiting for the answers. They want to know what the Government are going to do. This Government have been in office for more than two years, with the report published shortly before that. Those people need an answer. In future, new clause 85 would mean that that delay cannot happen again, because the Government would have to respond to any future reports on patient safety issues within a set timeframe of six months, to ensure that we cannot have situations where people are waiting far too long for the answers that they need and deserve.”
“Members have asked this Government when they plan to respond. Every time, the answer is, “Soon”, “At the earliest opportunity”, or, “We’re working on it”, but warm words are not enough to secure patient safety. Can the Minister confirm when she intends to publish the Government response to the Hughes report? Many patient safety recommendations prompt questions about the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission, the national care regulator. The former Health Secretary claimed that it was not fit for purpose, and yet the Government have decided to bring HSSIB—Health Services Safety Investigations Body—within the CQC, as well as to add other measures, including events management. We need urgent steps taken to revive the CQC to ensure that it is fit for purpose to uphold patient safety.”
“The Minister will remember the evidence given earlier in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, in our first sitting. As our longest-serving Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend focused much of his tenure on patient safety, and yet, as he made clear: “We are the world champion at doing inquiries and reports. Unfortunately we are also the world champion at allowing those reports to gather dust without anything actually happening.” —[ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 30, Q52.] One clear example of that so far is the Hughes report. Twenty-nine months ago, Professor Henrietta Hughes published a report outlining redress for thousands of victims of the pelvic mesh and sodium valproate scandal. Time and time again, I and other hon. and right hon.”
“The new clauses ask the Government to respond to recommendations on patient safety, and to say within six months whether they will implement them. As I said, we have been waiting several years for the Hughes report response. All new clause 98 would require is that the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the Bill’s passage, publish the Government’s response to the report. That, in itself, is not immediately soon; it is 30 days after the Bill is passed, and it is still yet to go through the Lords and return to the Commons. The new clause would effectively provide a backstop or legal end date—it is still too far away—after which the Government cannot go any further. I will be very disappointed if the Government are not prepared to do that, so I would like to press the new clause to a vote. These people have waited long enough.”
“If someone gets to the point of being given a hospital appointment, that is because the clinician who saw them in primary care used their clinical judgment to decide that the patient needed that appointment, and the consultant triaging the referral used their clinical judgment to decide that the patient needed to be seen.”
“Instead of a GP being able to refer to a consultant and a consultant being able to accept that referral, advice and guidance will have to be sought first. That will cause a delay in patient pathways and flow. It may mean that the date on which the person is added to the waiting list for an appointment is a couple of days later. That may slow things down and improve the figures, but I cannot see any clinical benefit from mandating it. There is also a concern that there would be what is called a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high-volume specialties. I am concerned about that.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Advice and guidance services were an improvement. Previously, if a general practitioner wanted to refer someone to hospital, a consultant would triage the referral. Sometimes, the referral was not needed, so a message would be written to the GP saying, “I wonder if you’ve tried this” or “Could you give more information, please?” Improving that process was the advice and guidance service, which in many ways is beneficial. I am, however, concerned by the suggestion earlier in the year that advice and guidance will become a compulsory feature, and that only after advice and guidance has been received will there be potential for referral.”
“There is a mechanism already for doing that, but new clause 86 reflects the fact that general practitioners should still be able to refer patients using their clinical judgment to a consultant. That may be someone who the patient has chosen to see or who the GP believes is right for the patient’s condition.”
“I think we are all getting busier. As such, it is harder for clinicians in primary care to phone the consultant and speak to them, because both are busy and potentially seeing patients. I am not criticising the ability to have an advice and guidance service, because it is helpful. We do the same with specialists in tertiary centres, for example. One might send them a message asking a question. Advice and guidance is a good principle. My concern is that it would remove the ability for consultants to refer directly, introducing an unnecessary delay in the system. Are we questioning the judgment of clinicians? Why do we want to reduce the number of patients who get put on the list by a quarter? I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket does, that sometimes referrals could be better directed.”
“If they are, they can use the advice and guidance service. The point is that when a general practitioner wants to refer his or her patient to a consultant on the basis of their clinical need, they should be able to. That is the purpose of the new clause.”
“If the hon. Lady is correct, she will not be perturbed by the new clause, which simply says that general practitioners must be able to directly refer patients to consultants when clinical need requires it. I would like to press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Our new clause would ensure that British citizens who studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised. I invite Members to do right by our constituents and the NHS and to vote for it.”
“842.] These concerns are shared across the House. Young British people who have trained at a British or London-based university and gone to study in Malta, perhaps in an adventurous spirit—it is a beautiful place to go—and have graduated with a British degree have found themselves at the back of the queue, unable, round after round, to get jobs in the foundation programme in their home country. That will not just be the case for students who are due to start their degree; it is the case for students who have just completed their degree. They have done the five years of training, they have worked really hard and they have passed their exams, but suddenly they cannot get a job on the foundation scheme in their home country to complete their full registration with the General Medical Council.”
“801.] Another Member said that he had “representations from all quarters, both in the UK and in Malta, about the impact on Malta of this.” —[ Official Report , 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 802.] My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about “British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service”. —[ Official Report , 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 803.] The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke of a constituent who was schooled and grew up here and was “given a guarantee by the university that she would face no disadvantage compared with students on the London campus.” —[ Official Report , 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c.”
“New clause 87 would amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places. Prioritising British students in the selection process would have been the right thing for the Government to do, but way the Medical Training Act has been drafted places British students who studied at international branch campuses of British universities at a disadvantage. On Second Reading of the Act, a Member spoke of a constituent who had been given “a formal guarantee that he would be at no disadvantage if he chose to study at the Malta campus.” —[ Official Report , 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c.”
“There are fewer than 100 students who are British citizens studying in Malta this year. Many of them have struggled to get a role on the foundation scheme. The Government have created a situation in which a British student doing a British degree at a British university with an overseas campus is put into the foundation scheme behind a foreign student studying here, or indeed in the same prioritisation group as a foreign student studying at a foreign university. That cannot be right, so I would like to push the new clause to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“The new clause makes clear our position that meritocracy should prevail and people should be rewarded for the work they do and the results they get, and that we should be hiring the best clinicians who apply for the jobs.”
“We had a very good debate on this subject, attended by many people in this room, in January, and there was widespread agreement on both sides of the House that it was the wrong thing to do. The Minister said at the time that the Government would keep the system under review. Has the Minister reviewed the system? Does she believe that we should prioritise medical graduates with the most relevant qualifications, clinical experience and skills? Does she think that doctors should have the opportunity to have control over where in the country they work and what jobs they do? Should doctors be able to work harder, aim for better results or do additional activities in order to get themselves the job they want, or does she think it should all be done by a computer? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Under the Government’s preference-informed allocation scheme, when a doctor is applying for a foundation post, they are allocated randomly to a job. They get to express a preference, but there is no work they can do to make them more likely to get where they want to be; there are no certificates they can earn, there is no research they can do, and there are no exam results they can get that would improve their chances. That is fundamentally wrong. The Government say that many people get their first choice, which is true. That is great for them, but it is not great for the people who do not get their choice and have no control over their future.”
“It would amend the relevant part of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, so that when people are put forward for these jobs in the foundation programme, it should be done on the basis of merit. At the moment, as the hon. Member is aware, it is done on the basis of random allocation—preference-informed allocation—which I think is wrong. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on the subject.”
“The new clause deliberately says that applicants would be prioritised based on merit, and it gives examples of ways in which merit might be judged. I understand what the Minister says about some people getting the job of their choice, but the people who do not have no control over the process, and no ability to influence it through their own hard work and effort. That is fundamentally wrong in principle. Although I recognise that the current method was brought in as a result of consultation, I feel confident that the same consultation, done now, would reject it. We would like to vote on the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Member for Blaydon and Consett has done a great deal to support, has called for the Government to take action. So why is action not forthcoming? Why have the Government failed to deliver another policy on time? It is part of a pattern. The Government spent a year writing a 10-year plan. They spent another year working on a workforce plan, which still has not been published. It is simultaneously “imminent” as of 30 days ago and non-existent today. They are behind on the Hughes report, the modern service frameworks, universal 24/7 mechanical thrombectomy, fracture liaison services and more. The new clause would simply commit the Government to delivering on their promise to the 1 million people living with the effects of acquired brain injury. I struggle to see how the Assistant Whip can compel Members to vote against that.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. During a Westminster Hall debate in December, a Government Minister said: “In the coming months, in the first half of next year, I confirm that we will publish the acquired brain injury action plan”. —[ Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 472WH.] We are now in the second half of 2026. Members may be familiar with the charity Headway UK, which does phenomenal work to support people affected by brain injury, including people in my constituency. Headway has called for the Government to treat the plan as a priority, reiterating that every delay has real consequences and that survivors need support now. The all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which the hon.”
“The Minister said that the plan is being developed with the pace that is needed, but it is not. It was due to have been published already, but it has not been. It was due to have been published, then a later promise was made, and now she is making another promise with an uncertain date. I just do not think it is good enough. A theme of our consideration this afternoon has been all the different things the Government have promised but have failed to deliver.”
“Yes, I accept that it has taken too long, and that is the point. I assume that it must be ready to go, because the Minister has been working on having it published by the end of June, and we are in the middle of July. The Minister can inform us whether that is the case. We have reached a point where the Government keep saying “later”, “soon”, “imminent”, “in due course” and “working at pace”, but that is not helping to get this done. The new clause would force the Government to get on with it. That is what I think needs to be done, and that is why I will press it to a vote.”
“The principle is to give people the ability to take control of their own healthcare and to more easily access medications that are currently under a higher classification, where it is safe to do so.”
“There are medicines that could be considered for reclassification from prescription-only to being available from pharmacists without a prescription, in the way that medication for migraines, for example, previously had to be prescribed but can now be bought with supervision from a chemist. How might measures to increase self-care or pharmacy care square with the Secretary of State’s duty to improve health inequalities outlined in the Bill? In addition, the new clauses might help neighbourhood health centres in rural communities to increase availability of medicines closer to people’s homes. I will stop there, because I know that we are running short of time.”
“The Government’s 10-year health plan says that reducing hospital admissions is a key goal for the neighbourhood health service. These new clauses could help, because they would require the Secretary of State to support self-care and health literacy in neighbourhood health plans and to conduct a safe and proportionate reclassification of some medicines. Pressure on GPs continues to grow, with the total number of GP appointments reaching almost 377 million in 2025. The new clauses are designed to relieve pressure on the healthcare system and allow people to take back control of their healthcare.”
“New clause 109, tabled in my name, is very simple, requiring hospice funding to be provided in three-year blocks. Hospices are struggling under the weight of the national insurance rise in the Government’s first Budget, so they would benefit greatly from having a bit more certainty over how much their funding will be from year to year. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause.”
“I would like to move the new clause. We see hospices in huge financial distress at the moment, and we need to get their funding on a more certain footing. New Clause 109 Hospices revenue funding “The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.” This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis. — (Dr Caroline Johnson.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Only last week, I received an email from a constituent who has moved around because of her husband’s service in the armed forces and who was struggling to access specialist services for her child’s health as a result. That is why we need new clause 112, which would require the Health Secretary to report on how they are meeting the duties under the covenant. Members will know that I am cautious about mandating any more paperwork, but veterans are being let down. We need some accountability. That report would hopefully achieve that, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.”
“Under the previous Conservative Government, the NHS constitution was updated with a commitment to guarantee that “those in the armed forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area they reside.” The previous Government also introduced the veterans’ strategy action plan, committing NHS England to providing millions of pounds for specialised support services. Ministers also introduced a single point for veterans to access mental health services and support. The previous Conservative Government also created an armed forces covenant duty. Today, we need to see the principles the covenant brought to life at all levels of Government.”
“I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Clerks, House staff and others, as well as members of the Committee. Leaving aside the heat, I have also enjoyed our exchanges. I hope that the Minister has a good recess and that she does well in the upcoming reshuffle.”
“One measure that can be helpful in tackling inequalities across the country is independent feedback. Currently, Healthwatch collects independent feedback right across the country. Does the Minister agree with this Government’s plans to abolish Healthwatch, or does she share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) that it will reduce the independent voice?”
“I am not sure that it is just Opposition Members who are saying this. In Staffordshire and right across the country, more doctors can help to reduce inequalities, and many Labour Members, from the Cabinet to Back Benchers, promised that this Government would double the number of medical school places. The former Secretary of State and the current Minister for Care repeated that promise at the Dispatch Box. We were then told in a ministerial correction that the Government had never committed to doubling the number of medical school places. How can this be accurate? Is it Government policy to double the number of medical school places, or is this a promise that they intend to break?”
“We are in a transition period, and they will be implemented in 2027 and 2029. It should be interoperable in technical terms “through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles”. What is the European Health Data Space? Essentially, it is a single patient record for Europe. Its instructions say member states may—I underline the word may—offer “an opt-out option for the cross-border exchange of electronic health data under EHDS.” I do not understand the Liberal Democrats’ argument for that, because they have made a strong argument throughout Committee stage that data needs to be shared carefully. They advanced some clauses that will ensure that data is held in the United Kingdom and that we use British tech where possible.”
“I was a bit confused by that part of the new clause, because we talked earlier this week about the Health Services Safety Investigations Body being able to sell time and training and share expertise, including with private sector organisations overseas. The Government changed that in the Bill, so that they would only be able to retain costs and not make any money for the Treasury. When we put amendment 56 to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained. I do not know what the difference is between using NHS data for research and the HSSIB using their expertise for training overseas organisations. I would be grateful to understand that. The charter must be “designed in such a way to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space”. The European Health Data Space regulations were introduced in March 2025.”
“Member for North Shropshire deal with safeguarding issues in the control of data, particularly in relation to children? The new clause sets out that the charter must “provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment”— which seems reasonable—and must “set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS”. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Lichfield and I discussed the important value of the NHS data—I think he said that it was the most valuable dataset in the world, and he might well be right.”
“Friend the for Isle of Wight East said, “include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data”. That is important, because we have heard in the media several examples of data being put up for sale or leaked, and the problems caused by that. The charter must also “ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs”. I am glad to see that bit about relevant opt-outs. We have talked about the importance of the record being shared not as a whole, but in pieces. Things such as obstetric or sexual health ought perhaps to be consented to separately. Patient control of the data is important. How would the hon.”
“Lady mean by a “diverse range of backgrounds”? Does that relate to protected characteristics, or is she looking for a farmer from Northumberland and a lawyer from Islington, because they have different backgrounds? It is not entirely clear what she means, so I would be grateful if she clarified that. Additionally, however big that group is, who would decide how it is composed and by what criteria? Who would be responsible? The sovereign health data trust would be charged with creating a health data charter. That leads me to my second question: what is a health data charter? In essence, a health data charter—as defined in the new clause—must “set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS”, and, as my hon.”
“As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East just said, new clause 6 seeks in essence to ensure that we have good data security and control, with which I agree. Trust is important, data security is important and supporting research with anonymised data is a good thing to do. What would the new clause do? First, it would establish an independent body known as a sovereign health data trust. In essence, that is a group of people who have been put together. The new clause does not say how big the group would be—I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire had its size in mind—but it describes a group of people with “a diverse range of backgrounds…and…health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.” Are the first group intended to be laypeople, rather than experts? What does the hon.”