Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think those two points are contradictory. One is an issue of the legislation, which is what I am talking about and what the Government are potentially looking to change, and another is how the system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. I have been very clear in my speech that although I absolutely believe—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—that the legal requirements should remain, I am in no way sugar-coating the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements. The third test is whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Demand is rising rapidly: over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the Government’s proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving the fundamental constraints: namely, workforce funding, certainty and system capacity. The White Paper promises more educational psychologists, therapists and specialists, but training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years. So the question is simple: how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? At the same time, the Department’s own figures show that there are now 400 fewer teachers than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less. Local authorities are at the sharp end of the system and are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. Colleagues will know that in Surrey around £100 million has been invested locally to expand SEND provision alongside further investment in staffing, yet demand continues to outstrip capacity. In Hampshire, SEND overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. This is not unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire; across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs without that long-term funding certainty. The result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure. Taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities; it is a failure of the system to meet demand. And into that system the Government propose a decade-long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHCP applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms take effect, and that is certainly not going to ease pressure—it is, in fact, going to intensify it. Through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I consistently see that SEND cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine co-ordination between education and health. Yet SEND was almost entirely absent from the NHS 10-year plan, and when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but is grouped into very broad categories, which is not joined-up government but fragmentation. That needs to change. I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs. They act as a pressure valve. I am aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit, but the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I am fortunate to have excellent specialist provision in my constituency, including at schools such as Hollywater, Undershaw, More House, Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway school, which support children with complex needs every day and should be supported. In conclusion, families do not need another wholesale structural overhaul or a decade of transition. Instead, they need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHCPs with individual support plans, including the transition and implementation? Secondly, will she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legally enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Thirdly, when will additional SEND staff be trained and in post? Fourthly, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? Finally, will the Government publish detailed data on specific conditions and system performance so that outcomes can be properly measured? I say to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that this is not about defending a White Paper; it is about defending the families we represent. Families are not asking for perfection; they are simply asking for a system that works. The question for the Government is simple: will they strengthen what exists or will they replace it with something weaker, slower and less certain? On the current trajectory, that is the risk, and it is one that I believe this House should not accept.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression. The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended. Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly: “CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.” That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility. The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote: “We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.” That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned. There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that the speeches we have heard today have been wide-ranging and passionate. I thank all those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately did not manage to speak and the many Members who supported this debate. I am leading it, but plenty of Members across the House supported it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The one thing that united every speaker in this debate was a clear desire to improve a system that is not working for young people in our constituencies. We may disagree about the exact process to get there, but I say to the Minister that nobody in this House is expressing anything other than what they have heard from their own constituents. In some cases, that may be support for the Government’s proposals, but we have to be honest that many of our constituents are expressing concerns. The Minister should not squander this Government’s opportunity. I know there are antibodies from Government Members whenever I open my mouth about anything, but I am passionate about this issue, and I think that we—together, on both sides of the House—can improve what the Government are doing and ensure that the legal protections remain, while improving the system. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in writing a number of the questions asked by Members across the House that she was unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. I also hope that she will assess the responses to the White Paper with an open mind, with the aim of ensuring that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we are to solve—if that is the right word—the issue of special educational needs, and, more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with such needs, we need to understand the reasons for those needs. Instead, there is a feeling that families who are already exhausted by the system are becoming disengaged from the very process that the Government’s proposals are supposed to improve. Across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, SEND is the most prominent issue in my casework. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex and too often unresponsive. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I see those challenges not just locally but reflected across the country.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In a minute. Across the country, over nine in 10 tribunal appeals are upheld against the local authority. And while, to be frank, that covers no local authority in any glory, it is evidence that the legal framework works when families are able to challenge decisions. If we remove that safeguard, families will lose their ultimate protection.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying, and I think the idea that anyone on this side is wholly endorsing the current system is a false one. My fear, however—which I think my hon. Friend is expressing—is that, under the current proposals in the White Paper, if he unfortunately has to proceed through the tribunal system, the tribunal will be no longer be able to allocate a specific provision for parents and child, which essentially renders the whole thing null and void. Does he agree that we should be asking the Government not to rip up their proposals, but to listen to the concerns that parents are expressing about their changes and tweak them, so that they can be responsive to the problems that he is raising?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I do not attribute any unfair or untoward motive to the Government; I think they are trying to improve the system. However, as I said in my opening remarks, my view is that if we improve it properly and get it right, that will save money. The danger with the way the Government have approached this is that they are looking to save money and then thinking about how they can solve the system. That is the danger. Let me move on to the three tests that I mentioned at the start. The first test is whether the Government’s proposals strengthen legal protections. I accept that education, health and care plans, introduced in 2014, are not perfect, but they provide something essential: clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability. The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the Government have not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. That creates a clear risk: replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics: funding, school places and workforce numbers. Those are important, but at the heart of this issue are children, families and carers who rely on the system. I thank the hundreds of families, from my constituency and across the country, who have contacted me since the debate was scheduled. I applied for the debate before the White Paper came out, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I focus pretty much all my comments on the White Paper. I am sure that other Members will speak about the issue more widely. In my opinion, any credible reform of SEND, including the Government’s White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections, improve delivery on the ground and address the underlying pressures in the system. If it does all three, it can and will save money in the long run, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals fall short on all three. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I will address the process by which they have been brought forward. The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that the proposals risk eroding rights, while others have asked whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to consultation at all. At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial—that workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views. That matters because reform of this scale depends on trust.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  If I were being generous, I would say merely that the hon. Member has not listened to my speech or read the motion in front of us. I have not mentioned anywhere that we will be cutting back on renewable energy. If Labour’s position is misguided, the Liberal Democrats’ position is outright reckless. They would pile further taxes on the North sea through an expanded energy profits levy, despite clear evidence that such measures deter investment and ultimately reduce tax revenues. Some analyses suggest that scrapping the EPL could deliver an additional £25 billion to the Treasury over the next decade. At the same time, the Liberal Democrats would smother the sector in layers of environmental, social and governance reporting and regulation, slowing down investment, increasing costs and driving production overseas. And for what? They would do so to meet accelerated net zero targets that are divorced from the reality of how Britain actually uses its energy. Here is the fundamental point: electricity accounts for only around a fifth of our total energy use. The rest still comes from oil and gas for heating, transport and industry. We are not about to replace that overnight; nor are there credible plans to do so from this Government. The choice is not between oil and gas or renewables. We need both. The real choice is whether we produce that energy here under our own environmental standards, supporting British jobs and British revenues, or whether we import it from abroad at a higher cost and with higher carbon. The British public understand this. Around three quarters say that we should produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports, and they are right. Our plan recognises that. It backs domestic production, cuts unnecessary net zero taxes and delivers cheaper energy while maintaining our environmental commitments. I say to Ministers: stop outsourcing our energy; stop exporting our jobs; and stop pretending that dependence is a virtue.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the figure is £25 billion, which is a significant injection into the Treasury however we look at it. The simple truth is this: if we increase domestic supply, we can ease pressure on prices, reduce reliance on expensive imported LNG and cut costs. That is not ideology—it is basic economics. The idea that new licences would take too long does not survive scrutiny either. Much of the North sea’s infrastructure already exists. Pipelines and platforms have spare capacity. New fields can be tied into existing systems, accelerating production and reducing cost. What Labour presents as inevitability is in fact a political choice. In the non-statement the Chancellor made earlier today, she talked about cutting red tape. Perhaps she should think about cutting Red Ed first of all, because this choice has consequences. The ban on new licences risks leaving 2.9 billion barrels of oil and gas in the ground and puts at risk 200,000 jobs. Those are not abstract numbers. They are skilled, well-paid jobs that have powered communities for generations. This is not transition; it is industrial retreat.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman); it is like a greatest hits of the 1970s. At a time when the war in Ukraine continues and instability spreads across the middle east, energy is not simply an economic question but a matter of national security. Yet under this Labour Government, Britain is making itself more dependent, not less. The irony is that even Labour Back Benchers know this—they are in the papers every day telling us that offshoring emissions while importing energy from abroad does nothing for climate change and weakens our resilience. The reality is stark: Britain is not reducing demand for oil and gas; we are simply choosing to import it. In 2024 alone, we imported more than $11 billion-worth of crude from Norway. At the same time, liquefied natural gas shipped from abroad can carry up to four times the emissions of gas produced here at home. This is not environmental leadership, but carbon outsourcing with a higher bill attached—a bill that is being paid by British businesses and families, who are facing some of the highest energy costs in Europe. Labour’s central argument this afternoon simply does not stand up. Labour Members claim that producing more gas in the North sea will not reduce prices because there is a so-called world price, but that misses the fundamental point that our own home-grown gas and oil produces hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we do not use it, we will miss out on billions in tax revenues that could be used to reduce energy prices for the consumer.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Given the ongoing national security concerns, including the risk of foreign interference in elections, will the Home Secretary set out what her Department is doing to ensure that individuals convicted of terrorism offences are prevented from standing for elected office in the UK?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. My constituents have a clear expectation that we proceed with caution when it comes to children’s healthcare, but there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this trial: the Government have already restricted these drugs due to what they described as an “unacceptable safety risk”, but those same drugs are now being made available through a clinical trial. We must also look squarely at the evidence. There is no robust proof that puberty blockers deliver the benefits often claimed. In fact, the evidence suggests that, for many children, gender-related distress resolves naturally through puberty. The risks, however, are very real—to bone density, brain development and fertility. There are also serious ethical concerns. We are talking about administering powerful drugs to young children with no reliable way to predict who will benefit. This is not a targeted intervention; it is a gamble with children’s futures. The design of the trial only adds to those concerns. It compares immediate treatment with delayed treatment, rather than examining long-term outcomes, and relies heavily on subjective measures rather than clinical evidence. It risks answering the wrong questions while exposing children to the well-rehearsed risks. Even more concerning is the sequencing—clearly, we should understand past outcomes first, and yet the trial presses ahead before we do. The process itself also gives us pause. The trial received ethical approval and £10.7 million of public funding, and yet within months it has been paused following intervention by the regulator over concerns about safety and design. If a trial collapses under scrutiny before it begins, that tells us it is not ready and raises a serious question about why it was pushed forward in the first place. I urge the Minister to explain why, given the known risks, the trial should proceed at all. When the evidence is weak, the risks are real and the patients are children, pressing ahead is not leadership, but recklessness.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Online Harms · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am very convinced of the need for a social media ban. That is why I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s stance on that. On his point about communities, schools and parents, if we do not go for a full ban, there are some technologies that could be used. I think of Jason in my constituency, who runs a company called Orbiri. He is looking to set up communities, where a school—maybe a class or a whole school—can set the parameters for usage time and the sites and apps that are used, so parents do not feel that they are alone but are part of a wider community, all working together to limit and control the social media usage of their children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something like that would help?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Online Harms · Hansard source

  More

  I support a number of the things that the hon. Lady is saying about the dangers of online harms, especially for children, but I am unclear about her position on a social media ban for those under 16. Although I accept her overall point, which is that social media companies have a responsibility, we could send them a really clear signal, and protect children, by bringing in an immediate ban on under-16s using social media. Does she support that or not?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to “be as open as possible with Parliament” and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  It is taxpayers’ money.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  I think I made the point very clearly to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), but I will repeat it now. My concern is not about museums representing accurately what happened in the past—that is obvious. What I am against is museums using taxpayers’ money to push a current political cause. Extinction Rebellion is not a historical organisation. It is active now, and museums should not be pushing its agenda.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. What an inspiring tour we have had of museums up and down the nation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing the debate and inspiring speeches about so many opportunities. She mentioned everything from Zeppelins to Gurkhas. I do not think anyone was expecting an argument over who owned Dracula—certainly something for us to get our teeth into. [ Interruption. ] I apologise. More importantly, I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to promote and champion the museums in my constituency. The Museum of Farnham, Haslemere Educational Museum and the Rural Life Living Museum in Tilford are not only recognised throughout Surrey and Hampshire but attract visitors from far and wide. People are drawn by the rich local history that they preserve and the way that they celebrate and bring to life the heritage of our local market towns. Museums are deeply valued by the public. Some 89% of UK adults believe that museums are important to our national culture—I do not really understand what the other 11% are thinking, but never mind—and three quarters agree that having a local museum adds real value to their area. Indeed, 54% of people say that they would feel “disappointed” if their local museum were to close and 41% say that they would feel “genuinely sad” at such a loss. Over the past 25 years, under Governments of all colours, about 138 independent non-profit museums and 152 private museums closed, while 418 independent non-profit museums and a further 209 museums opened. That tells us two things: the sector faces real pressures, but it also shows remarkable resilience, and there is such enthusiasm for local museums and heritage. Each museum is different. Some are run by charities, others by local authorities, universities, the armed forces or Government-sponsored bodies. The sector supports about 33,000 jobs and has more than 93,000 volunteers. Yet, increasingly, museums are forced to diversify their activities and income simply to stay afloat as costs continue to rise. The challenges facing museums are clear at the Rural Life Living Museum in my constituency. It began as a private collection in 1968 and has grown into a significant open-air museum in Tilford, with about 40,000 objects and 20 historical buildings that bring 19th and 20th-century rural Britain vividly to life. My family and I thoroughly enjoy visiting the museum, in particular with its open-air, hands-on approach and the volunteers who quite literally inhabit that history. They immerse visitors through working demonstrations at the forge, in the woodyard and along the narrow-gauge railway. The museum operates entirely on ticket sales and donations, but with costs rising faster than income, its future is far from certain. Sadly, that story is being repeated in museums across the country, as we have heard from several hon. Members today. We see similar pressures in Farnham, where the Museum of Farnham sits at the heart of a vibrant and creative community and celebrates the town’s long artistic and craft heritage, recognised in 2020 when Farnham was designated a world craft city. The Haslemere Educational Museum benefits from the expertise of individuals such as Richard Sabin, a trustee of the museum but also the principal curator of mammals at the Natural History Museum in London. The museum in Haslemere specialises in human history, natural history and geology, and provides invaluable educational opportunities for local schools through key stages 1 to 4. Some of my fondest childhood memories involve being taken to the Haslemere museum by my parents to see Arthur the Siberian bear and the 2,500-year-old mummy, with its toes visible through the bandages—I encourage the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) to bring her children to see another mummy. For a small boy, that was extraordinary. The museum was founded in 1888, but this year marks 100 years on the High Street site. It launches a centenary appeal this evening—I appeal to the Minister, because I am sure any donation that the Government were to give would be welcome. More nationally, local museums play a vital role in our communities and in education. Under the Conservative Government, following publication of the culture White Paper, the Mendoza review was launched. In the public consultation that followed, 85% of the more than 1,200 respondents agreed that museums and galleries are primary places for education. The review led directly to the establishment of the museums estate and development fund, which distributed about £100 million in grants to support essential repair and renovation work. The levelling-up fund, shared prosperity fund and towns fund also provided much needed investment in museums and, during the extraordinary challenge of covid-19, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund safeguarded the UK’s heritage, with £296 million specifically supporting museums, heritage sites and historical places. I am proud of that record—the practical support, serious investment and clear commitment to protecting our cultural heritage that the previous Government showed. Unfortunately, by contrast, Labour’s first tranche of funding, announced in summer 2024, disproportionately benefited national museums. Those institutions are already protected by grant in aid and are largely insulated from the financial pressures facing local authorities. Meanwhile, the smaller museums that form the backbone of local cultural life are left to struggle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) stated, many of our local museums are charity-run or heavily reliant on local funding. They often occupy historical buildings that are expensive to maintain, difficult to modernise and in urgent need of repair. In Farnham, for example, the repair bill for a relatively modest museum building has already reached £2 million. When council budgets are squeezed, culture is often the first thing to be cut. At the same time, many charity-run museums face falling donations, fewer volunteers and rising operating costs, including higher employment costs and increased national insurance contributions introduced by this Government. In short, the pressures are growing, but the support is not. The result is that smaller museums are left exposed. Too many lack the staff, time or specialist expertise needed to navigate complex funding systems, co-ordinate bids or build partnerships with larger national institutions. When public money is spent, it must be spent wisely. Last year in Wales, the National Museum Cardiff reportedly faced a £4.5 million deficit, yet at the same time taxpayers’ money was spent on exhibitions such as “The Dynamic”, which explored radical newspaper culture, alongside displays of Extinction Rebellion posters. It is entirely reasonable to ask whether institutions facing serious financial pressures should prioritise political activism over the core mission of preserving and presenting the nation’s history and heritage. Museums should bring communities together around shared culture and shared history. That must remain the central purpose, especially when budgets are tight and buildings are in need of repair.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is rare that we agree on anything, so she will be slightly disappointed now. There is a distinct difference between looking back at movements and discourse that happened in the past and what that museum was doing: promoting a political cause of the moment. I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, have the Government considered ringfencing local authority funding for cultural purposes in order to safeguard local museums? Secondly, what practical support is available to smaller museums to help them to navigate funding applications, manage financial risk and collaborate more effectively with national institutions? Finally, how do the Government intend to encourage private and corporate philanthropy beyond the major cities—for example, through place-based giving incentives, as suggested in the Hodge review? Our museums are not just custodians of the past, but living educational and cultural resources at the heart of our communities. They deserve practical support to ensure they can continue to thrive, educate and inspire future generations.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Release of Information · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm whether the head of the Government’s propriety and ethics team was appointed without an external recruitment process or written ministerial sign-off, in an apparent breach of its own rules? If so, is this further proof of a lack of transparency and accountability, and of a failure to uphold the propriety and ethics at the heart of this Government?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Release of Information · Hansard source

  More

  19. What recent progress he has made on implementing the humble Address of 4 February 2026.