Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I was rudely interrupted by the fire alarm—I am not taking it as a hint, much to the Minister’s disappointment—I was saying that this is a unique system and that with the unique benefits come unique risks. I was trying to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Ashford. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston have mentioned, we already know that despite the regulations, whether they are from professional regulators or the ICO, people will get round the system. One of the biggest concerns that patients will raise is not simply whether patient records will be accessed by nefarious people from outside, such as cyber-hackers, hostile states and so on, but whether they are secure from inappropriate access by people who have access to the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, those people could be situated anywhere across the country. Patient records should be accessed only where there is a clear clinical, professional need. The public rightly expect robust safeguards, strong audit trails and meaningful consequences where the rules are breached. Amendment 48 raises that important issue. The Minister should explain how inappropriate access will be prevented, how misuse will be detected and what sanctions will apply when the standards are not met. My hon. Friends have already mentioned a number of cases and I pick another one: the unfortunate case of the three-year-old boy who was hospitalised after being attacked by a crocodile at a zoo. Cambridge University Hospitals trust is currently investigating 40 members of staff who appear to have accessed that boy’s medical records inappropriately. While we would always hope that that would not happen, unfortunately it clearly does. This single patient record means that someone will potentially be able to look at patients’ records regarding anything and from anywhere in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham slightly generously described some people as “nosey”. Along with those who have an actual ulterior motive, that presents a real challenge. I say to the hon. Member for Ashford that just because the current system is in place to protect patient records as they currently exist, that should not be a bar to making sure that we make the system even more robust given its potential risks. It goes directly to proposed new section 250F(4B)(b) of the National Health Service Act 2006, which is the system of audit logging to be applied to each record, so that every time someone accesses a patient record or part of that patient record, the identity of the person obtaining that information should be recorded. I believe that the patient should be able to easily see, hopefully in real time, who has been accessing their record and at what time. We on this side have mentioned a number of big events: that poor boy with the crocodile, terrorist attacks in Southport and so on. I suspect that those data breaches have been identified because they were big events. People have gone out to check that nobody has been inappropriately accessing those records. I worry that every patient record will potentially be available to every single person, and I doubt that there will be an ability to check every single person proactively rather than reactively. That means patients need access themselves to look at their record and see who has been accessing it. If the name of the person who has accessed the record, or the organisation they belong to is available, patients can say, “Well, there is Mr Smith, my child’s paediatrician, and that is fine. However, who is this guy from elsewhere in the country who has looked at the record?” They can then raise that. That is absolutely vital.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Precisely. These questions need to be thought about when the Government are creating this system. As hon. Members have described in their speeches and in their amendments, the system could contain much wider information, including highly sensitive information about disability, safeguarding, care assessments, addiction, pregnancy, military service, caring responsibilities and many other personal matters. This is not simply about a hospital record; it is about bringing together health and social care information. That makes it even more important—indeed, essential—that safeguards be clear and robust. That leads me on to my fourth issue, which is confidentiality. The Bill says that where information is processed under the regulations, doing so will not breach any duty of confidence. I think that that is a significant legal challenge and change. Confidentiality has been one of the foundations of healthcare. Of course there are already situations in which information can and should be shared, but where Parliament is creating a new legal basis for disclosure, it is reasonable to expect strong safeguards alongside it. That brings me to my next concern. The Bill says that the Secretary of State must have regard to the need for “adequate safeguards”. That is welcome, of course, but the Bill does not say what those safeguards are. There is nothing in it about role-based access controls, audit logs or whether patients would be able to see who had looked at their records. There is nothing about minimum cyber-security standards, about how inappropriate access will be detected or about independent oversight. Those matters may appear later in regulations or in guidance, but they are not guaranteed in the Bill.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I admire the hon. Gentleman’s optimism. I am not belittling his point—I, too, hope that no one would be treated, both in the traditional sense and in the medical sense, based on their background or anything else, including their recreational hobbies. Unfortunately, we have seen cases in the NHS in which someone’s religious background has led to antisemitism and other unfortunate issues. Unfortunately, sometimes the system itself has a problem. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report relatively recently on black maternal health. We could see the difference and the fact that, unfortunately, black women experience a worse level of care, often because of assumptions made about their backgrounds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I hope everyone is treated dispassionately, but I am afraid it does not always happen. We need to make sure that we root out that kind of behaviour, but we also need to protect people from it. Amendment 72 is another that was tabled with the best of intentions. The improved identification of veterans is an interesting idea, because I do not think many veterans actively identify themselves when they access healthcare. A visible marker could help to ensure that healthcare professionals are aware of a patient’s service history without relying on self-disclosure. There may be direct benefits to a veteran, because they may be eligible for dedicated NHS services—including mental health, rehabilitation and other veterans’ healthcare pathways—through the armed forces covenant. A marker could, then, assist clinicians in directing patients to appropriate support more quickly.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister will know, behind every statistic and delayed case is a pensioner who is not receiving their pension after years of public service. I have constituents whose cases have been outstanding for months, including one from Farnham whose case took nine months to resolve. The end-of-June deadline is now effectively upon us. Does the Minister genuinely believe that Capita will make that deadline? If not, what sanctions or remedial action will she pursue to resolve the issue?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Russian Oil Sales · Hansard source

  More

  While diplomatic pressure on China, India and Turkey is essential, we must also do more militarily to disrupt the shadow fleet carrying Putin’s oil. I pay tribute to our armed forces who, this weekend, boarded a Russia-linked tanker in UK waters under new Government powers. Since those powers were announced in March, 184 sanctioned shadow fleet vessels have made 238 journeys through UK waters, including 94 journeys into territorial waters, without a single interdiction until now. What is the Department doing with the Ministry of Defence and international partners to ensure that this is a sustained approach, rather than a one-off?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday’s statement from the Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. This is not a narrow procedural issue; it goes to the judgment of the Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that he is not here today to answer questions—perhaps the usual excuse that he was not told holds clear. Let me begin with the exchange that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, which crystallises the problem. On 4 February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein. Yesterday, he attempted row back on that by saying that he had conflated vetting and due diligence, before then insisting that he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. If he understood the distinction, why did he give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the Dispatch Box? His defence—that due diligence forms part of the wider process—did not answer the question that he was asked at the time. If that is not misleading the House, it is difficult to see what is. That lack of clarity runs through the entire account. The Prime Minister confirmed that, in November 2024, he chose not to follow the clear and obvious advice of his then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. Now, the Prime Minister relies instead on a subsequent review by Chris Wormald, which states merely that the approach may be usual—not that it is right. The question remains: why was the advice rejected when it mattered? The Prime Minister’s account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence that the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns, yet he also says he had not seen the vetting report. If he had not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was asked specifically about security vetting? Why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all? The contents of the due diligence paper raise further questions. It highlighted connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia’s industrial and military structures with well-known links to Kremlin-aligned figures. That information was not hidden; it was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. Why did none of that trigger greater caution and, more importantly, greater action? Most seriously of all, Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today was consistent with the fact that Mandelson could act in his role and have access to sensitive material before the process had concluded. We also discovered that the Prime Minister’s team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position. We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, what decisions were taken, where responsibly responsibility lay, or how this situation was allowed to develop. However, I think we understand why: this is about judgment. Time and again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint people despite serious concerns about their records: a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions, and a Deputy Prime Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations. In this case, despite personal associations that should have raised the most serious red flags, connections to hostile states, and a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. With judgment like that, the Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country for a moment longer.

• 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.

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  The name of the Labour Member of Parliament whose husband has been arrested is circulating widely via the media. I do not intend to name that Member of Parliament, but if the reports are true, that Member of Parliament sits on a Select Committee that would have sensitive, maybe even secret, information and, through totally legitimate means, has visited a number of our defence sites across the country. Has there been, or will there be, an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to and, at the appropriate juncture, will the Minister release any correspondence between his Department and that Member of Parliament on things such as the Chinese embassy and other matters relating to China?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Jimmy Lai · Hansard source

  More

  Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Energy Infrastructure Technology: Chinese Imports · Hansard source

  More

  Given reports from Norway and Denmark that Chinese-manufactured electric buses contain remote kill switch technology, and that the recent UK-China engagement appears to have delivered an embassy for the Chinese and little more than a Labubu for the United Kingdom, how can the Minister be confident that Chinese-made energy infrastructure does not pose similar national security risks? What steps is she taking to remove our reliance on Chinese-made infrastructure?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At the heart of the Bill is a simple test: does the Bill improve care for patients? Every delay in training, every cancelled clinic and every rota gap caused by workforce instability ultimately lands on the patient. It means longer waits, greater travel distances and, in too many cases, care that comes too late. I was recently contacted by my Farnham and Bordon constituent, Dr R, as I will call her, who is a UK-trained medical graduate. Like thousands of others, she completed her studies in good faith, expecting a clear and credible pathway into the NHS. Instead, she now finds herself in a system where non-training posts are disappearing, competition ratios for training places are rising sharply and the holding pattern roles that once allowed junior doctors to remain clinically active while reapplying have all but vanished. This is not a niche concern affecting a handful of individuals; it is a systemic failure that directly impacts patients. When trained doctors are unable to progress, fewer reach consultant and GP level in the years ahead. Services become overstretched, continuity of care is lost and waiting lists grow even longer. That is why I support the intention behind the Bill. Prioritising UK medical graduates, ensuring that the UK foundation programme is genuinely delivered in the United Kingdom and restoring confidence in the medical training pipeline are all necessary steps if we are serious about rebuilding NHS capacity for the benefit of patients. I have supported amendments to this Bill because they strengthen those aims. They ensure that UK medical graduates are properly recognised as such, that training programmes are UK-based in substance rather than just name, and that allocation of training places is grounded firmly in merit, clinical knowledge, aptitude and performance. Patients, quite rightly, expect their doctors to be selected on ability and doctors expect fairness, and those principles should command support across this House. I also welcome new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which addresses growing concern among doctors and patients about the erosion of merit-based progression. When merit is undermined, morale suffers; when morale suffers, retention suffers, performance suffers, and ultimately patient safety suffers. As such, the context of this Bill matters. Resident doctors have received cumulative pay rises approaching 30% over recent years—among the highest in the public sector. Despite this, industrial action has continued. It is increasingly clear that the BMA is determined to extract every possible concession from the Government, using sustained disruption as leverage. While I do not align myself with some of the Secretary of State’s more inflammatory language, I do share the realisation he has belatedly reached: that repeated above-inflation pay settlements have not brought this dispute to an end, and that further concessions risk rewarding brinkmanship rather than restoring stability for patients. However, in pressing its case so aggressively, the BMA has inadvertently shone a spotlight on a genuine and serious problem in the system: a broken training and progression pathway that leaves UK doctors without secure routes into the NHS. That problem is real, it affects patients, and it must be addressed regardless of the outcome of pay negotiations. That is precisely why this Bill matters and why it must not be treated as a bargaining chip, yet that is exactly the risk created by the way in which the Bill is drafted. It will come into force only when the Secretary of State gives permission. In theory, that may appear sensible; in practice, it allows a patient-benefiting reform to be delayed, diluted, or deployed as leverage in negotiations. Before Christmas, Ministers openly discussed this legislation in the context of talks with the BMA. The implication was clear: progress on training reform was conditional. Now, months later, with industrial action ongoing, it appears that the same dynamic may be emerging again. That approach undermines confidence among doctors and, far more importantly, undermines care for patients. If a measure will improve the NHS for patients and doctors alike, it should be implemented because it is right, not because it is tactically useful. That leads me to a number of questions for the Minister to answer when she responds, which are all grounded in patient outcomes. Patients need capacity and certainty. They need more doctors progressing through training, not further delays and ambiguity. If the Government genuinely believe that prioritising UK graduates will strengthen the workforce, why is the commencement of this Bill discretionary at all? What assurance can the Minister give patients that these reforms will not be delayed indefinitely while negotiations continue? Patients have already endured significant disruption from industrial action—hundreds of thousands of appointments and operations have been cancelled or rescheduled. Without further pay concessions, can the Minister explain how this Bill will reduce the risk of future disruption, or is she effectively accepting that patients may face continued instability? There is also the question of scale. The BMA itself has said that the Bill does not go far enough to close the gap between applicants and available training posts. What assessment has been made of how many UK graduates will still be unable to access foundation or specialty training even after this legislation is passed, and what will that mean for patient access to care in the coming years? Patients in many parts of the country already struggle to access GPs, psychiatrists and emergency medicine specialists. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister ensure that these reforms do not inadvertently worsen shortages in hard-to-recruit specialties or underserved areas? Finally, there is the question of credibility. If this Bill is genuinely good for patients, good for workforce stability and good for the NHS, why should its implementation depend on a ministerial decision at some undefined point in time? Why not give doctors and patients certainty by bringing it into force immediately on Royal Assent? This House has a responsibility to put patients first, not leave patient care hostage to industrial negotiations. That is why I strongly support amendment 1, which would ensure that the Bill comes into force at the moment of Royal Assent. It removes unnecessary delays, ambiguity, and the risk that these reforms will be postponed indefinitely while workforce and pay disputes continue. UK medical graduates, hospitals and training bodies need certainty that the rules will apply from day one, so that allocations, protections for those trained on military postings, and fairness measures can begin to operate without delay. The amendment would ensure that reforms designed to strengthen transparency, meritocracy and the workforce will take effect when they are needed most. That clarity is particularly important given the absence of a published NHS workforce plan. We need certainty for doctors that delivers stability for services, which in turn delivers better patient care and better outcomes. That is the standard by which this Bill should be judged, and it is the standard it must meet.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary quoted Sir Robert Peel at the top of her speech, saying that he was “speaking at this very Dispatch Box”. She clearly has not realised that those Dispatch Boxes were donated by New Zealand after the second world war. Even if she was talking more figuratively, this whole Chamber was destroyed in 1834 after Peel said those words. The accuracy that she sacrificed for rhetoric continued throughout her speech. Following discussions that I have had with the chief constables of Surrey and Hampshire, who are against these proposals, may I ask a question? If chief constables across the country, such as those in Surrey and Hampshire, are against her proposals when her review concludes, will she scrap the proposals—or is this a review in name only?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Last week, the Government briefing suggested that the security services were “relaxed” about the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, yet this week, we have learned that MI5 has been asked to reroute sensitive financial cables because of it. Will the Minister for Security explain how both those statements can be true, and tell the House which one reflects the Government’s assessment of the security risk and threat from that embassy?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  When Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  19. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  13. Whether the Prime Minister has had discussions with the Chinese Government on the proposed Chinese embassy.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) raised with the Foreign Secretary concerns expressed by the United States, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments regarding the reported presence of data cables running beneath Royal Mint Court. I note that the Cabinet Office has since denied the reports to the press. Will the Minister now provide the clarity that his colleague at the Foreign Office could not, and give a clear yes or no answer to this House as to whether any such cables run beneath or in the vicinity of the site?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  There have been a lot of comments about when people were born and what they remember. I hope the hon. Member does not take offence, but I am sure he was born before covid and the war in Ukraine and so he knows why we had to increase the national debt as a result. He is being entirely disingenuous if he believes those things did not have an impact on the economy. If he had been in power, what would he have done? Would he have not supported those small businesses, employers and hard-working people?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with comments on the warm and welcome news of the ceasefire, and I hope it leads to a lasting peace. What assurances has the Prime Minister received from neighbouring partners, particularly Egypt, and what specific actions will he take, first to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach Gaza and, secondly, that it is only humanitarian that reaches Gaza, and that weapons, personnel and matériel that could aid terrorists do not enter Gaza?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Hospitality has been battered by a perfect storm of punishing taxation, regulation and soaring operational costs, which has left pubs and restaurants fighting for survival. In recent months, I have visited 36 of the 55 pubs in my constituency and hosted a hospitality roundtable. I will shortly be sitting down again with the family chain, the Healy Group. Everywhere I go, the story is the same: rising costs, thinning margins and landlords asking, “How much longer can we keep the lights on?” In this darkness, I can bring a little ray of delight and hope to my constituents. During the summer recess, I continued my constituency pub tour, part of my best pub campaign. I am delighted to announce to the House that the Crown at Arford has won that accolade in the Farnham and Bordon constituency. You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Fleetwood Mac’s “Down at the Crown” was inspired by this pub, so if the Chancellor ever finds herself lost in East Hampshire, she might fancy a visit—though judging from Labour’s economic stewardship, she would probably relate more to one called “Closing Down at the Crown”. I joke, but there is nothing amusing about the reality. Since May, four pubs in my constituency have been driven out by Labour’s relentless war on small businesses, including the Wheatsheaf Inn at Grayswood, which has closed indefinitely. The sector is collapsing, despite what Government Members say. Six pubs are closing every single week. That is because, from April this year, relief collapsed to 40%, halving their protection while doubling their pain. The Budget hiked national insurance, increased the minimum wage and added £3 billion to their bills. The Chancellor’s 1p off a draught pint gesture was not just laughable but insulting. Jay at the Six Bells told me bluntly that on a £5.50 pint, pubs make about 8p. That is the future that Labour is offering. The Bluebell in Dockenfield, a family business run by Lucy and Robin Catchpole, is fighting tooth and nail to thrive. Pubs are the heart of our towns and villages, and Labour is ripping out that heart.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not here to oppose or support any of them. I gently remind him—I use the word “gently” because I know that the Minister loves the word “gently”, so I have used it twice now—that there was a pandemic that had to be dealt with, and that had to be funded. There was a war in Ukraine, and dealing with that had to be funded. As we have gone back in history a bit, let me add that we also had to deal with the deficit that the last Labour Government left us. That is the reality of the situation.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, with which I agree. Like him, I have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Royal Marines. Over the past year, he and I have seen drones deployed—I will not say where. More importantly, there is innovation in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, but it is compartmentalised and bitty, and it is not at the scale that he is talking about. Is it not time for the Government to use the innovation in the armed forces to expand out into the private sector?