Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank all those who have spoken so far in this debate. I have never seen the hon. Member for Lichfield so animated—Data Dave is clearly alive and well. As we have discussed, the clause creates the legal power for a single patient record in the UK. It is important to say, as others have, that the Bill does not create the system but gives the Secretary of State the power to create it later through regulation. That does not mean, however, that we should not have a debate about some of the issues that we have raised. I should state at the start that I support better information sharing when that helps patients receive safer and better care, and I think that the single patient record could well do that. Anyone who has worked in healthcare, as I have, knows the frustration that results from the records not following patients between services. Clinicians can lose valuable time in searching for information, if they can get it at all. As others have said, patients are often asked to repeat the same details over and again—not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East rightly said, because it gives a richer experience but simply because people do not have the information. Better joined up records have the potential to improve care. We have, however, been here before. I was a lot younger—we all were—but back in 2002, the national programme for IT, under the last Labour Government, was a £10 billion unmitigated disaster, which the Public Accounts Committee described as “one of the worst and most expensive contracting fiascos in the history of the public sector.” I want to make sure that there are safeguards, from both a contracting and a data safety point of view, so that we do not go down that route again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East clearly outlined, creating such a record is fiendishly complicated from both a technology and patient information point of view and from a data sharing and data protection point of view. The record could contain some of the most sensitive information about people, so Parliament has the responsibility to make sure that the legal framework is right. We also know that the record will work only if the data in the single patient record is worth the electronic paper that it is electronically printed on. As I am sure the Minister knows from her time in the NHS, the information is getting better but continues to be patchy across the country. Different trusts and organisations record things in different ways. I take my hat off to those who work in clinical coding, as they do one of the most difficult jobs in a trust. Again, we need to make sure that the data is accurate. Someone mentioned AI earlier; I think AI could help with that, but we are still some way off. I want to canter through my concerns about the breadth of the powers being given under the clause. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing the system and to decide how it operates. Those regulations may require or authorise the sharing and processing of patient information, decide who can access the information and create enforcement powers and financial penalties. Some of those important questions are not answered in the Bill. Parliament is being asked to approve a broad framework before seeing some of the detail. My second concern is that the Bill says little about patient choice. There is no clear statement about whether patients will have the right to opt in or out and no explanation of whether patients can restrict access to all or part of their records. There is no mention of whether someone could choose to limit access to particularly sensitive information, such as mental health records, sexual health information or information about substance dependence. There are major questions for public trust but those are left, I would say, entirely to future regulations. We need clarity about them now. My third concern is the scope of the information that may be included. The definition of “patient information” is extraordinarily broad. It covers information about physical health, mental health, diagnosis, treatment and care, including social care. The definition of “patient” includes people receiving social care or having their care needs assessed. What we do not know from the Bill is exactly how that data will be presented. Will it use language that a patient can understand? Will it talk about having a heart attack, or will it use medical information that a medical professional will need to assess? Or will it include both, so that the patient knows that they have had a heart attack, for example, but the medic can see the precise detail on what sort of transient ischaemic attack it was. We need to understand what the data is recording and at what level of detail.

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

  More

  I will start by addressing Liberal Democrat amendments 9 and 10; once again, I see the impetus and reason behind tabling them. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, new clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, has a similar but subtly different—in my view, usefully different—impetus and emphasis. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we published a report into community mental health in December last year, which laid bare the shocking state of mental health services in this country, especially community mental health services. Mental health accounts for over 20% of the demand for health services in this country, but in the period 2025-26, it is forecast to receive only 8.7% of NHS expenditure. The spend in that period is expected to be higher than in the previous year, 2024-25, but it will actually be a smaller proportion of total NHS spending, decreasing from 8.78% to 8.71%. That reduction also means that 2025-26 will be the first year since 2016-17 in which mental health spending will not rise as a proportion of total health spending, which is in contravention of the mental health investment standard that has been introduced. In fact, on 17 November last year, NHS England confirmed that the proportional increases will not take place over the next two years to 2028-29, and that there will instead be “flat real funding growth”. Overall, although I accept that the Government have increased spending on mental health, the fact that it is going down as a proportion of the total bill is one of the many reasons why we on the Health and Social Care Committee were very concerned about the future of mental health funding. It is also why we supported our Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, in tabling new clause 27. The differences between new clause 27 and amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, relate to the financial penalty. If we want people to spend more on mental health, it would seem perverse to punish them by taking money away from them, because there might be reasons why they could not meet this requirement. I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve, because as he said, Claire Murdoch, the national director for mental health, resigned in September over the fact that she did not feel that the Government were spending the right amount on mental health. New clause 27 would put the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health, and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure. It also differs from amendments 9 and 10, in that rather than increasing the amounts as a total of expenditure—an approach for which I have sympathy—it has the more realistic requirement that it must only go up every year. Over some years, I would like the amount to increase as a total proportion from the current figure of 8% or 9% to 20%, which is the real cost or burden of mental health care in this country. I think new clause 27 is a much more fair and appropriate way of achieving that. I accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about a potential loss of local flexibility, but I think the new clause is written in a way that gives ICBs at least some flexibility to decide how they spend that money. Also, unlike amendments 9 and 10, there is not a financial penalty if for some reason they do not manage to do so it. In principle, I see merit in new clause 33. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I represent a semi-rural seat, so I know that understanding delays in accessing mental health treatment is essential if we are to have services that meet patient needs and ensure greater transparency on waiting times. All this can help identify inequalities and inform better policymaking. The requirement to examine the disparities between rural and urban areas is particularly welcome given the challenges that rural communities can face in accessing specialist mental health services. However, it should be noted that the new clause would primarily deliver a reporting mechanism rather than a solution to the problem. Although annual reviews might improve our understanding of treatment delays, they do not in themselves guarantee improvements in access, workforce capacity or service provision. There is also a question as to whether the health service already collects much of this information in other ways, and whether a new statutory review would add significant value beyond the existing reporting arrangements. Better evidence about the scale and geographic distribution of mental health treatment delays could support more targeted interventions and help to ensure that patients are not disadvantaged simply because of where they live. The challenge will be ensuring that the findings of any review actually lead to meaningful action, rather than just becoming another reporting exercise or inquiry.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have covered a lot of the points I wanted to make, so I will keep this relatively brief. Like them, I entirely sympathise with what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to achieve with the two amendments. I think we would all want to see more investment in primary care. As my right hon. Friend—a former Health Minister—knows all too well, we need to see growth in primary care. The fact that there is not a single dentist’s practice in my constituency taking new NHS patients is a real concern, as are the waiting times for GPs in my constituency. However, I do have some concerns. The first is that the standard, as the hon. Member for Winchester puts it, would be mandatorily enforced with a potential financial penalty. That takes away from what I think the Government are trying to achieve, which is local flexibility. As far as I can tell from the amendment, it makes no distinction between revenue spending and capital spending. I am still hopeful that my ICB is going to build a brand-new GP surgery and health hub in my constituency—it has been promising that for eight years and it is not here yet, so this may be hope over experience—and that would be a significant capital investment. Would the ICB be able to include that as spending on primary care services and get around the potential financial penalty? I also worry about pitting one part of health spending against another. The hon. Member for Winchester said that the proposed standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard, but I believe that the Government—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—have relatively recently changed the mental health standard to be in line with inflation rather than overall total spending. Therefore, if the amendment were to pass, primary care budgets would increase in line with total overall spending, whereas mental health budgets would increase in line with inflation. If those two things were out of sync, there would be a problem. I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve. We all want to see more spent on primary care. The Government’s stated intention is to bring healthcare closer to home, and that can only be delivered, in my view, through primary care services. But there are some unintended consequences of the two amendments, which at least need more exploration before I could vote for them.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have talked about this issue while debating numerous clauses of the Bill. If someone were being ungenerous, they might say that there is an urban bias to this Bill. I think that it is less that than the fact that the Government have decided to use, as my hon. Friend rightly says, these mayoral structures to base health services on, when in fact, in so many areas, they either do not exist yet or, as far as we can tell, will never exist. Maybe Manchesterism will change that; we do not know. The Minister is smiling, so maybe she knows. Regarding new clause 34 and the promotion of positive mental health, the prevention of mental illness and the reduction of stigma are obviously vital and important goals. I welcome the intention of the new clause to ensure that mental wellbeing is taken seriously across the health service. However, I have a few concerns about placing such a broad duty on a statutory footing, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked: is that not the job of the Secretary of State anyway? As far as I can tell, new clause 34 essentially duplicates many of the responsibilities that already exist. The Secretary of State and NHS England—as currently exists—along with integrated care boards and other public bodies, are already subject to duties relating to improving health, reducing inequalities, promoting public health and improving the quality of services. Many of the objectives listed in the new clause are already capable of being pursued under those existing powers and obligations. The question therefore arises as to what additional legal effect the new duty would have. Secondly, the concept of “mental health wellbeing”, while perhaps being a term we kind of understand, is inherently broad and rather difficult to define when we are talking about writing it into law. Unlike things such as waiting times, staffing levels, or access standards, “wellbeing” is not really a measurable outcome. I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who said in evidence that he wanted to see fewer targets, because they often have unintended consequences and skew the system towards the targets rather than what is actually required. Mental health wellbeing could encompass life satisfaction, emotional resilience, social connections, employment, housing security and many other factors. As a result, I do not think it is clear what compliance with the duty in this new clause would look like in practice, how the success would be measured or how public bodies could demonstrate that they had fulfilled the obligations. Finally, although the requirement for an annual report may improve visibility, as with the provision in new clause 33, there is a risk that new clause 34 could create an additional reporting obligation without necessarily improving services or outcomes. Before Parliament imposes a new statutory duty, it should be satisfied that there is a clear objective, a measurable standard against which performance can be assessed and a distinct purpose that is not already served by existing legislation or rules. I am afraid that, unless the hon. Member for Winchester comes back with a devastating argument in his wind up, I am not yet convinced that new clause 34 amendment meets that test.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Very briefly, on clauses 27 and 28, I am sure the Committee is aware that special health authorities were initially established under the National Health Service Act 1977. Since then the number of special health authorities has expanded and contracted a number of times over the years to leave us with, currently, NHS Blood and Transplant, and the Business Services Authority, which covers pensions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned—I should declare that I have an NHS pension, albeit a very small one—as well as the NHS Litigation Authority, also known as NHS Resolution, and the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. The mood music and the direction of travel, certainly since 2006, has been to reduce the number of special health authorities. On my reading, clauses 27 and 28 suggest that the Government are potentially looking to expand the number of special health authorities, given the Secretary of State’s direction under clause 27 and the practical steps for staff transfers in clause 28. Is the Minister looking at, for example, a special health authority to deal with artificial intelligence? Clearly that is something the NHS will have to embrace—or deal with, depending on which end of the AI argument one is on—rapidly over the coming years. Is that a potential area for a special health authority? Perhaps the Minister could outline where she sees the special health authorities acting and what their remits might be.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support amendment 47, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and to ask a few questions about clause 11. I completely understand the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is probably the most politically impotent of all Secretaries of State: as my hon. Friend said, they pull levers and not much seems to happen, because they do not have the control over the health service that the public think they do—or indeed, that Members of Parliament think they do, judging by the number of us who stand up and demand that the Secretary of State do things in our local areas. I understand the Government and the Secretary of State’s desire to change some of that, but there is concern about the potential politicisation of NHS leadership. Integrated care boards were established in various forms under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 precisely to remove politicisation to ensure that decisions in our healthcare service were made for the benefit of patients on the basis of clinical evidence and the needs of the local population, not on the whim of any Secretary of State or Minister. More importantly, ICBs were brought in to make sure that local health systems, local authorities, clinicians and communities made decisions based on local need. Those politically independent ICB chief executives were expected to exercise professional judgment, make difficult decisions about priorities and resources and sometimes deliver messages that Ministers, and indeed local Members of Parliament, found uncomfortable. If those leaders know that their continued employment ultimately depends on the confidence of the Secretary of State, there is a real risk that the independence of their judgment will be weakened and that patient safety will diminish. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tackles a core question: should an ICB chief executive focus solely on what is best for patients and the local health economy, or should they have to consider whether their decisions may attract ministerial displeasure? Even if the power is rarely used, and even if, as my hon. Friend said, there are currently some guardrails in the clause, its existence will change behaviour—it must do. Leaders will become more cautious, perhaps more risk-averse and potentially less willing to challenge national policy when local evidence points in a different direction. ICBs have benefited from the ability to speak truth to power. A system in which senior NHS leaders fear dismissal by Ministers risks discouraging precisely that kind of honesty. Do not get me wrong: there are good ICB chief executives and bad ICB chief executives, ones who understand their role well and ones who feel that they do not need to engage at all with their local communities. I have a very good ICB in what is currently Surrey Heartlands, soon to be a larger organisation, and an ICB that does not do the job as well—I will not name it, but any student of geography will be able to work out which one it is. Secondly, excessive ministerial power blurs the lines of accountability. The Minister, in her defence, has argued that Ministers need powers because Ministers are accountable. I get that argument, but one of the most important principles of effective public administration is clarity of responsibility. If the Secretary of State gains extensive powers to appoint and dismiss local NHS leaders, it will become increasingly difficult to know who is actually responsible for outcomes. When performance improves, Ministers will claim credit; when performance deteriorates, local leaders may be blamed. If Ministers possess the power to select and remove those leaders, they will inevitably become more directly responsible for those management decisions, so far from increasing accountability, this might dilute it by creating uncertainty about where true authority lies. Thirdly, there is a constitutional concern. Whether one likes it or not, the previous Act created a balance between democratic accountability and operational independence. Parliament rightly determines the funding, priorities and legislative frameworks, and Ministers rightly set national policy, but operational decisions have been made by healthcare professionals and the statutory bodies established for that purpose. That distinction exists for a good reason. No Secretary of State, regardless of ability or commitment, or indeed their own background in the health service, can personally manage every NHS organisation in England, and I do not think they should. The more powers we concentrate at the centre, the greater the temptation for Ministers to become involved in operational matters that are better addressed through professional expertise and local knowledge. My hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to preserve that distinction in a singular and precise way. It recognises that Ministers should govern the NHS and be held accountable at the top by us as Members of Parliament and our constituents, but should not seek to manage every aspect of it. Fourthly, there is a practical problem. Supporters of ministerial intervention often point to examples of failure and ask what should happen when an ICB is underperforming. That is a fair question, but the answer is not that the Secretary of State must personally possess dismissal powers. A range of mechanisms already exist: ICB boards have governance responsibilities; NHS England has oversight powers; professional regulators oversee the conduct of clinicians; there are provisions in employment law for procedures when it comes to misconduct and capability issues; and auditors and inspectors can identify failings. It would be far better if the Bill strengthened those provisions to ensure that accountability was brought forward, rather than giving the Secretary of State the ability to fire and hire as he or she sees fit. Of course, none of those mechanisms of accountability will disappear if amendment 47 is adopted. The amendment would not create any kind of immunity from accountability; it would simply ensure that accountability is exercised through the established governance structures, rather than through direct ministerial intervention on a chief executive. Indeed, one might ask whether a Secretary of State is really the best person to assess the performance of an individual ICB chief executive. Such judgments often require detailed understanding of local service pressures, workforce challenges, demographic factors, financial constraints and so on. Those are matters better evaluated by individual organisations with operational expertise than by politicians operating at national level. Fifthly, I think the clause as drafted would present a risk to recruitment and retention. The NHS already faces significant leadership challenges. Senior leaders are expected to manage enormous budgets, oversee complex organisations and make difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. If we create a system in which their tenure can ultimately depend upon ministerial whim, we may deter talented individuals from seeking those positions. As my hon. Friend said, the NHS needs leaders who are willing to innovate, take calculated risks and make difficult long-term decisions. It does not need a culture in which leaders are constantly looking over their shoulder, wondering whether a politically controversial but clinically necessary decision could threaten their position. Strong organisations attract strong leaders when governance arrangements are stable, predictable and professionally driven. They do not attract them through uncertainty and political intervention. Sixthly, we need to consider the precedent being established. Powers granted to one Secretary of State are inherited by the next, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said. Members may trust the intentions of the current Minister—I certainly do. They may also believe that these powers would be exercised responsibly—and at the moment I think they would be. However, legislation must be judged not on how it is going to be used by one individual, but on how it could be used by any future holder of the office. Therefore, the question is not whether the current Secretary of State or Minister would misuse the power, but whether Parliament wishes to establish a framework in which future Secretaries of State possess the ability to remove local NHS leaders whose decisions, views or priorities may conflict with their political objectives. That is a much more serious question. Finally, we must remember what ICBs were trying to achieve, even if we do not think that they have achieved it or performed in the way that we wanted them to. If we go back to the principle of why they were set up, they were designed to encourage collaboration rather than some sort of command-and-control structure. They were intended to bring decision making closer to patients and communities. They were established to support long-term planning across local health systems. Those objectives, I am afraid, are very difficult to reconcile with a model in which local leaders remain subject to direct ministerial dismissal. Partnership working flourishes when organisations have confidence in their independence and responsibilities. It is weakened when authority is increasingly concentrated at the centre. For all those reasons, I believe that amendment 47 in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raises an important principle. It is not about protecting poor performance or shielding individuals from accountability; it is about ensuring that accountability is exercised through proper governance structures rather than political control. Expanding ministerial powers to hire and fire local NHS leaders risks undermining all of those principles.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I am particularly concerned about subsection (2)(a) of proposed new section 12DA. On examination, this provision raises significant concerns about the control of public expenditure and the efficient use of resources within the health service, and I find it rather vague. There is no definition of the terms used, no indication of scope and no express limitation on how the power is to be exercised. When read together with subsection (1) of proposed new section 12DA, the effect, as I read it, is to allow the Secretary of State to provide funding to an extremely wide category of recipients. That includes not only public bodies and established NHS providers but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, private entities, charities, individuals and any person engaged in activities that the Secretary of State considers to be beneficial to the health service. That breadth is not accompanied by a corresponding statutory safeguard. The clause does not set out criteria for eligibility, priorities for funding or principles to guide decision making. It does not impose limits on the sums that may be disbursed, nor does it require any structured process for allocating funds. There is no express provision for transparency, such as publication of decisions or reporting obligations to another body such as Parliament. That absence is significant. Control over public expenditure ultimately lies with Parliament, yet the clause delegates a wide and flexible spending power to the Executive with little direction as to how that power is to be exercised. While it may be said that Treasury rules, audit requirements and general public law principles continue to apply, those are external controls and they do not substitute for clear statutory discipline within the provision itself. The practical consequences of such a broad power need to be considered. The NHS is already under considerable financial strain; as we all know, demand is rising and resources are constrained, and there is a continuing need to ensure that funding is allocated in a way that delivers measurable improvements in outcomes. In that context, certainty, prioritisation and efficiency are essential. By framing this power in such open terms, the clause risks undermining those objectives. It will create the possibility of fragmented funding decisions, with resources distributed across a wide range of initiatives without clear and consistent frameworks, and it may lead to duplication of effort or to supporting projects with benefits that are uncertain or difficult to evaluate. Without clear criteria or structured oversight, it will become more difficult to ensure that funding is directed to the areas of greatest need.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate, and for outlining the issues that her constituents—and, indeed, many constituents across the country—are facing. It is something of an irony that I find myself speaking on NHS dentistry for the second time in as many days, having co-sponsored yesterday’s Backbench Business debate on precisely this issue, but if anything, that underlines the scale of the issue we are dealing with. The hon. Member for Chichester will know that West Sussex borders my constituency, which spans Surrey and Hampshire. Many of my constituents in Haslemere and the surrounding villages routinely access services across that boundary, and would regard West Sussex as part of their natural health economy. I am sure the same is true vice versa, because dentistry does not respect administrative lines, and access to care either exists or it does not. Let us be clear about the scale of the problem. Oral health is not a luxury issue; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) set out so clearly and passionately, it is fundamental to dignity, confidence, employability and overall health, yet access to NHS dentistry has become a postcode lottery. Nearly 14 million people are struggling to access care, and in many areas more than 70% of practices are not accepting new NHS patients, including children. As far as I can tell, not a single dentist in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon is accepting new NHS patients. It is often suggested that we simply have a workforce shortage, but the issue is not that we do not have enough dentists; it is that, understandably, too few are willing to work within a contract that no longer makes sense. The 2006 NHS dental contract, introduced under the last Labour Government, is based on units of dental activity. It pays the same whether a dentist carries out one filling or six, rewards volume rather than complexity, and actively discourages preventive care. That contract is central to why the system is struggling. The Government came into office promising a dental rescue plan, including urgent appointments, contract reform, workforce expansion and a greater focus on prevention. Those commitments were clear and repeated, yet delivery has not matched the rhetoric. In practice, the additional appointments that have been rolled out amount in many cases to only a small increase in urgent capacity. According to the British Dental Association, they are equivalent to a couple of extra slots per dentist per month. At the same time, the long-promised NHS workforce plan has still not been published and, without it, there is no credible road map for how capacity will be met. Warm words about recruitment are no substitute for a clear and funded strategy that tells practices and patients what the future looks like. We also need to recognise inefficiencies within the current system. In some practices, around one in seven NHS appointments is missed, costing individual surgeries tens of thousands of pounds a year. That is not just a frustration for clinicians—it is lost capacity in a system that is already under extreme pressure. However, rather than addressing the structural incentives that contribute to this, the Government’s response has been piecemeal. The consequences of all this are not evenly distributed; rural and coastal communities are particularly badly affected, with some having as few as 10 NHS dental practices per 100,000 people. These so-called dental deserts are not accidental, but the predictable outcome of a system that does not align funding, workforce planning and local need. There is a striking example of underused capacity in my local area. In Haslemere, the hospital contains a fully equipped dental suite that remains unused despite clear local demand. That facility could serve patients across the West Sussex border, given the natural geography of where people access care. Instead, it sits idle. I think everyone in this Chamber agrees with prevention in principle, and with the need to move away from a purely treatment-based model. The challenge is delivery. Likewise, workforce expansion is essential, but announcements without a credible plan do not translate into appointments. Ultimately, what is required is straightforward in principle, but urgent in practice: a properly funded and credible workforce plan, contract reform that rewards prevention and complexity rather than volume, and a serious strategy to address dental deserts that reflects real geography and need. We should also acknowledge the previous efforts of the Conservative Government, including the dental recovery plan, which did attempt to address these issues through recruitment incentives, training expansion and support of overseas qualified dentists. I accept that some measures had limited uptake, but they were at least an attempt to respond to a growing crisis. The question now is whether this Government build on what works or continue to drift without clear direction. Patients do not care which Government designed which contract or which plan; they care about seeing a dentist when they need one. I end with three straightforward questions that I asked the Minister in yesterday’s debate, but to which I did not get an answer. When will we see a fully funded and credible NHS dental workforce plan? How many additional dentists, hygienists and therapists are required to meet demand? What is the plan to ensure that dental deserts do not become a permanent feature of our healthcare system? Patients deserve these answers not in the future, but today.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Renewables Sector: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  We are losing over 1,000 jobs a month in our oil and gas industry, and despite what the Secretary of State has just said, we are not seeing a similar uptick in green jobs. Skilled workers are losing their jobs in oil and gas, and are actually leaving the country. The Government’s actions are making the United Kingdom poorer and less secure, and we are waving goodbye to highly skilled jobs. How can the Secretary of State honestly tell this House that there is a transition going on?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Renewables Sector: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  8. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the renewables sector in Scotland.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding from those on the Government Benches of the absolute disaster they are presiding over when it comes to the economy and, most importantly, growth. The evidence is hard to ignore. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) talked about a battle of ideas—

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum. The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth. At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government. Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go. Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions. In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector. Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but does he not accept that adding 330 pages-worth of regulation in the Employment Rights Act 2025, at a cost of a billion pounds to the economy, is having the opposite effect? Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 28% in just one year.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The stories the hon. Lady is telling about the poor connectivity in her constituency echo what I experience in mine, where we have some of the worst full-fibre broadband certainly in the south-east, and potentially in the country, despite being only an hour away from London. I recently surveyed my constituents about mobile coverage and, contrary to popular opinion, more than two thirds were willing to have more masts in their area because of the change with people working from home and in how people do business. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to look forward and ensure that we have connectivity in our areas, rather than looking back to a time when people were operating very differently?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on securing this debate. I have applied for a similar debate twice, but clearly I do not have the touch of a former Chancellor in the Westminster Hall lottery. This is a very serious issue. The community infrastructure levy is meant to be simple: developers contribute and that money is used to fund the infrastructure that communities need. That is the principle, and that is the promise, but in parts of my constituency that promise is being broken. The regulations are clear that CIL is intended to support growth through infrastructure, yet we see millions of pounds collected and sitting idle, with little evidence of delivery. The rules exist but the action does not follow. In Waverley where, as we have heard, CIL rates are among the highest in the country, substantial sums are being collected and left unspent—£30 million when we last checked at the beginning of the year. That alone undermines public trust, but the reality is worse than that. The money does not simply sit there; it accrues interest—£125,000 a month in Waverley’s case. That interest is not ringfenced for infrastructure; it is absorbed into the general council spending. It is equivalent to 10% of council tax in Waverley’s case. Residents are told that the money is for community facilities when in reality it is sitting in accounts, quietly supporting day-to-day council spending. At the same time, inflation is eating away at the value of the original CIL pot, so when the council does eventually spend it, it delivers less than it should. Communities lose twice: the infrastructure does not arrive and the money set aside to fund it is steadily diminished. Worse still, the system is being misapplied. Of course, it is right that developers should contribute, but individual homeowners making changes to their own properties were never intended targets of the regime. Pursuing them aggressively, as Waverley borough council does, is not just heavy-handed; it is plain wrong. Let us call it what it is: a cash grab. CIL may be a national framework, but it is administered locally. The contrast within my constituency could not be starker. In East Hampshire, charging rates outside the regeneration zone in Whitehill and Bordon range from £95.94 to £265.68 per square metre. Even with a manual exemption system, the council actively supports residents, contacting them repeatedly by letter, email and phone to make them aware of exemptions, guiding them through the process and clearly warning them of the consequences of failing to submit the correct forms. That is what good administration looks like. Let us compare that approach with that taken by the Liberal Democrat-run Waverley borough council. There, the CIL rates charged to affected homeowners are among the highest in the country. In Farnham, they stand at £547.17 per square metre, rising to just under £570 per square metre in Haslemere and the surrounding villages. With those high rates comes a very different approach. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who together face CIL liabilities of nearly £1 million. They are not developers; they are ordinary residents who feel blindsided, misled and, in some cases, harassed. They are being charged for exemptions they were never supposed to pay. That is not administration. That is extraction. The response from the Liberal Democrat leadership, supported for too long by the Farnham residents group, has been one of inertia and, frankly, contempt. Instead of being helped to navigate a complex system, residents have been left in the dark and presented with life-changing bills. This is not fairness; it is the politics of envy in action, and my constituents are paying the price. Let me give some examples. One constituent who lives on the Surrey-Hampshire border has an East Hampshire postcode but her property falls within Waverley. She was hit with a £48,000 charge, which has now risen with interest to £60,000. In Haslemere, another constituent received a £94,000 charge because an agent failed to submit the correct forms. He was forced to put his home on the market, with the only alternative to divert the majority of his pension to pay the bill. In Lower Bourne, a couple were issued with a £54,000 charge two days before Christmas in 2024. That led to delays and additional restart costs of between £15,000 and £20,000. Also in the Bourne, a resident faces a charge of £150,000. In Moor Park, another faces a charge of close to £100,000, triggered by a mid-project planning amendment. Even minor administrative issues are treated with zero flexibility. A Farnham resident now faces a £25,000 charge, along with £5,000 in legal costs, following a change-of-use application for a granny annexe. These are not speculative, rapacious developers; they are people improving their homes, supporting their families and planning for their futures. The human cost is real and growing. As has been pointed out, last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash and I met the Minister to discuss these issues. At the time, he appeared sympathetic, so I ask him today: what progress has been made? At that meeting, we urged the Minister to issue clear guidance to local authorities to prevent further harm while the regulations were reviewed. Unfortunately, that idea was not taken forward. I understand the concern about overreach, but what we are seeing now is not restraint; it is injustice. I support my right hon. Friend’s proposed solutions. With that in mind, I ask the Minister three fairly straightforward questions. First, what progress has been made on reforming the CIL regulations? Secondly, will he issue clear guidance to ensure that councils do not exploit the rules to the detriment of ordinary homeowners? Thirdly, will those who have been wrongly charged be refunded? Under the current system, once development has commenced, there is effectively no right to appeal. It is a rigid and unforgiving mechanism. Most councils choose not to wield it in this way, but Waverley borough council has. The spirit of the law is being ignored, and the balance has been lost. My constituents are being treated not as residents to be supported, but as revenue to be extracted. This is not what the levy was designed to do. It was meant to build stronger communities, not penalise them. The law may permit what is happening, but it was never intended to enable it. It is time we put that right.

• 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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Division! [ Laughter .]

• 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

  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.

• 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.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who has campaigned tirelessly for a GP surgery in Wixams in his constituency. I was delighted to hear that his campaigning is beginning to bear fruit, and I wish him well with that. The challenge that my hon. Friend mentioned resonates strongly in my own constituency. There has been significant housing growth in areas such as Bordon, yet the supporting infrastructure, particularly primary care, has simply not kept pace. Residents move into new homes only to discover that securing a GP appointment is harder than it should be. Hon. Members across the House have made a consistent and compelling case this afternoon. Rapid housing growth places a real strain on local practices, and patients then struggle to access timely appointments. Infrastructure funding is too often misaligned with development, and co-ordination between local authorities, NHS bodies and developers remains insufficient. Healthcare must arrive with the new homes, not years afterwards. The Government’s 10-year plan puts having care closer to home at the centre of NHS reform. That ambition is entirely welcome, but as hon. Members have raised, the national neighbourhood health implementation programme begins with pilots in 43 areas, and each designated neighbourhood must serve a population of around 50,000 people. That population threshold presents a fundamental challenge for rural and semi-rural areas, where individual villages and market towns fall well below that figure. Although larger geographical regions might technically meet the requirement, genuinely rural communities cannot qualify as stand-alone neighbourhoods and are therefore excluded from the first phase—and potentially always. If the 50,000 population threshold is rigidly applied, smaller communities will only ever be served indirectly, folded into large neighbourhoods covering multiple dispersed settlements. That risks diluting the focus on their particular needs, and residents might continue to face long travel times, limited access to primary care and fewer co-ordinated services, as hon. Members have described. That is especially concerning given the demographic trends. Healthwatch England highlighted in 2023 that the NHS long-term workforce plan projects a 55% increase in the number of people aged over 85 living in rural areas by 2037. Demand is rising most sharply in precisely those areas excluded from the pilot phase. In areas like mine, where hospital access already involves significant travel, the case for strong, well-resourced local primary and community care is self-evident. Excluding rural and semi-rural constituencies from the first wave risks entrenching disparities rather than reducing them. I also have concerns about cuts and mergers in ICBs. The institutional knowledge and expertise built over many years risk being disrupted during the transition. For example, the Frimley integrated care board, which serves the northern part of my constituency, is being abolished, so the local leadership and co-ordination that previously existed will be lost and responsibilities will be redistributed. Change on such a scale requires clarity of governance, funding and accountability. Without it, delivery will vary and confidence will suffer. Access to primary care, pharmacy and dentistry remains central to this debate, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Since 2024, more than 200 pharmacies have closed in England. In the first three months of 2025 alone, 31 medium-sized and 24 large pharmacy branches closed. For villages and small towns, the local pharmacy is not a luxury; it is a frontline health service Although schemes such as the pharmacy access scheme and Pharmacy First are supported and welcome, there are significant problems with their roll-out, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with unions like the BMA trying to undermine that very significant investment. I have a number of questions for the Minister. For rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine, the details of the policy matter enormously. First, will the 50,000 population threshold be applied flexibly in rural and semi-rural areas? If so, how will smaller communities be guaranteed equal access to neighbourhood services? Secondly, what is the timetable for expanding the scheme beyond the initial 43 pilot areas? When can constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire expect to be included? Thirdly, how will the continuity of neighbourhood health delivery be safeguarded during the merger and abolition of ICBs, and who will ultimately be held accountable for that if implementation falters? Finally, will the Minister publish clear and measurable criteria for success, particularly in relation to rural access, travel times and coverage of elderly populations so that the House can judge whether care closer to home is being delivered in practice and is not merely a promise?