Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and his point goes to the heart of the debate. Pharmacies are businesses that must make a profit, and pharmacists must pay their staff and make sure that they can feed their own families, but they are also public servants. They are people who have decided to work in our national health service to provide for our patients, and the Government should recognise that. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned independent prescribing. If properly supported, it will give patients quicker access to treatment, but it brings greater clinical responsibility, greater governance requirements and greater pressure on pharmacists’ time. Given the limited capacity that we have already talked about, I want to ask the Minister three questions on independent prescribing. Does she believe the sector is ready? Does it have the workforce and the capacity to do it? What additional funding and support will be provided? We also need clarity on the timetable. Pharmacists have trained to prescribe, and they should be able to use that skill. That brings me to the pharmacy workforce, because none of these reforms—independent prescribing, Pharmacy First or any other idea—will work without a sufficiently large and properly supported workforce. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members about recruitment and retention pressures, including concerns about the number of full-time equivalent pharmacists. At the same time, the demands placed on existing staff are increasing. We cannot continue to add responsibilities to community pharmacy without considering whether there are enough people to deliver them safely and effectively. The previous Conservative Government’s NHS long-term workforce plan included an ambition to increase pharmacist training places by 29%, taking them to around 4,300 by ’28-29. That ambition will clearly not be met under this Government, and we are still waiting for the long-promised NHS workforce plan. Despite my asking the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in July when the plan was coming out, we still have no answer. Finally, I will move on to medicines supply. Pharmacies are facing global supply chain disruption and rising medicine costs, with repeated price concessions adding further pressures. They cannot absorb these pressures indefinitely, so what are the Government doing to mitigate the impact of geopolitical disruption on medicine supply and prices, and what assessment has the Department made of the financial burden that these pressures are putting on community pharmacies? They are being felt by pharmacies across my constituency, including Vaughan James and Lalys in Farnham, Chase and Headley pharmacies and Day Lewis in Haslemere, and Grayshott pharmacy, all of which have contacted me about the issues that I have raised. In conclusion, community pharmacy has a crucial role to play in the future of our NHS. We all want to see care delivered closer to people’s homes. Pharmacy First has shown what can happen when we give pharmacists greater responsibility and trust them to use their expertise, but ambition needs to be matched by capacity. The Government cannot say that community pharmacies are central to the future of neighbourhood healthcare while making it harder for those pharmacies to remain financially sustainable. I urge the Government to recognise the cumulative impacts of their policies on businesses, to look again at the treatment of business rates for community pharmacies, to ensure independent prescribing is properly supported, to protect the supply of medicines, and to provide clarity on when the NHS workforce plan will be published. The fact is, we cannot ask pharmacies to take on more responsibility and deliver more NHS care while simultaneously making it harder for them to survive. The Conservative party believes that community pharmacy is absolutely central to the future of the NHS. If the Government agree, they must make sure that pharmacies have a future, too.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can use pharmacists and pharmacies much more creatively and in a manner that would in no way put patient safety at risk. In fact, it would allow patients more choice, and free up GPs and other health professionals to do other parts of their job, so he is right. Community Pharmacy England’s 2026 pharmacy pressures survey makes the scale of the challenge facing pharmacies clear. Drawing on responses from nearly 4,000 pharmacy owners and staff members, it found that 75% of pharmacies are currently losing money, while only 14% reported being profitable. There is little value in providing additional funding for services without recognising the wider cost and workforce pressures facing the sector: 30% of pharmacies have reduced their opening hours and 76% report an impact on patient care, including longer waits and delays in accessing medicine. That brings me—briefly—to the issue of business rates and the wider cumulative costs facing pharmacies. A pharmacy might occupy a storefront on a high street, but it is not simply another retailer; it is part of the national health service and is an essential provision in our community. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined, pharmacies are also part of our national resilience. The Government want pharmacies to take on more responsibility, but they face rising costs that have been caused by the Government. Pharmacies need to be properly considered within the system and not treated simply as another high street retailer. The same issue applies when we consider national insurance increases, and indeed the national living wage. These cumulative increases are having a real impact. Unlike a high street retailer, a pharmacy has contractual obligations to the NHS and a moral responsibility to its patients, so it cannot just increase prices or stop providing a service like other businesses could. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) rightly put it, the Government have to recognise the cumulative impact of these terrible decisions when considering future policy.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to her new role and congratulate her on her appointment. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing this most important debate. She spoke very powerfully about the pressures facing community pharmacies and I want to build on her speech by discussing what is happening both in my constituency and nationally. In Farnham and Bordon, we have access to 15 community pharmacies, which collectively dispense around 142,000 prescriptions every month and deliver around 6,500 flu vaccinations. The Government’s 10-year plan wants more healthcare to be delivered in the community, which is an aim that I think we all support. At the same time, however, the Government appear to be making it harder for those very pharmacies to deliver such care and to remain sustainable. The reality is that community pharmacies are being asked to do more while facing rising costs. We have seen higher national insurance contributions, increases in the national minimum wage, rising business rates and persistent inflationary pressures. At the same time, pharmacies are dealing with medicine shortages, higher procurement costs and disruption to international supply chains. The financial picture is impossible to ignore. Funding for community pharmacies in 2025-26 was actually £800 million less in real terms than it was in 2015-16. In the last year alone, the number of NHS-prescribed items dispensed by pharmacies and the service volumes increased by 2.3% and 17% respectively. As the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) has already highlighted—he was echoed by a number of Members around the Chamber today—the Government’s own independent economic analysis in March 2025 identified a funding gap for pharmacies of £2 billion a year, and trade bodies that have spoken to me identify a structural funding problem. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome additional funding, but pharmacy is not made sustainable by giving with one hand and taking with the other. We need to ensure the long-term viability of community pharmacy and I am very sceptical that the Government’s approach will achieve that. I turn now to Pharmacy First, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we make better use of the skills and expertise available within our NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is absolutely right to be proud of his Government’s record on this matter. Created and implemented by the last Government, Pharmacy First shows what NHS reform should look like—the right professional, with the right responsibility, delivering the right care in the right place. It should be a game changer and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for its introduction. Pharmacy First recognises that patients with seven common conditions can be safely assessed and treated by qualified pharmacists without there always being a requirement for a GP appointment. However, the scheme is currently limited and not as expansive as it is in Scotland, where it covers up to 30 common conditions. I would like the Government to move rapidly to expand Pharmacy First elsewhere. We should be ambitious about the skills and clinical expertise of our pharmacists.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Hopefully, this is a pleasure postponed. I rise to support new clauses 81 and 82, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As legislators, we have a moral duty to ensure that patients are protected during times of disruption in the NHS. Nobody disputes the fact that NHS staff work incredibly hard. They absolutely do. The dedication shown by doctors, nurses, paramedics, midwives and all those who keep our health service running deserves enormous respect. Having worked in healthcare for pretty much all my career, including for professional organisations such as the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, I know at first hand how hard they work. Equally, we need to recognise that the NHS is not an ordinary service. Working for it is not like being a shop assistant, a bin collector or a tax inspector; in its importance to the health and safety of this nation, it is more akin to being a police officer or a member of our armed forces. It is an essential public service. When people are at their most vulnerable, whether that is because they are waiting for an operation, procedure or intervention or because they are in the process of having those interventions, they must have confidence that the care they rely on will still be there. The right to strike has to come with responsibilities. In the NHS, the consequences of industrial action are real: cancelled operations, delayed treatments, missed appointments and increased pressure on emergency services. When I raised some of these issues with Sir Jim Mackey when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee, he could not tell me, hand on heart, that people have not died because of these strikes. I suspect that they probably have. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, for someone requiring urgent surgery or for families relying on maternity services, the impact can be deeply serious and potentially even deadly. There is a moral obligation, both on NHS doctors and on us as legislators, to ensure that we have a universal, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service that is free at the point of use that patients can and should expect to rely on. I therefore support new clause 81’s minimum service requirements and new clause 2’s the removal of clinicians’ ability to strike. We must ensure that our NHS staff are supported, protected, paid appropriately and given the resources they need to do their job, but the corollary is that they should remain on the job to serve our constituents.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister back from her son’s graduation —I hope it went well. I rise to state my support for new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a clear roll-out plan for fracture liaison services across England and report annually to Parliament on progress towards universal coverage by 2030. It is not about creating a new target, because the target already exists: both this Government and the previous Government committed to achieving 100% fracture liaison service coverage by 2030. The question before us, as proposed by the shadow Minister, is simple: how will that promise be delivered, and how will Parliament know whether meaningful progress is being made? Fracture liaison services are one of the most evidence-based interventions in osteoporosis care. They systematically identify people aged over 50 who suffer a fragility fracture; assess their bone health; initiate treatment where appropriate; and monitor patients to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. Given that around half of patients who sustain a hip fracture have previously broken another bone, those services represent a vital opportunity to intervene before a life-changing injury occurs. The human cost is considerable. Osteoporosis affects millions of people, particularly older women, and fragility fractures can result in a loss of independence, reduced mobility, social isolation and significant pressure on health and social care services. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that around 180,000 fractures each year in England and Wales are attributable to osteoporosis. There is also a compelling economic case: the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that investing around £30 million in fracture liaison services could prevent approximately 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures, saving the NHS around £665 million and freeing up some 750,000 bed days. Few preventive interventions offer that combination of better patient outcomes and substantial savings for the NHS. The Government frequently point to their commitment to universal coverage by 2030, but as the shadow Minister pointed out, progress has been achingly slow. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I questioned him on that issue directly. While he confirmed that the Department remains committed to meeting that 2030 target, which was first established by the previous Conservative Government, no plan—or indication of when a plan would come—was given. A commitment alone is not a delivery plan. There are also growing concerns that the Government have overstated the progress that has already been made. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has confirmed that more than 97% of the fracture liaison services counted by the current Government were already in place before the change of Government. So, rather than that representing any significant expansion in national coverage, this Government have gone slow. I think it is therefore very reasonable—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket—for Parliament to be entitled to ask what additional progress has actually been made since the commitment was reaffirmed. New clause 47 would also require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of access in every integrated care board area. It would also require annual milestones, because, at present, there is no publicly available timetable showing where the services will be established, or which areas will be prioritised or progressed between now and 2030. Crucially, the new clause would require the Government to set out how integrated care boards will actually be supported. Ministers rightly point out that fracture liaison services are commissioned locally by integrated care boards, but if the responsibility for delivery rests locally while responsibility for national targets rests with central Government, there clearly needs to be a well-thought-through national framework explaining how those boards will be supported through funding, guidance, workforce planning and accountability. This is, therefore, a straightforward request for transparency, accountability and, most importantly, delivery. If Ministers are committed to achieving this by 2030, they should have absolutely no objection to publishing a plan that shows how they intend to get there. For those reasons, I support the new clause.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will come on to the IRGC in my speech. He is right to raise the concerns of his Jewish constituents. but I think all our constituents—of any faith or none—should fear the malign influence of the IRGC, and the way that it has brutalised its own population and works to the detriment of the UK and other European nations. For centuries, Iran has been a nation of immense historical, cultural and civilisational importance. It has produced some of the world’s greatest contributions to literature, science, the arts and philosophy. Before the ’79 revolution, Iran was widely regarded as one of the most advanced and outward-looking states in the middle east. It was a country with a growing economy, expanding diplomatic ties with the west and a strategic role as a regional partner for us here in Britain, the United States and other democratic states. I do not say that to give right hon. and hon. Members a history lesson, but simply to highlight that it is not the Iranian people or Iran itself with which we have a problem, but the current fundamentalist regime in Tehran. The picture I have painted of Iran before ’79 changed completely with the revolution. The previous system of government had essentially produced prosperity, but the Islamic Republic has a fundamentally different view and has, for four decades, pursued the destruction of its own country. The Iranian people have suffered from increasing restrictions on political freedoms, suppression of dissent, economic mismanagement and a state apparatus that has too often prioritised ideological ambition and external confrontation over the prosperity and liberty of its own citizens. I was very disappointed in the speech from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, because he spent the whole time blaming Donald Trump. As I said in earlier interventions, I have no love for Donald Trump or the way in which he has dealt with the issues in the region, but not to stand and condemn Iran was shocking. I did a quick search, and while the hon. Member has mentioned Donald Trump in 18 speeches in this House, today was the first in which he has mentioned Iran. I think that is probably the wrong balance. The current regime does not represent the aspirations of millions of ordinary Iranians, who have repeatedly risked their lives to demand greater freedoms, accountability and the right to determine their own future. Our quarrel is with the regime, which has systematically denied its citizens basic liberties, exported terrorism and instability across the middle east and further, threatened our allies and conducted hostile activity here in the United Kingdom. The courage of the Iranian people deserves all of our admiration. Since the end of last year, protests have spread across all 31 provinces, driven by soaring inflation, economic hardship, corruption and decades of political repression. The response from the authorities in Tehran has once again demonstrated the methods on which this regime relies: intimidation, arbitrary detention, restrictions on communications and the use of force against those who simply demand a better future. Support for the Iranian people must therefore go hand in hand with a clear-eyed assessment of the wider threat posed by the Iranian regime. For decades, Iran has sought to project power beyond its borders—not through normal diplomacy, as some in this Chamber seem to think, but through intimidation, terrorism and proxy warfare. It has armed, financed and directed militant organisations across the middle east in pursuit of its strategic objectives. It has threatened Israel, our Gulf partners and other allies of the UK and US, culminating in the attack on a number of our allies earlier this year and last year. Last May, I had the opportunity to go to Bahrain and see our troops there—to think that they were being bombed by Iran is utterly disgusting. We need to have a robust response to that. I have to say, I found the response of the UK Government and the current Prime Minister weak-willed at best. He seemed to be happy to allow American fighter jets to take off from our bases and to be willing for our British fighters to shoot down incoming missiles, but was not willing to use our bases and fighter jets to shoot the missile launchers. That seems utterly bizarre to me. The Prime Minister was extraordinarily fortunate that one of those incoming missiles did not hit and kill personnel at Akrotiri or hit a hotel in Dubai full of British citizens. If that had happened, I think the British public’s mood towards this Prime Minister would have changed, and changed rapidly. I do hope that the incoming Prime Minister will have a much more robust response when dealing with these threats from not just Iran, but a number of its proxy actors.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has danced around the topic, but should we not place it on the record that we are now entirely clear why the Opposition business was cancelled yesterday and we are having a debate in which only two Labour Back Benchers are speaking—

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the incoming Prime Minister has run away from any kind of scrutiny, whether it be from us, the press or anybody else, does him a disservice, and I think he will come to regret that decision. I do not know the right hon. Gentleman personally, but from Labour Members I have spoken to understand that he is good on his feet and can talk, so it surprises me that he does not want to come to the House and answer those questions. None the less, we are having this debate, and it is an important one. I spoke about proxies. Hezbollah, for example, remains a heavily armed organisation despite international obligations and years of diplomatic pressure. Hamas has not abandoned violence, and the Houthis continue to threaten freedom of navigation and regional security well beyond Yemen. Iran’s network of proxies may be under pressure, but it remains one of the principal drivers of instability across the middle east. That brings me to the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been mentioned. The IRGC cannot simply be treated as an ordinary branch of Government. It is the institution most closely associated with Iran’s external military operations, its support for those proxy groups, its intimidation campaigns abroad, and its efforts to undermine the security and safety of Britain and our allies. Earlier this year I co-signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for the IRGC to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. I did so because the evidence is compelling, and recent developments have only strengthened the case for action. I welcome steps taken in recent years to respond to the increased threat posed by Iran. Last year the Iranian state was placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That was an important national security measure to increase transparency around activities undertaken on behalf of foreign powers. More than 500 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned, restricting their access to the international financial system, imposing consequences on those responsible for the malign activity, and demonstrating that Britain will not ignore threats to our national security. I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be proscribed under the Terrorism Act. It is a really significant step, because it reflects the reality that the IRGC is not merely a political or even a military institution of a foreign Government but an organisation that is responsible for activities that pose a direct threat to Britain, our citizens and our allies. I note that Conservative Members have been calling for proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation as early as 2023, and I know that others across the Chamber did so. I thank them for their efforts in getting us to this point. The Government have taken a number of important steps to respond to the threat posed by Iran, but this is an important national security measure, because it is designed to increase transparency. We should also be clear about what the measures were and what they are not. Sanctions matter—they are really important, despite what some hon. Members on the Labour Benches have said. Foreign influence registration matters, and action against Iran-linked organisations matters, but they are not the same as proscription under the Terrorism Act. This debate takes place against the backdrop of Iran’s continuing nuclear ambitions. Britain has consistently supported diplomacy in the region. Where diplomacy can succeed, that remains the right approach, but nobody should underestimate the consequences of further military action and escalation in the middle east. Diplomacy cannot succeed without pressure. It cannot succeed without enforcement. It cannot succeed if Iran believes that international commitments can be ignored without consequences. Sanctions, international co-ordination and robust enforcement all have a role to play. The international community must remain determined that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon capability that would further destabilise an already fragile region and place additional pressure on our allies. From past engagement, we know that the Iranian regime has historically responded not to weakness, ambiguity or pleasant overtures, but to strength, unity and resolve. Iranian state-linked actors have been responsible for hostile activity directed towards the United Kingdom, including the intimidation, espionage and threats that I mentioned against individuals on British soil. Protecting the British public must remain the Government’s first duty. Our response must therefore match that scale of threat. Iran undoubtedly faces profound internal challenges of its own—its economy, its regional position and the public confidence in the regime are together a real pressure on that regime—but, unfortunately, none of that internal pressure means that change is inevitable. The British public therefore expect the Government not merely to recognise the threats but to confront them. In closing, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. First, what is the timetable for completing the legal process for bringing the proscription fully into force? Secondly, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that the evidence base and legal reasoning underpinning the decision are sufficiently robust to withstand any potential judicial challenge? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of any appeal or judicial review? What contingency planning is there, should legal proceedings be brought? Fourthly, what additional operational benefits will proscription provide to the police and security services in identifying, disrupting and prosecuting IRGC-linked activity in the United Kingdom? Finally, how will the Government work with our international partners—including the United States and other allies who have long recognised the threat posed by the IRGC—to ensure that this decision has maximum impact?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Shocking!

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s penultimate point: we need to support home-grown clinical academics and the life sciences industry in this country. As he has drawn me down that line, I declare that my wife works in the life sciences industry in the UK. I entirely agree with him on that point. However, if he is saying that a corollary is that we should not do pharmaceutical trade deals with other countries, I do not agree, because UK patients need the best medicines no matter where they come from. If that was not what he was saying and I am putting words into his mouth, I apologise, but that is how it sounded to me. I agree that we should support the home-grown, but obviously we need access to medicines from around the world. That brings me to my concerns about new clause 76. I understand why the hon. Member for Winchester supports it, but the way it is written means that, for the lifetime of the Act, any trade deal with America would have to follow those strictures. Although I accept that he does not like the current deal or the incumbent in the White House, it seems odd that we are singling out in statute, and putting a stricture on, one country over every other. I still probably would not have voted for it, but the new clause might have been more acceptable had it referred to any trade deal with any country, or even a group of countries—I know he is a big fan of one particular group of countries. That might have made it difficult. It would be dangerous essentially for the Bill to put a stricture on a trade deal with one specific country—especially one that is probably our strongest ally. I think that sits very badly.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Like the shadow Minister, I will be relatively brief. [Interruption.] It was not clear whether that was a sound of appreciation or disappointment from the Minister. I will assume that she receives everything I say with the same noise and grace. Yesterday, the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I sit—and was questioned at some length by the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), about the UK-US trade deal. It was striking that the Secretary of State appeared unable to answer the basic question of whether an impact assessment could be presented to the Committee—under whatever terms of secrecy or confidentiality the Department wanted to place on it—to allow us to assess the costs, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, and, one would hope, the benefits. The Secretary of State was very clear that there were benefits, but he was unable to outline what they were. He cited commercial confidentiality, which I do understand; there will be commercially confidential elements to the deal. What was really striking, however, was that even though the Select Committee was very happy to receive the information under whatever strictures he wanted to put on it, so that we could scrutinise it, it was not given. That is serious cause for concern. I understand what the hon. Member for North Shropshire seeks to achieve through new clauses 15 and 76, but there are some problems in their drafting. There will be commercially confidential elements to the deal, so laying it before the House essentially completely unredacted, as new clause 15 would require, might pose real problems. Likewise, I assume that the intention of new clause 76 is to focus specifically on the UK-US trade deal as currently formulated.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. New clause 6 raises an important question on how we govern health data, which one of the greatest assets of the NHS. The development of the single patient record platform and database, and the wider use of the linked NHS data, present enormous opportunities. When used responsibly, healthcare data can support much more personalised care, improve NHS planning, accelerate medical research, enable earlier diagnoses and help develop new medicines and treatments. It can also improve efficiency and strengthen the evidence base for healthcare decisions. However, those benefits can be realised only if the public have the confidence that their data will be used safely, ethically and transparently. Public trust must be the foundation of any successful health data policy. NHS health data is currently overseen by NHS England, following the merger of NHS Digital into that organisation. With the Government proceeding with the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions elsewhere, it is right that we consider future governance arrangements. In principle, I agree that an independent body may be needed to ensure and maintain the security, integrity and responsible stewardship of NHS data. There is definitely scope for an independent body to oversee the management and regulation of the public’s health data. That proposal places patient privacy at its heart, and would strengthen safeguards against misuse, give patients greater control over how their information is used, and provide meaningful mechanisms to opt out of certain forms of data sharing. It also promotes the use of anonymisation and trusted research environments, allowing valuable research to take place while reducing the risk of inappropriate disclosure. We have discussed inappropriate disclosure by a malign actor, or even inadvertent disclosure, during debate on other clauses. The Liberal Democrat new clause also seeks to address a concern that has attracted significant public attention: where commercial organisations derive substantial value from NHS data, the NHS itself should share in that benefit. Although we did not support a number of Liberal Democrat proposals because of the inadvertent implications of their drafting, I still have sympathy with the overall thrust of what they were trying to achieve. There is a strong argument that the value generated from the data contributed by NHS patients should help to support future patient care and research. Transparency is another important feature. Publishing data-sharing agreements, increasing openness around decision making and consulting the public on significant new data initiatives would help to strengthen public confidence. The proposed trust would bring those principles together by overseeing data use, monitoring compliance with governance standards, ensuring transparency and, where necessary, suspending access for organisations that misuse their data. Of course, any new governance framework must avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or delaying important research. To reassure the Committee that the framework would not create a block or dampener, or insert inertia into the system, will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell us what evidence she found when drafting the new clause? If we are going to do something like this, the oversight should be proportionate, and it should complement, rather than duplicate or frustrate, any existing regulatory responsibilities. Ultimately, the new clause has potential benefits. It would establish a clear social contract for NHS health data, which would hopefully protect privacy, support research and innovation, maintain public trust and ensure that patients and the NHS share in the benefits arising from the responsible use of a very valuable national asset. In terms of what it could be used for, that data is probably second to none in the world, but I am concerned about adding extra bureaucracy and inertia to the system, when we want a vibrant life-sciences industry that is able to use the data for the benefit of British citizens and patients. What does the hon. Member for North Shropshire think would happen in that case?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. During the election, the Government promised to cut bills by £300; in fact, they have gone up by £300. With that level of financial acumen, the Secretary of State will fit right in, in his new job at the Treasury, but my constituents and local businesses want their bills cut now, not at some nebulous point in the future. When he gets to the Treasury, will he remove the taxes on our energy industry, to ensure that bills actually come down?