Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. On amendment 71, I ought to declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance. Although I do not own a shotgun myself, I represent a large shooting community and I have been on a shoot relatively recently, but without a gun, so I did not shoot anything. As I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I spoke on this issue in Westminster Hall some months ago, when it was clear to me that there was a significant level of cross-party support for the idea of mandatory markers for GPs. As mandatory markers for firearms licensing are technically a Home Office issue rather than a Department of Health and Social Care one, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), responded to that debate, but he was unable to reassure us that provision would be made. I did not understand the arguments he made, because I think mandatory markers are probably the way forward. Given that they are supported by organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance—organisations that one might not have expected to be in favour of them—the Government should look into the idea. There would clearly be a benefit to the proposal in amendment 71. If a patient who holds a firearms licence presents a serious medical risk because of a mental health crisis, suicidal ideation or behaviour that raises concerns about risks to themselves or others, an immediately visible marker would help clinicians to make informed decisions and take the appropriate safeguarding action. But a firearms licence is obviously not a medical condition, nor is it health information in any traditional sense. This goes back to the point I made in the debate on a previous amendment, about how broad the information that we keep on the single patient record will be. The inclusion of such a marker across the single patient record could lead to issues relating, as we talked about in previous debates, to who would want to see that information. For example, there may be people out there who are not in favour of recreational shooting, and someone may hold a firearms license for recreational shooting. Of course, section 2 firearms licences, especially for shotguns, are often held by farmers and people involved in conservation, and for all sorts of other reasons, including the control of pest populations. But if someone has a licence for recreational use, there may be people who, for whatever reason, find that to be against their own beliefs and opinions. That might lead to a patient being subjected to a level of intrusion or bias, or perhaps not receiving the care they deserve, because someone has made an assumption about what they are like based on that information. We need to be careful about that.

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

  More

  I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment and what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve through it. Does he have any idea of how a patient would nominate a carer in such a circumstance? Indeed, would it be done by the patient themselves? If not—for example, the patient might have mental health issues or capacity issues—could the carer be nominated by a health professional or a statutory body? Although I absolutely agree with the intentions of the amendment, could he give some examples? For instance, would a carer be able to access all of the patient’s record, or just the part for the period in which they have been providing care? It is entirely right that a carer should see the patient record relating to whatever it is they are providing care for, but—I am not trying to be flip—should carers know that at 17, the person who they are caring for was treated for a sexually transmitted disease or something similar, which the patient might not want them to know?

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

  More

  I will be charitable and take him at his word. We have opened a vital conversation about who will have access to this record, how it will be shared, which bits of it will be shared, and how we ensure that the laudable aim of a single patient record—to ensure that a clinician treating a patient has all the vital facts in front of them—is balanced with that patient’s privacy. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we must make sure that the patient is put at the centre of this. We need to look at the amendment under that microscope of scrutiny. We must use our role as legislators to ensure that gaps in legislation are closed so that loopholes cannot be exploited. I am fully in favour of the Government’s intention on that. However, I have some concerns about privacy and access, and amendment 8 potentially highlights those. The amendment provides for a nominated carer to access a patient’s record, but who nominates the carer? Is it always the patient, and how will that consent be verified and continually checked so that if the patient wishes to remove consent for the carer to see their record for whatever reason, there is a way of doing so? What protections exist for vulnerable patients who may feel pressured or even coerced into granting access? If circumstances change, how easily can that access be withdrawn, by whom and through what process? Although I am not being critical specifically of the amendment, the Government will need to think about those questions when they introduce the single patient record. It is not as simple as saying, “Here is a wonderful record and everyone can access it,” because it will contain some of the most sensitive information an individual holds, including details of their physical and mental health. I entirely accept that carers often play a vital role in supporting patients, but unrestricted or poorly governed access could undermine patient confidentiality and therefore trust in the system. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Member for Winchester and think that, not just in relation to this amendment but as the record is pulled together, we really need to consider these vital issues. On amendment 65, like the shadow Minister, I have a lot of sympathy with the point about reasonable adjustments. We need to be careful when deciding as legislators the purpose of the single patient record. Is it simply a repository of treatments, illnesses, conditions and so on, or does it give a wider commentary on those conditions and treatments? In the example given by the shadow Minister, knowing that someone has hearing difficulties would be useful, but is the single patient record the appropriate place for that? I do not know the answer, but we need to discuss and decide that, because there is a danger of scope creep. If we try to make it all things to all men and women, it could lose the stated purpose, which is to ensure that a clinician has the full facts when dealing with a patient.

• 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.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that there will be a gap in local decision making on these issues. It goes back to that tension I described some moments ago: the Government’s stated intention is to devolve powers locally, but they seem to be pulling so much power up to the Secretary of State that we will lose the ability to make local decisions for the benefit of local populations where appropriate. We have a stated ambition for neighbourhood health, but those neighbourhoods are rapidly expanding in this legislation to become areas of millions of people. Local people who are interested in their local health delivery or local hospital trust would not see that as local decision making, and there is the gap that my hon. Friend describes. I do not think that amendments 74 and 75 have been moved, so I will not talk about them. Government amendment 19 will require “NHS foundation trusts to have at least one executive director who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist and another who is a registered nurse or a registered midwife.” As also stated in the explanatory note, and as the Minister mentioned, regulations may create exception—for example, for ambulance trusts. That is the right decision, and it is important that we have medical experience on foundation trust boards. I am interested in understanding from the Minister, first, why she has chosen a medical practitioner or registered dentist. Does she see some equivalence in their expertise that could be substituted? I have great respect for doctors and for dentists, but they have potentially different clinical expertise. If a foundation trust does no oral healthcare or maxillofacial reconstruction, and does no dentistry or allied specialties, would it really satisfy requirements to have a dentist on the board? Likewise, given that the amendment also refers to a registered nurse or midwife, if a trust has no maternity services, would having a midwife on the board really satisfy the requirement of that trust to have nursing care input? I ask those questions, and I would be interested in the answers. Likewise, there is the exemption for ambulance trusts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I would be interested to understand from the Minister why she thinks ambulance trusts do not need a medical practitioner on their boards, given that they are doing medicine. Plenty of consultants work alongside paramedics and in ambulances, so again I am not quite sure why she is making that exemption. I would be interested to hear from her on that. I understand the intention behind Liberal Democrat amendment 36. Once again, it is trying to soften the Secretary of State’s power grab over decision making—like the hon. Member for North Shropshire, I am not saying anything against the current Secretary of State, but a future Secretary of State could be different. The aim is to try to temper that in some way. Unfortunately for the hon. Member—I have sympathy for the amendment—the stated intention of the Bill is to pull more power to the Secretary of State. The Minister may surprise me, but I fear that the amendment will not find favour with the Government, because the whole Bill is about pulling more power to the centre, certainly when it comes to appointments, and to the Secretary of State. However, the Minister should think about how future Secretaries of State may have to go through some process whereby their decisions are checked and justified, especially at local level. If we want local people to have influence and say over their local health systems and trusts, there needs to be some sort of bridging legislation or bridging process to ensure that whatever a Secretary of State decides, it has the confidence and support of local people and local service providers.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  1. What recent discussions he has had with Capita on the performance of civil service pension scheme administration.

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

  More

  I want to take the Minister back to her rejection of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on the basis that—I paraphrase—she felt the definition of “patients” was too limiting because it would not count people who had not entered the health system at that point. The clause itself, however, refers to the benefit for the health service. Is the Minister suggesting that the health service, as defined in the Bill, includes what happens before people enter what I would describe as the health service? Is it something before that point? She seems to be saying that our definition is too narrow, but her definition in the Bill must apply to those who have entered some kind of formal setting. Or is the health service wider than that?

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

  More

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

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  To bring the hon. Member back to the controlling of spending, may I ask him a question that other Members on his side have failed to answer? Would he be in favour of keeping or scrapping the two-child benefit cap?

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

  More

  The hon. Lady is being generous with interventions; I thank her for that. To bring her back to stamp duty land tax, the average house price in her constituency is over £1 million. [ Interruption. ] I have not quite finished. Her constituents are the precise people who would benefit from this saving. Does she not think that they would welcome the abolition of this tax?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing this essential Bill before us and thank him for the hard work he has done to make sure we get to this place. As I have said many times in this House, early detection saves lives, but without meaningful progress in research we will fall behind other countries making major advances in cancer care. We call these rare cancers, and they are rare in their individual components, but I have been amazed by how many constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages have contacted me in support of the Bill and to share their experiences. Despite rare and less common cancers receiving more than half of UK cancer research funding in recent years, a staggering 82% of patients surveyed by Cancer52 said that they were never offered the chance to participate in a clinical trial. That is not because there is no public support or because the science is not there, but because persistent structural barriers are in the way. The Bill addresses those barriers directly. If enacted, the Rare Cancers Bill will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers within Government, creating accountability, facilitating research and collaboration, and embedding co-ordination across NHS England—while it still exists—the National Institute for Health and Care Research and cancer alliances. Secondly, it will mandate a review of the UK’s orphan drug regulations, aligning incentives such as marketing exclusivity and reduced regulatory fees with international best practice. Thirdly, it will adapt the NIHR’s Be Part of Research platform to create a dedicated, proactive registry that directly links patients with relevant clinical trials. Let us be clear: this Bill aims to deploy smarter systems, harness the power of artificial intelligence, expand fair access to treatment, end the postcode lottery and ensure that every patient, no matter the type of cancer, has the opportunity to benefit from research and high-quality personalised care. Let us also be clear about the need. Rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses, yet they are responsible for 55% of all cancer deaths. That means that more than half of those who die of cancer in this country do so from conditions that receive disproportionately less investment, less attention and less hope. The disparity in survival is stark. For some rare cancers, five-year survival rates languish in the single digits. Only 16% of people diagnosed with cancers of the pancreas, brain, oesophagus, liver or stomach survive beyond five years. By contrast, the five-year survival rate across more common cancers is more than 55%. This is not a marginal issue; this is mainstream cancer care, but it is neglected. Our international peers are taking action. In countries such as France, Germany and the USA, regulatory frameworks are actively incentivising clinical trials for rare cancers. The UK, meanwhile, has fallen from second to 10th in Europe for access to orphan medicines. We must reverse that decline. We must unlock the potential of our research base, and this Bill gives us the legislative structure to do so. The NHS 10-year plan, launched with the ambition to modernise our health service, is a wide-ranging document. It rightly champions early diagnosis, innovation and personalised care, and there is no doubt that many of its pillars, particularly those on genomics, digital access and therapeutic innovation, can benefit people with rare cancers, but “can” is not the same as “will”, and “should” is not the same as “must”. The plan sets out a national goal to diagnose 75% of all cancers at stages 1 or 2 by 2028. That target explicitly includes rare and less common cancers. That is an important and necessary ambition but, as campaigners have rightly pointed out, without specific structural action on rare cancers, we will not hit that target; even worse, we will leave some of the most vulnerable patients behind. As I have said, these are not fringe diseases: these are mainstream conditions that are under-researched and under-resourced. The 10-year plan includes a number of relevant commitments, such as the whole genome sequencing of newborns, supported by £650 million of investment, which could revolutionise early detection of genetic cancer syndromes. Of course, there are some safeguarding issues around that sequencing—I do not want to pre-empt my column in PoliticsHome on Monday, but please read it for more about my concerns over those safeguards. Likewise, the plan includes the expansion of genomic and pharmacogenomic services in the NHS, giving us the potential to offer targeted therapies for rare cancers. It has a pipeline for advanced therapy medicinal products, including CAR T-cell treatments, which are already being rolled out for certain rare blood cancers. It also streamlines the regulatory pathways through a proposed innovator passport to bring treatments to patients faster. Those are steps in the right direction, but let me be frank: the plan does not go far enough for people with rare cancers. There is no dedicated rare cancer taskforce, despite repeated calls from Cancer52, Sarcoma UK and the Brain Tumour Charity. There is no specific ringfenced funding for rare cancer services, despite the complex multidisciplinary care that these conditions require. There are no rare cancer-specific training pathways or fellowships, despite clear evidence from clinicians that a lack of expertise is hampering outcomes. The England rare diseases action plan, published alongside the NHS strategy, takes some welcome steps on collaborative networks and data integration, but rare cancers are again folded into a general framework, rather than given the targeted attention they so desperately need.