Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I do not want to go down the cataracts route, but she and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have both mentioned them. Clearly, cataracts are a relatively low-complexity, high-volume type of operation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that some providers can do five or six operations per list, while other places are doing two or three. That is often about the private sector being able to move more quickly, which is obviously better for patients, as well as for clinicians, who want to do the surgery that they have trained for. Unlike the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I think that competition can play an important role in driving improvement. When providers must attract and retain patients, they have a stronger incentive to deliver timely, high-quality services, and to innovate in how they provide care. In that sense, competition is not an end in itself but a means of improving outcomes and responsiveness for patients. If both sides of the Committee support clause 5, because we are interested in choice and competition, amendment 59 is the logical extension of that. The amendment is also clear about where the new obligation choices would apply. It covers a range of out-of-hospital services, including diagnostics, audiology, hearing-aid care, dietetics, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and so on. By clearly defining the services in scope, it provides a realistic and workable road map for implementation. As I said, the amendment is not about ideology—I think we all agree about choice and competition—but about ensuring that patients receive timely care and have a meaningful choice about where that care is delivered. By fostering healthy competition, making full use of the capacity in the system and putting patients at the centre of the decision-making process, it offers a practical route to improving access and raising standards of care. For those reasons, I support it and commend it to the Committee.

• 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.

• 20 Nov 2025 · World COPD Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate the day after World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease day. He gave an excellent speech, although I think he was being characteristically modest when he mentioned his dancing ability—I am sure he is much better than he claims. As we have heard, COPD is a group of conditions that too often goes unnoticed until it is dangerously advanced. More than 1.7 million people across the UK have a COPD diagnosis. However, NICE estimates that around 600,000 more are living with the condition undiagnosed, and indeed this afternoon we heard figures that are even higher than that. I am fortunate to have a relatively low rate of COPD in my constituency, at about 1.46%, but that figure masks the variation within my constituency. Those differences are reflected across the country: rates are significantly higher in the north of England, and in the 10% most deprived areas the prevalence is nearly double. People living in the poorest areas are five times more likely to die from COPD than those in the wealthiest. Research from Asthma and Lung UK shows that the poorest 10% of households are more than two and a half times more likely to have COPD than someone from the most affluent 10%. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted, this is, in every sense, a disease that tracks inequality. Where someone lives should never decide how long they live, yet for COPD far too often it does. Before the pandemic, around 70% of people diagnosed with COPD said they faced barriers to accessing that diagnosis, and 14% were initially misdiagnosed—often told that they had a chest infection or a lingering cough. Some were simply sent away after raising concerns with their GP. However, the pandemic made a serious problem worse: Government figures demonstrate that already inadequate diagnosis rates plummeted, and they show little sign of recovering. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, spirometry—the gold-standard diagnostic test—which has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, continues to be a problem. The consequences of that pause are stark. There was a 51% reduction in diagnoses in 2020 compared with the year before, meaning that around 46,000 people missed out on a diagnosis in that year alone, and around 92,000 over the course of the pandemic. As the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) said, late diagnosis means more advanced disease and higher mortality, more frequent exacerbations and quicker deterioration in quality of life. Those flare-ups can cause permanent lung damage and require long hospital stays. COPD is now the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions, rising three times faster than general admissions. The pressure on the NHS is enormous: an estimated £3.9 billion a year, including £1.4 billion for exacerbations alone. Lost productivity costs £1.7 billion, and reduced quality of life accounts for a further £2.2 billion. When diagnosis fails, costs rise, outcomes worsen and patients suffer the price of delay. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has rightly pointed out, late diagnosis is not the only driver of pressure. Asthma and Lung UK, formerly the British Lung Foundation, found that patients who received the five fundamentals of COPD care experienced fewer flare-ups and were better equipped to manage their symptoms, yet more than three quarters of respondents said that they were missing at least one part of that basic care. Those with the most recent diagnoses were the least likely to receive the full package, so the situation is getting worse, not better. Asthma and Lung UK notes that many people must effectively learn to navigate the NHS themselves to access the care that they need. That is not acceptable. These are people who are already struggling, and they should not have to fight the system as well as the disease. Around 420,000 people in the UK may have had their working lives cut short by COPD. More than half of respondents to the Asthma and Lung UK survey said that their mental health had worsened since diagnosis, so we can and must do better. The NHS long-term plan includes commitments on respiratory disease, including for early detection and improved access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on progress towards those commitments. This November, waiting lists continue to rise. We need a credible strategy to ensure that the NHS can manage the winter safely while maintaining high-quality care. We need a realistic plan to address the continuing backlog in elective and non-emergency care, and a targeted approach to address persistent gaps in respiratory services. The national respiratory audit programme—formerly the national asthma and COPD audit programme—was launched in 2018 and is led by the Royal College of Physicians. It has been invaluable in identifying gaps and variations in care. As part of the programme, NHS England developed a best practice tariff for COPD, which is met when 60% of COPD patients admitted for an exacerbation receive specialist input after 24 hours and when all COPD patients receive a discharge bundle. I have mentioned it before in the House, but one of my proudest career moments was working for the Getting It Right First Time programme. In 2021, our respiratory medicine report, published by Dr Martin Allen during the pandemic—it was, therefore, focused on the immediate problems—raised a number of issues. For example, pulmonary rehabilitation remains one of the most effective treatments available for COPD. Of those who complete the programme, 90% report better quality of life or improved exercise capacity. The long-term plan proposes expanding access by 2028. If achieved, that could prevent half a million exacerbations and avoid 80,000 admissions. As 2028 is not that far away, will the Minister update on progress towards those targets? The NHS RightCare pathway provides a comprehensive framework for improving diagnosis, management and treatment. It highlights the importance of timely pulmonary rehabilitation and early intervention, so I welcome the Government’s rolling it out. Finally, tackling smoking remains fundamental. Between 2022 and 2023, there were around 400,000 hospital admissions attributable to smoking, and 16% of all respiratory admissions were smoking-related. Between 75% and 85% of COPD deaths remain linked to smoking, yet only around half of COPD inpatient services report having a dedicated tobacco dependency adviser. What are the Government going to do to improve that situation? I call on the Minister to take urgent action, first by implementing a national strategy to raise awareness, strengthen early diagnosis and reduce risk factors such as smoking and air pollution; secondly, by ensuring that all COPD patients have timely access to treatment, pulmonary rehabilitation, and integrated health and social care support for patients and carers; and, thirdly, by committing to increasing research investment, and to introducing innovative treatments and transparent data-driven accountability to improve outcomes and reduce avoidable hospitalisations. We cannot keep treating COPD as a winter crisis when it is, in truth, a year-round emergency. The time to act is now. The evidence is clear. Too many people remain undiagnosed, too many are diagnosed too late, too many do not receive the basic standard of care to which they are entitled and too many end up in hospital when their deterioration could have been prevented. We have the data. We have the clinical consensus. We have the pathways. We do not lack knowledge; we lack resolve. People living with COPD deserve timely, high-quality care and the support that they need to live fuller, healthier lives. It is within our gift to deliver that; let us not fail them.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a six-year-old, I remember the death of Joe McCarthy, who lived on my road in west London, so it is not just about those who lived in Sheffield or elsewhere. It affected everyone across the country, and this Bill is so important for that reason.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right: this Government are focused on metropolitan areas, and constituencies like his and mine, which are rural and semi- rural, are simply left behind. His mention of rail neatly brings me to my points on rail. Rail tells the same story as buses. Three of my four major towns have train stations, but Bordon, the third largest one, has none, and the lines that do exist are fragmented and unreliable. Only this week, the 7.28 from Farnham to Waterloo was cancelled. Too often, peak-time trains arrive at Haslemere or Liphook with just four coaches. When I challenged South Western Railway on that, I was told that to avoid cancellations nearer London, it reassigned carriages away from my area. I made it clear: my commuters are not second-class citizens, and that needs to change. At South Western’s Farnham depot this summer, I pressed the company directly on the £250 million Arterio fleet, which is meant to relieve overcrowding but is still sitting idle for want of drivers or because of faults. I secured assurances of change, and I will now hold the company to account. Meanwhile, as I mentioned, the Government wasted £250 million nationalising South Western Railway. That money could have delivered a permanent Bordon-to-Liphook bus link for 1,000 years. Instead, urban areas get Crossrail and trams, while my constituents get cancellations and four-carriage trains. That is clearly not acceptable. Much more help is needed for my constituents. Rural communities such as mine cannot keep being treated as second class. Levelling up, economic growth and net zero—all laudable aims—mean nothing if millions of people in my constituency and the surrounding areas cannot get a bus on a Sunday, or a train with more than four carriages on a Monday morning. That is the reality of Labour’s transport policy: higher fares, wasted money and broken promises. That is unacceptable to my constituents and, I hope, unacceptable to the constituents of every single Member of this House.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  In just one year, this Labour Government have already failed rural Britain on transport. They have scrapped the £2 bus fare cap, pushing up costs for working people; they have wasted £250 million in the process of nationalising South Western Railway, while my commuters are still stuck with cancelled peak services; and they continue to pour billions of pounds into London, while communities such as Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook in my constituency are left behind. My constituency is just 40 miles from London, yet the difference in connectivity is stark. London enjoys a world-class system—well, when it is not being held to ransom by greedy tube driver unions, as is the case this week—but Farnham, Haslemere, Bordon and Liphook are treated very differently. The contrast with London is outrageous. In the capital, there is a bus stop every 400 metres and services run every five to 10 minutes throughout the night. In my constituency, buses are 30 to 90 minutes apart, if they run at all, and many disappear entirely after 7 pm. Students at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham cannot get to Guildford in the evening. Meanwhile, Londoners can choose from over 100 night bus routes. Whereas passengers in London pay a fixed £1.75 fare, people in rural Surrey and Hampshire pay much more, because Labour hiked the cap. My constituents will remember that Labour put up their fares, which is why I took action. I convened the Bordon taskforce to bring Stagecoach, local councils and local leaders around the table, and the results speak for themselves. The newly revised No. 18 bus service now runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, and hourly on Sundays, linking Bordon, Whitehill, Farnham and Aldershot. The No. 13 service between Bordon, Alton and Basingstoke has also been strengthened, with six Sunday return journeys. Stagecoach even trialled free travel this June after my push for better value. These are tangible improvements that make life easier for thousands of people, but gaps still remain. It is extraordinary that there is no bus connection between Bordon and Petersfield—only 11 miles apart—except for a single school service. That is why I am in talks with East Hampshire district council to establish a new route, modelled on the Waverley “hospital hoppa”—a scheme for which I secured funding in Farnham.