Gregory Stafford
MP for Farnham and Bordon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“As I have mentioned before, the spanking new dental surgery in Haslemere hospital has sat entirely unused since it was built, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to use it.”
“My first point can be summarised as: “Don’t repeat a mistake to find out whether it was a mistake.” Thousands of children have already received puberty blockers through the former Tavistock pathway, and my view is that, before exposing a whole new cohort, the Government should complete the long-promised data linkage study to establish wha…”
“I declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Patient safety cannot be something that is discussed only after a tragedy has occurred. It requires a culture of accountability, transparency, and most importantly, action.”
“That is a complete contradiction of the ban. Thirdly, clinical equipoise does not exist in the evidence if the evidence already points to significant risk and uncertain benefit. The Cass review concluded that the evidence base for puberty blockers is weak and that concerns remain over bone health, fertility and neurodevelopment.”
“Such a process and principle are closely connected with new clause 98 and the Government response to the Hughes report on those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Those are deeply serious issues involving people who have suffered life-changing consequences and have spent years seeking recognition and redress.”
“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…”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Gregory Stafford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“T7. Given the ongoing national security concerns, including the risk of foreign interference in elections, will the Home Secretary set out what her Department is doing to ensure that individuals convicted of terrorism offences are prevented from standing for elected office in the UK?”
“I support a number of the things that the hon. Lady is saying about the dangers of online harms, especially for children, but I am unclear about her position on a social media ban for those under 16. Although I accept her overall point, which is that social media companies have a responsibility, we could send them a really clear signal, and protect children, by bringing in an immediate ban on under-16s using social media. Does she support that or not?”
“Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am very convinced of the need for a social media ban. That is why I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s stance on that. On his point about communities, schools and parents, if we do not go for a full ban, there are some technologies that could be used. I think of Jason in my constituency, who runs a company called Orbiri. He is looking to set up communities, where a school—maybe a class or a whole school—can set the parameters for usage time and the sites and apps that are used, so parents do not feel that they are alone but are part of a wider community, all working together to limit and control the social media usage of their children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something like that would help?”
“Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to “be as open as possible with Parliament” and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?”
“Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Finally, how do the Government intend to encourage private and corporate philanthropy beyond the major cities—for example, through place-based giving incentives, as suggested in the Hodge review? Our museums are not just custodians of the past, but living educational and cultural resources at the heart of our communities. They deserve practical support to ensure they can continue to thrive, educate and inspire future generations.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is rare that we agree on anything, so she will be slightly disappointed now. There is a distinct difference between looking back at movements and discourse that happened in the past and what that museum was doing: promoting a political cause of the moment. I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, have the Government considered ringfencing local authority funding for cultural purposes in order to safeguard local museums? Secondly, what practical support is available to smaller museums to help them to navigate funding applications, manage financial risk and collaborate more effectively with national institutions?”
“I think I made the point very clearly to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), but I will repeat it now. My concern is not about museums representing accurately what happened in the past—that is obvious. What I am against is museums using taxpayers’ money to push a current political cause. Extinction Rebellion is not a historical organisation. It is active now, and museums should not be pushing its agenda.”
“Can the Minister confirm whether the head of the Government’s propriety and ethics team was appointed without an external recruitment process or written ministerial sign-off, in an apparent breach of its own rules? If so, is this further proof of a lack of transparency and accountability, and of a failure to uphold the propriety and ethics at the heart of this Government?”
“A few moments ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated to me that the appointment of the head of the propriety and ethics team was done by an external recruitment process. Will he tell me how many other people were interviewed?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The name of the Labour Member of Parliament whose husband has been arrested is circulating widely via the media. I do not intend to name that Member of Parliament, but if the reports are true, that Member of Parliament sits on a Select Committee that would have sensitive, maybe even secret, information and, through totally legitimate means, has visited a number of our defence sites across the country. Has there been, or will there be, an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to and, at the appropriate juncture, will the Minister release any correspondence between his Department and that Member of Parliament on things such as the Chinese embassy and other matters relating to China?”
“Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?”
“I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?”
“Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.”
“4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector in Scotland.”
“It is clear that the Secretary of State is totally uninterested in the reality of what is happening in the industry because of the EPL. A thousand jobs a month are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s decision, all the while we are importing more at a higher cost with high emissions, jobs are being lost, investments are being turned away and our energy security is being undermined. At the same time, despite what the Secretary of State says, bills are going up for my constituents. Why will he not rectify that and sort out the problem for the whole country?”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Seven months ago, the NHS 10-year plan promised a maternity taskforce. May I ask the Minister how many times it has met?”
“The fact that the taskforce has not even met, seven months later, tells us everything we need to know about how urgent and important the Government consider this issue. In Leeds, families are losing faith in the failing maternity services. The Secretary of State said that he takes the matter “extremely seriously”, yet Donna Ockenden—who exposed the failings in Nottingham, has the support of families, and has said that she is ready and willing to lead the inquiry—has not been appointed. If the Minister and the Secretary of State take this issue extremely seriously, why have they not appointed a chair yet?”
“17. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of energy infrastructure-related technologies imported from China on security.”