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 11 of 13.
“Given reports from Norway and Denmark that Chinese-manufactured electric buses contain remote kill switch technology, and that the recent UK-China engagement appears to have delivered an embassy for the Chinese and little more than a Labubu for the United Kingdom, how can the Minister be confident that Chinese-made energy infrastructure does not pose similar national security risks? What steps is she taking to remove our reliance on Chinese-made infrastructure?”
“Let me go back to the process that the Prime Minister followed. He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test the answers that Peter Mandelson gave with the vetting and security service? If he did not, it can mean only one of two things: either the Prime Minister has committed a dereliction of duty or he is a credulous fool. Either way, should he not resign?”
“Given that—rightly, I think—the hon. Gentleman would not have appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States of America, does he think that the Prime Minister made the right decision, and will he ever again have confidence that the Prime Minister can make the right decision on any other national security issue?”
“I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. I agree with him about the need to use moderate language and be representatives of our constituents, but in addition to that, we are elected to this place—I would hope—because of our judgment and the trust of our electorate. Whatever the outcome of this debate and of these documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew and our constituents knew—we all knew, and we discovered at about 12 o’clock today that the Prime Minister also knew —that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does the hon. Member think that the Prime Minister can still command the trust of this House and the public?”
“Since the 2024 Budget, Labour has made a deliberate political choice to increase the burden on retail, hospitality and leisure. Those are not marginal sectors—they are the lifeblood of our town centres, as major employers and key drivers of local economic activity.”
“If the debate were simply an exercise in cataloguing failure, we would be here all day. Instead, I will focus on the real-world consequences of that incompetence for the small and medium-sized businesses that keep our economy moving. In my constituency, I repeatedly hear the same message from business owners about staffing pressures, soaring energy bills and rising financial costs, which in many cases have more than trebled as a direct result of decisions taken by this Government. That is not anecdote; it is reflected clearly in the data. Research from Xero shows just how precarious the situation has become: two in five SMEs do not even know whether they were profitable last month. That is not confidence; that is business flying blind.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of taxation on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I am grateful to colleagues for attending this debate. Small and medium sized-enterprises are the backbone of our economy. They create jobs, sustain local communities and keep our high streets alive. However, since the autumn Budget 2024, they have been met with higher taxes, higher costs and a Government who appear indifferent to whether they survive at all. It is almost impossible to know where to start with this debate, given the Government’s complete failure on the economy and sustained neglect of business and enterprise. The Prime Minister speaks the language of growth, but lacks the backbone to take the decisions needed to achieve it.”
“I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I have held roundtables with hospitality businesses, which are saying the same thing as others: they want to see a cut in business rates. The Conservative pledge to entirely scrap business rates for businesses with bills under £110,000 is the right step and would be welcomed by business. I hope the Minister will take up that idea; good ideas should be taken up by the Government, but they seem to have a problem with doing that. In mentioning business rates, my hon. Friend reminds me that the Labour party manifesto—which I am sure you read, Mr Dowd—pledged that “Labour will replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way.” That clearly has not happened, because businesses are being hammered.”
“I hope the Minister is listening; this is a problem not just for constituencies in the south but across the country. It is not just Conservative or Lib Dem Members raising the issue—clearly Labour Members have the same problem. The Minister should look at all good ideas, but current Treasury orthodoxy is to carry on with what it is doing, and to tax anything that looks like enterprise, business or job creation, which will destroy our economy and harm our high streets.”
“They raised serious concerns about the extended producer responsibility packaging tax. Packaging is obviously mandated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for safety reasons, leaving companies with little ability to reduce their tax liability. As a result, costs are either absorbed or passed directly on to the NHS and therefore the taxpayer.”
“Across my constituency, community businesses such as the Antiques Warehouse, the Packhouse, the Bluebell pub, Serina, the Six Bells, the Healy Group, and Hamilton’s in Farnham; Acorns Coffee, the Dairy, Issaya and Smallworld IT in Bordon; Oliver’s café and wine bar and Davids menswear in Haslemere; Passfield Stores in Passfield; Little Latte in Tilford; the General Wine Company and Stedman Blower in Liphook; and the Greatham Inn in Greatham have all written or spoken to me and are facing the same relentless squeeze from Government tax and regulatory decisions. These are not failing businesses; they are community anchors being priced out by this Government’s policies. These issues are not confined to hospitality. Yesterday I met representatives of Medicines UK to discuss the impact of Government policy on suppliers of generic medicines.”
“These pressures are not theoretical; they are being felt by real businesses across my constituency. For example, at Birdies café in Farnham Park, business rates have increased by 450%—from £290 to £1,600 a month—a change that has already cost the business a member of staff. Energy bills have risen from £300 to £400 a month to £3,500 a month, while rising wage costs and changes to employment law have forced the owner into rolling three-month contracts—a worse outcome for workers, driven entirely by the Government’s pressure and policies. At the Bat and Ball pub, business rates are doubling from £800 to £1,600 a month. Minimum wage changes have added £56,000 a year to its wage bill.”
“The £90,000 VAT registration threshold actively discourages growth and creates perverse incentives for firms to cap expansion. The Government have ignored repeated calls for a reduced VAT rate of 12.5% for hospitality, a policy that would support growth, improve competitiveness and align the UK with many of our European neighbours. The refusal to act is holding back an entire sector. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), is chuntering from his seat. I am sure he will be able to hold his own debate at some point to tell us all what is going on in his constituency. I suspect that, if he were honest, he would tell us about the impact that his Government’s policies have had on the sector, and how they are absolutely destroying his high street, as they are mine.”
“Just one in 20 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will benefit, and even then the average pub will still be paying £5,700 more in business rates than before. Business rates are simply not being reduced, and those pressures are compounded by the changes to employer national insurance contributions introduced at the 2024 Budget. For the hospitality sector alone, that amounts to £1 billion every single year. More than 774,000 hospitality workers have been dragged into employer national insurance for the first time, disproportionately affecting part-time staff such as bar workers and waiting staff. Flexible work is being punished. Young workers are being hit hardest, and employing people is becoming more expensive at precisely the wrong moment. That is not pro-growth and it is not pro-work. VAT policy has also failed small businesses.”
“Yet the Government slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40%—an ideological and damaging decision—which will be followed by eye-watering increases in rateable values from April this year. UKHospitality data shows that the average pub will see its business rates rise by 15% in the first year, climbing to a 76% increase by year three. At the same time, online and out-of-town competitors are being protected. Distribution warehouses used by online giants will see increases of just 9% in year one and 16% by year three. This is not a level playing field; it is actively tilted against the high street. The Government’s so-called emergency pubs relief, announced this year, does little to address the scale of the problem. It is a sticking plaster, not a solution.”
“I thank the hon. Member for, as always, bringing his experience from Northern Ireland. That emphasises the point that I was making: this is a whole-country problem. He is absolutely right that we are on a knife edge. We are at a tipping point for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and if they go under, the consequences will be dire. If one wants to speak Treasury speak, that means the Treasury will actually raise less money. The only way that the Treasury will raise more money is by freeing up businesses to expand, grow and employ more people. That is how we will get our economy going, not by taxing every single business until the pips squeak. I turn now to hospitality, which has been a focus of mine since I was elected. It underpins community life and provides work for young people and for those who rely on flexible hours.”
“If the measures are taken together, the Government are heavily taxing lifesaving medicine, often at higher rates than in comparable systems overseas, with clear implications for supply and sustainability. In my November debate on alcohol duty—which I am sure you read in detail in Hansard, Mr Dowd—I was disappointed by the Exchequer Secretary’s dismissal of the impact of tax rises on hospitality. Since October 2024, 90,000 hospitality jobs have disappeared. If that many jobs had gone from a car plant or an oil refinery, the House would be in uproar, but because it is pubs and cafés, Ministers look the other way. That is a scandal.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One perverse outcome of the many taxes that the Government have put on is that although the NHS is, rightly, exempt from some of these tax rises, those who operate around the NHS—for example, care homes, hospices and other charitable institutions—are being hit. Even GP surgeries are being hit. This is the nonsense that we are seeing from this Government: people taking policy off the shelf from Treasury civil servants without understanding the real-world impact that it will have on businesses, the charitable sector and, in general, our constituents. As my hon. Friend suggests, these are taxes on the NHS by another name. Extended producer responsibility sits alongside the VPAG—voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—levy, which takes 10% to 35% of NHS sales from manufacturers.”
“The Prime Minister talks about growth, but refuses to show the backbone required to deliver it. The Government’s failure on business and enterprise is not abstract; it is written into higher taxes, lost jobs and boarded-up high streets. If Ministers continue to ignore that, we really could spend all day listing the consequences. With the spending review now replaced by an Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, the Government have eight or perhaps nine months before the next autumn Budget. I urge them to use that time wisely. Boost business; do not blight it. Support SMEs; do not punish them, because when local businesses fail, communities pay the price.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It would be fairer to see some equity between the online providers and the retailers that are physically on the high street and that have to pay things like business rates. I can see the Minister has heard his point and, I am sure, will respond to it; whether the hon. Gentleman will get the answer that he wants, I am less certain. To go back to my point, because it is pubs and cafés that jobs are being lost from, Ministers look the other way, which is a scandal. I urge Treasury Ministers to review the cumulative burden placed on small and medium-sized enterprises through tax and regulation. I will take any response from the Minister today directly to the hospitality roundtable that I am hosting this Friday with publicans, restaurateurs and café owners. I will return to where I began.”
“The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?”
“The routine use of licence extensions is concerning because it allows firearms to remain in circulation without a timely, full reassessment of suitability. Meanwhile, some of the Government’s proposals will not help with public safety, but will put additional burdens on the police force or make them more likely.”
“If shotguns are to be regulated like long-range rifles, how do the Government expect farmers and pest controllers to continue their work? Given that, as we have heard, many police firearms licensing departments are overwhelmed by the volume of applications, has there been any consideration of the delays that extra work for these departments would create? One of my constituents recently submitted a renewal application within the timeframe recommended by the police, allowing more than six months for processing. The only response received was, by return of post, an extension of the existing licence, as the department acknowledged that it would be unable to issue a new licence within the six-month period.”
“Without them, it would be impossible to protect livestock and manage the local population of certain animals, as farming communities have done for centuries. None the less, without any particular justification, and without ever proving that it would actually prevent criminals from getting hold of firearms, the Government have announced that they plan to regulate section 2 firearms, such as shotguns, under the more stringent regime that previously applied only to section 1 firearms. We have heard vague gestures in the direction of public safety, but no clear case has been made for the substantive measures proposed, and we certainly have had no indication from the Government that they have considered the particular needs of rural communities.”
“Protecting the integrity of the firearms licensing system is essential for public safety, but any measures must remain proportionate and avoid placing unnecessary burdens on medical professionals or responsible licence holders. As we have seen so often in recent years, the net result of successive, well-intentioned changes to the law can be a system that makes life unduly difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding people, while failing to stop the criminal minority. Unfortunately, under this Government, we have seen a renewed assault on civilian firearms ownership, which is set to directly punish those in rural communities who rely on firearms as tools of the trade. For farmers, land managers and pest controllers, firearms are part and parcel of everyday life, and access to those tools is vital.”
“As has been mentioned, while the firearms marker is not mandatory, a digital version has been rolled out to all general practices in England, with implementation completed in May 2023. The key point that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned was that the Government must continue to monitor the efficacy of the current system to ensure that only those who are suitable are able to hold a firearms licence and, more especially, to publish the data surrounding that. As has been mentioned, many organisations are supportive of mandatory markers, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but we must have the data to take an evidence-led approach.”
“Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) discussed the synergies between gun licences and other licensing regimes—in his case, for pilots. I look forward to him taking me on a trip at some point. I also thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for her, as ever, interesting contributions, drawing on her rural experience. Whenever we decide to create new rules that restrict the behaviour of the many in response to the actions of the few, we must be extremely careful. Where genuine loopholes exist because of data silos, or because of how long-standing rules interact with novel cases, it is right that they are closed.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I usually respond to matters related to the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is a pleasure to be here to debate a more rural point. I represent Farnham and Bordon, which is a semi-rural seat. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I must declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance and a member of the Conservative Rural Forum. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for her expositions of very many tragic cases, especially her powerful remarks about the appalling case of Emma and Lettie Pattison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his very practical approach to this debate; I think the Government should take on board the number of issues he raised.”
“I think there has been clear agreement in this debate on the need for a licensing system that protects the public, does not overburden the police or the NHS, stops and punishes wrongdoers, and recognises the special need that people in rural communities have for responsible gun ownership. Therefore, I urge the Minister to approach this issue with an evidence-based, proportionate and fair attitude, protecting the public and protecting our rural way of life.”
“Far too often it is the law-abiding who are punished by rules that are created in this place, even when those rules were designed with the most sincere intention of targeting the criminal few. Can the Minister provide clarity on when we can expect the consultation on the proposed changes to shotgun licensing? Can he assure us today that the final verdict of the consultation will take full account of those across rural Britain, whose livelihoods will be rendered impossible by these proposals? Can he further assure us that, before considering any new regulations, the Government will first consider a renewed focus on enforcing the law as it already stands?”
“Have these questions been asked at all within the Home Office or, as in so many other cases, have the Government simply failed to consider the needs of rural communities? It is clearly true that, wherever possible, our firearms licensing rules should prevent weapons from falling into the hands of those who wish to use them only to do harm to others, but any new changes to the law must account for the fact that life in the countryside is very different from life in our largest cities. We must afford some space for discretion and for recognising the particular needs of certain communities. We must also always be sure that new rules would actually make life more difficult for wrongdoers, instead of allowing good intentions to lead us into making life more difficult for the law-abiding majority.”
“My hon. Friend is entirely right. It seems to me that this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Government, without them understanding the logistics or the mechanics of the difference between the long-range rifles and shotguns used by our rural communities— [ Interruption. ] And, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, without actually seeing the evidence for it. Whether we are talking about medical markers or the changes to the shotgun licensing regime, the key thing is that it must be done on the basis of evidence. I therefore ask the Minister: has there been any consideration of the disruption that these delays will cause to those in rural communities who rely on firearms for work?”
“I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to impress something upon the Minister. When he spoke about the uses of shotguns, he talked about target shooting and hunting. I gently say to him that these firearms are needed for far more than sport; they are used for land management and for farming. I encourage him, if he has not already, to meet the organisations that represent rural communities to understand how vital shotguns are for rural land management.”
“The Secretary of State mentioned the need for more medical staff across the world and, of course, in this country as well. At the general election, he pledged to double the number of medical school places by 2030. Is that still a commitment, and how far has he got with it?”
“The amendment would ensure that reforms designed to strengthen transparency, meritocracy and the workforce will take effect when they are needed most. That clarity is particularly important given the absence of a published NHS workforce plan. We need certainty for doctors that delivers stability for services, which in turn delivers better patient care and better outcomes. That is the standard by which this Bill should be judged, and it is the standard it must meet.”
“Why not give doctors and patients certainty by bringing it into force immediately on Royal Assent? This House has a responsibility to put patients first, not leave patient care hostage to industrial negotiations. That is why I strongly support amendment 1, which would ensure that the Bill comes into force at the moment of Royal Assent. It removes unnecessary delays, ambiguity, and the risk that these reforms will be postponed indefinitely while workforce and pay disputes continue. UK medical graduates, hospitals and training bodies need certainty that the rules will apply from day one, so that allocations, protections for those trained on military postings, and fairness measures can begin to operate without delay.”
“What assessment has been made of how many UK graduates will still be unable to access foundation or specialty training even after this legislation is passed, and what will that mean for patient access to care in the coming years? Patients in many parts of the country already struggle to access GPs, psychiatrists and emergency medicine specialists. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister ensure that these reforms do not inadvertently worsen shortages in hard-to-recruit specialties or underserved areas? Finally, there is the question of credibility. If this Bill is genuinely good for patients, good for workforce stability and good for the NHS, why should its implementation depend on a ministerial decision at some undefined point in time?”
“If the Government genuinely believe that prioritising UK graduates will strengthen the workforce, why is the commencement of this Bill discretionary at all? What assurance can the Minister give patients that these reforms will not be delayed indefinitely while negotiations continue? Patients have already endured significant disruption from industrial action—hundreds of thousands of appointments and operations have been cancelled or rescheduled. Without further pay concessions, can the Minister explain how this Bill will reduce the risk of future disruption, or is she effectively accepting that patients may face continued instability? There is also the question of scale. The BMA itself has said that the Bill does not go far enough to close the gap between applicants and available training posts.”
“Before Christmas, Ministers openly discussed this legislation in the context of talks with the BMA. The implication was clear: progress on training reform was conditional. Now, months later, with industrial action ongoing, it appears that the same dynamic may be emerging again. That approach undermines confidence among doctors and, far more importantly, undermines care for patients. If a measure will improve the NHS for patients and doctors alike, it should be implemented because it is right, not because it is tactically useful. That leads me to a number of questions for the Minister to answer when she responds, which are all grounded in patient outcomes. Patients need capacity and certainty. They need more doctors progressing through training, not further delays and ambiguity.”
“However, in pressing its case so aggressively, the BMA has inadvertently shone a spotlight on a genuine and serious problem in the system: a broken training and progression pathway that leaves UK doctors without secure routes into the NHS. That problem is real, it affects patients, and it must be addressed regardless of the outcome of pay negotiations. That is precisely why this Bill matters and why it must not be treated as a bargaining chip, yet that is exactly the risk created by the way in which the Bill is drafted. It will come into force only when the Secretary of State gives permission. In theory, that may appear sensible; in practice, it allows a patient-benefiting reform to be delayed, diluted, or deployed as leverage in negotiations.”
“Resident doctors have received cumulative pay rises approaching 30% over recent years—among the highest in the public sector. Despite this, industrial action has continued. It is increasingly clear that the BMA is determined to extract every possible concession from the Government, using sustained disruption as leverage. While I do not align myself with some of the Secretary of State’s more inflammatory language, I do share the realisation he has belatedly reached: that repeated above-inflation pay settlements have not brought this dispute to an end, and that further concessions risk rewarding brinkmanship rather than restoring stability for patients.”
“They ensure that UK medical graduates are properly recognised as such, that training programmes are UK-based in substance rather than just name, and that allocation of training places is grounded firmly in merit, clinical knowledge, aptitude and performance. Patients, quite rightly, expect their doctors to be selected on ability and doctors expect fairness, and those principles should command support across this House. I also welcome new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which addresses growing concern among doctors and patients about the erosion of merit-based progression. When merit is undermined, morale suffers; when morale suffers, retention suffers, performance suffers, and ultimately patient safety suffers. As such, the context of this Bill matters.”
“This is not a niche concern affecting a handful of individuals; it is a systemic failure that directly impacts patients. When trained doctors are unable to progress, fewer reach consultant and GP level in the years ahead. Services become overstretched, continuity of care is lost and waiting lists grow even longer. That is why I support the intention behind the Bill. Prioritising UK medical graduates, ensuring that the UK foundation programme is genuinely delivered in the United Kingdom and restoring confidence in the medical training pipeline are all necessary steps if we are serious about rebuilding NHS capacity for the benefit of patients. I have supported amendments to this Bill because they strengthen those aims.”
“At the heart of the Bill is a simple test: does the Bill improve care for patients? Every delay in training, every cancelled clinic and every rota gap caused by workforce instability ultimately lands on the patient. It means longer waits, greater travel distances and, in too many cases, care that comes too late. I was recently contacted by my Farnham and Bordon constituent, Dr R, as I will call her, who is a UK-trained medical graduate. Like thousands of others, she completed her studies in good faith, expecting a clear and credible pathway into the NHS. Instead, she now finds herself in a system where non-training posts are disappearing, competition ratios for training places are rising sharply and the holding pattern roles that once allowed junior doctors to remain clinically active while reapplying have all but vanished.”
“The Home Secretary quoted Sir Robert Peel at the top of her speech, saying that he was “speaking at this very Dispatch Box”. She clearly has not realised that those Dispatch Boxes were donated by New Zealand after the second world war. Even if she was talking more figuratively, this whole Chamber was destroyed in 1834 after Peel said those words. The accuracy that she sacrificed for rhetoric continued throughout her speech. Following discussions that I have had with the chief constables of Surrey and Hampshire, who are against these proposals, may I ask a question? If chief constables across the country, such as those in Surrey and Hampshire, are against her proposals when her review concludes, will she scrap the proposals—or is this a review in name only?”
“T7. Last week, the Government briefing suggested that the security services were “relaxed” about the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, yet this week, we have learned that MI5 has been asked to reroute sensitive financial cables because of it. Will the Minister for Security explain how both those statements can be true, and tell the House which one reflects the Government’s assessment of the security risk and threat from that embassy?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned and powerful speech on this matter, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think he is being somewhat polite in the way he describes what this unitary authority is going to be. Essentially, if it is saddled with the debt from Woking and a number of other boroughs, it will essentially be stillborn from the start, and residents in my areas of Farnham, Haslemere and the other Surrey villages that I represent will be worse off because of it. Does he not agree that the Government must write off that legacy debt, or at the very least ring- fence it, so that our constituents do not face the problems —to be frank, the absolute mess—left by other boroughs and their politicians?”
“From what the Minister says, it sounds as if she accepts that the remaining debt is still unsustainable to be dealt with at a local level. Is she teasing us with a future announcement of further moneys, or is it more of a general ambition?”
“The Minister is being extraordinarily generous with her time, but I do not want her to miss the opportunity to respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about a Surrey mayor. Will she confirm whether we will get a mayor in Surrey before the end of this parliamentary term?”
“First, I welcome the Government’s announcement of a 5% funding uplift, but given rising costs and national insurance increases, how much of that is a real-terms increase and how much will go directly to frontline services for victims? Secondly, when will mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training for all NHS staff formally begin? What will its roll-out look like and when will the entire workforce have completed it? Finally, what assessment has the Department made of the case for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse, to ensure that victims receive early, trauma-informed support? We will not prevent violence against women by abolishing institutions, cutting local capacity and releasing dangerous men early.”