Gregory Stafford MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I would urge the hon. Gentleman not to misquote the two right hon. Members that he has just quoted. Even if the quotes that he gave were whole and full—which they are not—the DPP has categorically said that it was not about policy; it was about whether China was an actual threat at the time. Is the DPP right, or does the hon. Gentleman have some other information?

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain to my constituents how banning new drilling for oil and gas while importing gas from other countries at a higher cost will bring their bills down by £300, and can he say when that will happen by?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government is so low—I think that it was about 12% in the last poll—it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce such a reckless policy, which fundamentally affects personal freedom and privacy without a clear case, clear cost or, most importantly, clear consent, because it was not in the manifesto. My constituents feel that this decision is being forced on them without consultation, without explanation and without consent. Like many others, I have deep concerns about privacy, data security and Government overreach. People are rightly worried that digital ID could pave the way for intrusion into areas such as banking, health records or even social credit-style monitoring. Other Members have raised the issues around digital exclusion, which I entirely agree with, and most importantly the cost of the scheme. We must oppose digital ID every time that it comes in front of us. As has already been said, 3 million people have signed a public petition opposing digital ID. The message from my constituents and from the wider public is simple: the proposal is unwanted, unjustified and unwise. The Government should stop, listen and think again. My constituents demand transparency, safeguards and solid evidence that any proposed system will genuinely solve real problems without sacrificing privacy, liberty or fairness.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I recently conducted a local survey after being contacted by hundreds of constituents about this digital ID issue. The results were clear. Over two thirds of respondents opposed the introduction of mandatory digital ID, with the majority of them being “strongly” against it. Over 80% of respondents said that they believed such a system would infringe on personal privacy and do little to tackle illegal migration. Around 30% of respondents supported some form of digital identification, often for specific limited purposes. However, even among that group, most respondents said that they did not believe it would meaningfully address illegal migration or illegal working.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions digital exclusion. Some 28% of people over the age of 75 do not have a smartphone. How are they going to access digital ID?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to give the Minister a fifth chance to answer. Did the Home Secretary make representations when she discovered that the case was about to collapse—yes or no?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement · Hansard source

  More

  On 25 September, the Prime Minister assured the BBC that veterans would receive protections not afforded to paramilitaries, so can the Secretary of State confirm which of the statutory protections will apply solely to veterans? Or is it the case that they will also extend to paramilitaries?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister described those receiving the money as “true patriots”, but in my constituency we have not received a single penny of this funding. Are my constituents not true patriots? There are plenty of places in the north of Farnham and potentially in Bordon that could really do with using this money. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency so that I can show her the places that need the money, and the amazing job that others are doing already.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with comments on the warm and welcome news of the ceasefire, and I hope it leads to a lasting peace. What assurances has the Prime Minister received from neighbouring partners, particularly Egypt, and what specific actions will he take, first to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach Gaza and, secondly, that it is only humanitarian that reaches Gaza, and that weapons, personnel and matériel that could aid terrorists do not enter Gaza?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here. The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight. As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the Bill Committee, I had the opportunity to closely examine the development and scrutiny of this Bill alongside my Opposition colleagues. We sought to strengthen the legislation, particularly in relation to safeguarding children and ensuring robust protections for those admitted under the Mental Health Act framework. Given the shortness of time, I will speak only about amendments 41 and 42. They make the vital clarification that the nominated person for any patient under the age of 16 must have parental or guardian responsibility unless there are clear and established safeguarding concerns. In essence, that would ensure that the parents remain the lawful decision-makers and the first and most natural safeguards for their child’s welfare. Let us consider, for a moment, what is at stake. Imagine a vulnerable 14-year-old girl, frightened and confused during a psychiatric admission. In that moment of distress, a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—could persuade the child to nominate them as their representative. That individual would then gain legal powers to object to treatment or discharge decisions, while the parents—the very people who know the child best and have both a moral and legal duty to protect them—could be sidelined. Once such a nomination is witnessed, it carries legal force. The rights and responsibilities of parents could, in effect, be overridden. Although that may sound hypothetical, it is not. Family courts have seen precisely how manipulative individuals exploit vulnerable young people. Groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in the legal grey zones. If we are not crystal clear that only a court may displace parental responsibility, we risk leaving the door ajar for such exploitation. I ask the Minister to assure the House in winding up that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental authority simply by nominating someone else, without a full and proper judicial process. The Bill does have fallback provisions, which are of course welcome, but they are not watertight unless the law explicitly confirms that only a court can transfer or restrict parental rights.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Draft Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Ms McVey. As we have heard, the order before us will, broadly speaking, enable pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to take primary responsibility for the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines in pharmacies and hospital aseptic facilities. Like the Minister, I thank the thousands of pharmacists across the country for the way they serve our communities, both in the community and in hospital settings. The Conservatives will not be opposing this legislation. The current model of medical dispensing centralises responsibility upon the shoulders of the pharmacist, taking their clinical skills away from treating patients and underutilising qualified pharmacy technicians. It is clearly sensible, therefore, for both pharmacists and technicians to work at the top of their remit. That will be more rewarding for them and more efficient for the NHS. That is why the Conservative Government launched a consultation in 2023 on retaining the need for each pharmacy to have a responsible pharmacist but enabling them to delegate more straightforward tasks to technicians. The risk of doing so is low, and it is further lowered by the fact that, in Great Britain, pharmacy technician is a regulated profession. I am therefore pleased to see that this Government have picked up the baton from the previous Conservative Government, and we welcome the new legislation in principle. However, I do have a few questions for the Minister. First, embedded within these provisions is a total reliance on “supervision” and “authorisation”, yet clarity of definition is missing on how those will operate in practice for a pharmacist authorising a pharmacy technician to dispense medicines. I note that 76% of pharmacists in the consultation shared that anxiety. The Government assure us that there will be a transition period to enable the General Pharmaceutical Council to update its 2005 guidance on pharmacist supervision, but the length of that transition period remains uncertain. Will the Minister confirm the length of that transition period to ensure that regulators can put the correct safeguards in place to preserve accountability when it comes to the rather loose terms of “supervision” and “authorisation”? What guidance has he provided to the regulator on those guidelines? This is a particularly important clarification, given the Government’s preference for oral authorisation, which, although flexible, leaves pharmacists without specific written record-keeping. As the Minister knows, not all pharmacies have a pharmacy technician. In fact, NHS England’s 2023 community pharmacy workforce survey found that there were 17,666 full-time employed pharmacists and 4,324 pharmacy technicians. The impact assessment notes that smaller pharmacies are less likely to have a technician, so larger pharmacies will be able to dispense more cheaply and develop a broader service. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect on rural, remote or small family pharmacies? What plans does he have to monitor the effect of the consolidation on travel distances and patient choice? With the time freed up by delegation of tasks, pharmacists will be able to provide contraception services, blood-pressure checks and vaccinations. They will also be able to expand Pharmacy First provision—another great service introduced by the previous Government, I note. However, as a new service, Pharmacy First was introduced within a fixed funding envelope, so what plans does the Minister have to expand that service? Finally, what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland regarding the establishment of a regulated profession of pharmacy technicians there? As Conservatives, we welcome improving efficiency and giving patients faster access to appointments and prescriptions. For those reasons, the changes are to be welcomed. I conclude by paying tribute to officials in the Department, and organisations outside this House, who have worked hard to get these updated provisions before us today.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of baby loss certificates following the pregnancy loss review under the last Government was a vital step in recognising bereaved parents’ grief and offering support on their terms?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading the debate on this petition. Across my Farnham and Bordon constituency, we are fortunate to have excellent specialist provision: in the community, we have Hollywater school; on the independent side, we have the Undershaw Education Trust, More House and Pathways; and in the academy sector, we have The Abbey and Ridgeway. But however good those providers are, the wider picture is stark. Demand is surging, particularly for autism and social, emotional and mental health needs. Surrey is rightly investing, with nearly £190 million committed to expand provision and create thousands of new places, and an extra £4.9 million was approved in July to recruit staff and reduce caseloads. Three new special schools are planned as part of the long-term SEND capital programme, but that programme and that progress is in jeopardy. The Department for Education has just paused the capital funding for those schools—funding agreed under the last Conservative Government to expand local provision and reduce reliance on the independent sector. Without it, Surrey faces a shortfall of 500 places, forcing children into the independent sector at an extra cost of roughly £26.5 million each year. Surrey has made it clear that it cannot meet the Department’s targets without that funding, which is why I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask why this funding has been withheld, what bridging support will be offered and how the Department will ensure that vulnerable children are not left waiting at the start of the term. So far, there has been no response. In Surrey, there have been constructive cross-party discussions on these issues. I particularly want to recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) has worked closely with me, not just for her constituents, but to push this agenda across Surrey. Instead, we hear rumours that this Government may scrap EHCPs altogether. That would be disastrous. Such a move would not be reform; it would be abdication, driven not by evidence but by ideology. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the lifechanging role that specialist provision plays in our system. I urge the Minister to act to end the delays in EHCP assessments and convene a cross-party MPs’ forum with parents and stakeholders to drive urgent solutions, to commit to long-term investment to reinstate that capital grant and back bids from high-pressure areas like Surrey and Hampshire, and to protect parental rights, uphold children’s legal entitlements and guarantee that EHCPs remain the foundation of SEND support.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for outlining many of the problems in the system. She has now had six out of her 10 minutes and she has not told us what the Government are going to do. Can I press her to tell us what the Government are actually going to do?

• 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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Life Sciences Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I must declare that my wife works in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry. The Minister and the Chancellor claim to want to boost growth, yet investment is fleeing the very sectors that he claims are a priority. Is it not the case that the vague aspirations of the Government do not meet the real-world test and that the people who are going to suffer from this are his constituents and, unfortunately, mine?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I believe constitutes a breach of the ministerial duty to respond to Members’ correspondence in a timely manner. On 28 November last year, I wrote to the now former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to raise concerns about the absence of legislation requiring service providers to give residents notice before installing large cables on their properties. I have since followed up with the Department on 22 January, 20 March, 28 April, 13 June and 24 July. I have now been waiting for nine months without receiving a substantive reply. I understand that the new Secretary of State is new in her job and I congratulate her for that, but this considerably hinders my ability to represent my constituents and I seek your guidance on how we can get a response.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Hospitality has been battered by a perfect storm of punishing taxation, regulation and soaring operational costs, which has left pubs and restaurants fighting for survival. In recent months, I have visited 36 of the 55 pubs in my constituency and hosted a hospitality roundtable. I will shortly be sitting down again with the family chain, the Healy Group. Everywhere I go, the story is the same: rising costs, thinning margins and landlords asking, “How much longer can we keep the lights on?” In this darkness, I can bring a little ray of delight and hope to my constituents. During the summer recess, I continued my constituency pub tour, part of my best pub campaign. I am delighted to announce to the House that the Crown at Arford has won that accolade in the Farnham and Bordon constituency. You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Fleetwood Mac’s “Down at the Crown” was inspired by this pub, so if the Chancellor ever finds herself lost in East Hampshire, she might fancy a visit—though judging from Labour’s economic stewardship, she would probably relate more to one called “Closing Down at the Crown”. I joke, but there is nothing amusing about the reality. Since May, four pubs in my constituency have been driven out by Labour’s relentless war on small businesses, including the Wheatsheaf Inn at Grayswood, which has closed indefinitely. The sector is collapsing, despite what Government Members say. Six pubs are closing every single week. That is because, from April this year, relief collapsed to 40%, halving their protection while doubling their pain. The Budget hiked national insurance, increased the minimum wage and added £3 billion to their bills. The Chancellor’s 1p off a draught pint gesture was not just laughable but insulting. Jay at the Six Bells told me bluntly that on a £5.50 pint, pubs make about 8p. That is the future that Labour is offering. The Bluebell in Dockenfield, a family business run by Lucy and Robin Catchpole, is fighting tooth and nail to thrive. Pubs are the heart of our towns and villages, and Labour is ripping out that heart.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  That sounds like an interesting idea. I will support anything that will get the pub industry thriving, but to be frank, Labour is destroying the opportunities for pubs to thrive, and I am afraid a guest ale will go no way towards solving that problem. I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will touch briefly on the fact that it is not just Labour in Westminster that does not understand the hospitality industry. The Liberal Democrats in Waverley are showing the same wilful blindness. Farnham is undergoing major infrastructure works, and its hospitality and retail businesses are struggling. I urge the council to act. It has the powers to provide business rates relief, but it has done nothing. Borelli’s Wine Bar and Grill, for example, has operated since 1987, yet the Lib Dems sit on their hands, proving that they share Labour’s contempt for small businesses. Hospitality is being taxed, squeezed and regulated into oblivion. If Labour carries on like this, the last orders bell will ring not just for our pubs, but for the very character of British life itself.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?