Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  Although I accept the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, given that we are about to have a national grooming gang inquiry that Opposition Members had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to do, would it not be helpful for that inquiry to have the data? Surely sunlight is the best disinfectant on this issue?

• 19 May 2026 · Jury Trial Proposals · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

• 19 May 2026 · Jury Trial Proposals · Hansard source

  More

  On the Secretary of State’s watch, the courts backlog has reached record levels, yet his answer is to weaken one of the oldest rights in our justice system: trial by jury. The backlog was not caused by juries and it will not be solved by scrapping juries. The Bar Council says there is very little evidence for the Government’s approach, while the Institute for Government estimates that it would save at most about 2% of court time, and even that may be generous. Why will the Government not drop this ill-judged proposal and focus instead on the serious reforms needed to cut the backlog and speed up justice for victims?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding from those on the Government Benches of the absolute disaster they are presiding over when it comes to the economy and, most importantly, growth. The evidence is hard to ignore. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) talked about a battle of ideas—

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum. The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth. At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government. Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go. Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions. In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector. Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but does he not accept that adding 330 pages-worth of regulation in the Employment Rights Act 2025, at a cost of a billion pounds to the economy, is having the opposite effect? Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 28% in just one year.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The stories the hon. Lady is telling about the poor connectivity in her constituency echo what I experience in mine, where we have some of the worst full-fibre broadband certainly in the south-east, and potentially in the country, despite being only an hour away from London. I recently surveyed my constituents about mobile coverage and, contrary to popular opinion, more than two thirds were willing to have more masts in their area because of the change with people working from home and in how people do business. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to look forward and ensure that we have connectivity in our areas, rather than looking back to a time when people were operating very differently?

• 18 May 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a long-established convention of this House that Members notify other Members when they intend to visit another Member’s constituency in an official or political capacity. Over the weekend, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), together with two of his parliamentary colleagues and a Member from the Labour party, undertook engagements in the Farnham and Tilford parts of my constituency. No notification of any of these visits was received by my office. Given that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is frequently vocal on questions of standards, rules and propriety in public life, could you advise me on whether it is consistent with the expectations of this House that such a convention appears not to have been observed on this occasion, and in light of the fact that this concern relates directly to Members across the House—

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  Before the hon. Member moves on, I should correct what he said: CIL was introduced in Waverley in 2019, and the Liberal Democrats took over the council one month later. The idea that the Conservatives brought it in is utter nonsense. The Liberal Democrats have now had seven years to try to fix it, and they have not. I ask the hon. Member to use his influence on his fellow Liberal Democrats to encourage them to operate a system far more like those in other parts of the country that we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), which operate with more flexibility.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on securing this debate. I have applied for a similar debate twice, but clearly I do not have the touch of a former Chancellor in the Westminster Hall lottery. This is a very serious issue. The community infrastructure levy is meant to be simple: developers contribute and that money is used to fund the infrastructure that communities need. That is the principle, and that is the promise, but in parts of my constituency that promise is being broken. The regulations are clear that CIL is intended to support growth through infrastructure, yet we see millions of pounds collected and sitting idle, with little evidence of delivery. The rules exist but the action does not follow. In Waverley where, as we have heard, CIL rates are among the highest in the country, substantial sums are being collected and left unspent—£30 million when we last checked at the beginning of the year. That alone undermines public trust, but the reality is worse than that. The money does not simply sit there; it accrues interest—£125,000 a month in Waverley’s case. That interest is not ringfenced for infrastructure; it is absorbed into the general council spending. It is equivalent to 10% of council tax in Waverley’s case. Residents are told that the money is for community facilities when in reality it is sitting in accounts, quietly supporting day-to-day council spending. At the same time, inflation is eating away at the value of the original CIL pot, so when the council does eventually spend it, it delivers less than it should. Communities lose twice: the infrastructure does not arrive and the money set aside to fund it is steadily diminished. Worse still, the system is being misapplied. Of course, it is right that developers should contribute, but individual homeowners making changes to their own properties were never intended targets of the regime. Pursuing them aggressively, as Waverley borough council does, is not just heavy-handed; it is plain wrong. Let us call it what it is: a cash grab. CIL may be a national framework, but it is administered locally. The contrast within my constituency could not be starker. In East Hampshire, charging rates outside the regeneration zone in Whitehill and Bordon range from £95.94 to £265.68 per square metre. Even with a manual exemption system, the council actively supports residents, contacting them repeatedly by letter, email and phone to make them aware of exemptions, guiding them through the process and clearly warning them of the consequences of failing to submit the correct forms. That is what good administration looks like. Let us compare that approach with that taken by the Liberal Democrat-run Waverley borough council. There, the CIL rates charged to affected homeowners are among the highest in the country. In Farnham, they stand at £547.17 per square metre, rising to just under £570 per square metre in Haslemere and the surrounding villages. With those high rates comes a very different approach. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who together face CIL liabilities of nearly £1 million. They are not developers; they are ordinary residents who feel blindsided, misled and, in some cases, harassed. They are being charged for exemptions they were never supposed to pay. That is not administration. That is extraction. The response from the Liberal Democrat leadership, supported for too long by the Farnham residents group, has been one of inertia and, frankly, contempt. Instead of being helped to navigate a complex system, residents have been left in the dark and presented with life-changing bills. This is not fairness; it is the politics of envy in action, and my constituents are paying the price. Let me give some examples. One constituent who lives on the Surrey-Hampshire border has an East Hampshire postcode but her property falls within Waverley. She was hit with a £48,000 charge, which has now risen with interest to £60,000. In Haslemere, another constituent received a £94,000 charge because an agent failed to submit the correct forms. He was forced to put his home on the market, with the only alternative to divert the majority of his pension to pay the bill. In Lower Bourne, a couple were issued with a £54,000 charge two days before Christmas in 2024. That led to delays and additional restart costs of between £15,000 and £20,000. Also in the Bourne, a resident faces a charge of £150,000. In Moor Park, another faces a charge of close to £100,000, triggered by a mid-project planning amendment. Even minor administrative issues are treated with zero flexibility. A Farnham resident now faces a £25,000 charge, along with £5,000 in legal costs, following a change-of-use application for a granny annexe. These are not speculative, rapacious developers; they are people improving their homes, supporting their families and planning for their futures. The human cost is real and growing. As has been pointed out, last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash and I met the Minister to discuss these issues. At the time, he appeared sympathetic, so I ask him today: what progress has been made? At that meeting, we urged the Minister to issue clear guidance to local authorities to prevent further harm while the regulations were reviewed. Unfortunately, that idea was not taken forward. I understand the concern about overreach, but what we are seeing now is not restraint; it is injustice. I support my right hon. Friend’s proposed solutions. With that in mind, I ask the Minister three fairly straightforward questions. First, what progress has been made on reforming the CIL regulations? Secondly, will he issue clear guidance to ensure that councils do not exploit the rules to the detriment of ordinary homeowners? Thirdly, will those who have been wrongly charged be refunded? Under the current system, once development has commenced, there is effectively no right to appeal. It is a rigid and unforgiving mechanism. Most councils choose not to wield it in this way, but Waverley borough council has. The spirit of the law is being ignored, and the balance has been lost. My constituents are being treated not as residents to be supported, but as revenue to be extracted. This is not what the levy was designed to do. It was meant to build stronger communities, not penalise them. The law may permit what is happening, but it was never intended to enable it. It is time we put that right.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities provision focus on pushing children into mainstream education, they risk removing specialist support from many who need it and undermining successful work programmes, such as the Witherslack futures programme. Will the Secretary of State meet me and relevant groups to ensure that he does not allow SEND reforms to damage the chances of young people with special educational needs and disabilities to secure long-term, sustainable work?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In response to my question about Jonathan Powell’s security clearance, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said: “I do not have that information to hand.”

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that he did not have the information to hand but did not indicate whether he was going to let me know what the answer was when he did have that information to hand. If the Chief Secretary does not provide me with a written answer to that question, what opportunities do I have in this House to get him to answer it?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. When was Jonathan Powell appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance was he given on appointment.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  May I wish you a very happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition and to recognise the invaluable contribution of allied health professionals, especially those living and working in my Farnham and Bordon constituency. Having spent much of my career in the healthcare sector, including time working for the College of Occupational Therapists—before it was granted its royal title, which shows how old I am—I have seen at first hand the critical role those professionals play across health and social care, often without the recognition they deserve. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on leading today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , a physiotherapist herself, for her work in securing it. The House is right to give time to those who do so much, often without fanfare. I want also to mention the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), whose experience of care by allied health professionals was both extraordinarily moving and amusing. I have taken to heart his recommendation of a diet of red meat and cheese. If this debate is to mean anything, we must address the central issue, which is workforce. Without a clear and credible workforce plan, warm words about allied health professionals will not translate into better care for patients. The Government’s still-awaited NHS workforce plan, due this spring, will be crucial. It is meant to set out how the ambitions of the 10-year health plan will be delivered. Without it, there remains real uncertainty about how workforce shortages and rising demands will be addressed, as the hon. Member for Thurrock highlighted so powerfully when she summed up the situation as “a crisis”. That matters, because allied health professionals are already helping to unlock capacity across the system. We see that clearly in the expansion of independent prescribing, which we as Conservatives support. By enabling allied health professionals to take on those responsibilities, pressure is reduced on GPs and specialists, and patients receive faster, more efficient care. It is a practical reform that improves outcomes, but one that depends on proper planning and support in order to scale it. The challenge does not stop in the NHS; it extends directly into education and special educational needs and disabilities provision. As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for SEND, I see the growing reliance on an expanded workforce of therapists and specialists to support children with additional needs. From experience of working alongside occupational therapists early in my career, I know just how critical that support can be in helping children to access education and achieve their potential. However, the pipeline simply does not match the ambition. Training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years and other key roles, such as speech and language therapists or occupational therapists, take many years to develop. Without a clear and actionable workforce plan, local authorities are left trying to bridge that gap themselves, often without the certainty or the funding required to do so effectively. I saw that at first hand in Hampshire, as I am sure you have, Madam Deputy Speaker. Proposed changes to therapy provision raised real concerns among professionals in my constituency, but through consultation, the council listened, protected staff and expanded the specialist roles. That is the difference that practical, locally informed decision making can make, protecting services while improving provision. Unfortunately, by contrast, there is a growing concern that the Government’s approach risks creating uncertainty, rather than clarity. That is particularly striking when we consider the progress that had begun under the previous Conservative Government, rightly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her superb speech. Through the AHP strategy and the long-term workforce plan, clear steps were set out to expand the workforce, increase training places and grow apprenticeship routes into these vital professions. It was not perfect, but it was a plan. What we see now, however, are drifts: no published workforce plan, no clear assessment of the impact of recruitment challenges, and decisions that risk weakening the very structures needed to support AHPs. The requirement for integrated care boards to reduce their budgets has already raised serious concerns. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has warned about the impact on leadership roles, and we are already seeing a reduction in senior AHP positions across the system. That is not strengthening the workforce but undermining it.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady, with whom I serve on the Health and Social Care Committee, always raises important points. What the last Government were trying to do—certainly by the end—with their workforce plan, which was the first of its kind, was to ensure that the workforce began to expand again. That is what all of us across the House are hoping that this Government will build on. The Government have confirmed that they have no plans to extend the job guarantee to allied health professionals, and have made no assessments of the impact of recruitment delays on patient care. For a Government who often speak about the importance of the NHS, it is difficult to understand why the very professionals who play such a central role in recovery, rehabilitation and patient flow are being overlooked, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) passionately highlighted. If we are serious about reducing waiting lists, improving outcomes and supporting patients across both health and education, allied health professionals are not optional but essential—and essential services require serious planning. In conclusion, I will ask the Minister three simple questions. First, when will the NHS workforce plan be published and how will it specifically address the shortages in allied health professionals? Secondly, will the Government reconsider their decision not to include AHPs in the job guarantee, given the clear need to support and retain this workforce? Thirdly, what steps will be taken to ensure that NHS organisations and local services can recruit and retain the AHPs they need, particularly in under-resourced areas? Without clear answers to those questions the risk is clear: we will continue to ask more of allied health professionals while giving them less support to deliver. From what I have seen throughout my career, including in my work with occupational therapists, that is not a position that any of us should accept for the workforce or the patients who depend on them

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday’s statement from the Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. This is not a narrow procedural issue; it goes to the judgment of the Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that he is not here today to answer questions—perhaps the usual excuse that he was not told holds clear. Let me begin with the exchange that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, which crystallises the problem. On 4 February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein. Yesterday, he attempted row back on that by saying that he had conflated vetting and due diligence, before then insisting that he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. If he understood the distinction, why did he give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the Dispatch Box? His defence—that due diligence forms part of the wider process—did not answer the question that he was asked at the time. If that is not misleading the House, it is difficult to see what is. That lack of clarity runs through the entire account. The Prime Minister confirmed that, in November 2024, he chose not to follow the clear and obvious advice of his then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. Now, the Prime Minister relies instead on a subsequent review by Chris Wormald, which states merely that the approach may be usual—not that it is right. The question remains: why was the advice rejected when it mattered? The Prime Minister’s account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence that the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns, yet he also says he had not seen the vetting report. If he had not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was asked specifically about security vetting? Why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all? The contents of the due diligence paper raise further questions. It highlighted connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia’s industrial and military structures with well-known links to Kremlin-aligned figures. That information was not hidden; it was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. Why did none of that trigger greater caution and, more importantly, greater action? Most seriously of all, Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today was consistent with the fact that Mandelson could act in his role and have access to sensitive material before the process had concluded. We also discovered that the Prime Minister’s team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position. We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, what decisions were taken, where responsibly responsibility lay, or how this situation was allowed to develop. However, I think we understand why: this is about judgment. Time and again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint people despite serious concerns about their records: a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions, and a Deputy Prime Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations. In this case, despite personal associations that should have raised the most serious red flags, connections to hostile states, and a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. With judgment like that, the Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country for a moment longer.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Division! [ Laughter .]

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the vetting process had disclosed information about Epstein. The Prime Minister answered, “Yes, it did.” In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), he said, “I got confused between vetting and disclosure,” but in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), he said that he knew the difference. If that is not misleading the House, what is?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Family Voting · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent family voting in UK elections.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Family Voting · Hansard source

  More

  While Greater Manchester police has stated that there was no evidence of family voting in a recent by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported witnessing “concerningly high levels” of such activity on polling day. How does the Minister reconcile these conflicting accounts, and can she clarify how Greater Manchester police conducted that assessment, and particularly whether witness statements from the observers were taken into account?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Given the time available, I will probably not take too many more interventions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is a strange argument that, because a child has been legally given an EHCP that requires a certain level of support but, for whatever reason—whether through the school, perhaps, or the local authority—that cannot be provided, we should therefore water down their legal rights. When the current system works—and it does work in places—it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote: “We are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of the EHCP, and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road.”