Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  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? 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. 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? 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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate and his characteristically well-informed speech. His passion and knowledge as a GP bring a real benefit to this Chamber. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on her appointment as the Government’s adviser on violence against women and girls, and her excellent and impassioned speech. I am sure her ideas will be of great benefit to the Department and the Government as a whole. This is a necessary debate, but it is also uncomfortable. The figures before us describe not merely a system under strain, but a system that is unfortunately failing too many women and children. If we are serious about change, we must be honest about responsibility and delivery. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for the experience she brought to her speech. Her discussion of honour-based violence, alongside the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was very prescient. I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for telling us about her experiences. We were all interested to hear more about the IRIS system she mentioned in her constituency. As ever, I welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) giving us a perspective from Northern Ireland. Sir John, despite the fact that you have not spoken in this debate, it is worth noting your campaign on Holly’s law, which would implement a mandatory register of abuse against domestic animals, because that abuse is often a precursor to or goes alongside the abuse of humans. Thank you for your work on that. Abuse happens across this country, and none of us is untouched by it. In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, I think of the horrendous case of Alan Jermey, who strangled his partner Kirsty Wilson to death and set her alight as their two small children slept upstairs. Cases like that bring this issue home to all of us. The Minister will know that the NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse than any other public service, which puts it in a unique position to intervene early. It also gives it a responsibility to deliver. The Department has set out ambitious plans around alcohol harm, neighbourhood health services and better access to support, and those ambitions are welcome, but ambition must be judged against outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a growing gap nationally between ministerial intent, which is welcome, and the frontline reality. The Office for National Statistics found that 6% of women aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse, and the police recorded more than 1.35 million domestic abuse-related crimes and incidents last year. The consequences are often fatal. There were 108 domestic homicide victims that year, 83 of whom were women. Among adult female homicide victims, six in 10 deaths were the result of domestic homicide, almost all at the hands of a male partner or ex-partner. Domestic abuse is also a significant driver of suicide, as we have heard: between 2020 and 2024, 98 suspected suicides, including of children, followed domestic abuse. This is not a marginal issue; it is systemic. The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse strategy is welcome but its impact will be undermined by persistent failures in delivery. Training remains inconsistent, referral pathways are unclear and staff lack the time and capacity to act. The evidence is clear. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in June 2025, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at domestic abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% contained at least one recommendation for healthcare professionals or the wider health system. Time and again, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, opportunities for intervention within the NHS were missed. Yet, at precisely the moment when that learning must be embedded, the Government are reorganising the NHS, abolishing NHS England and cutting integrated care board budgets. Standing Together has warned that these changes risk weakening domestic abuse and sexual violence protection work at the local level, including in training, co-ordination and follow through. A system that is being restructured, distracted and under financial pressure cannot deliver the prevention we all want. In Surrey, the police receive around 19 domestic abuse calls every day—domestic abuse is now more prevalent than shoplifting—so these systematic failures play out in real time in our communities. I want to briefly speak about a young woman who lived in my constituency, Skye Nicholls, who died in 2023 at the age of just 22 after nearly two years of coercive control and abuse by her ex-partner. I have spoken to her family and friends, who are campaigning for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse. One of them told me that, too often, the focus remains on visible injuries while psychological abuse is underestimated or dismissed, even though its effects often last far longer than physical harm. For family and friends, mental health support is frequently fragmented or absent, despite them often being the first to spot the warning signs. Prevention does not begin at the point of crisis; it begins with early, trauma-informed intervention. NICE guidance clearly sets out how NHS staff should respond to domestic abuse, but guidance alone does not save lives. Women’s Aid’s 2025 report found that just over half of referrals into community-based domestic abuse services were rejected—nearly a quarter because services could not even contact the victim. When support is reduced to just phone lines and signposting, women unfortunately fall through the cracks. Detection is really important. Accident and emergency is where the physical signs of this abuse are seen but, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, primary care is often the first point of contact. We must use the expertise of GPs and other primary care services and give them the time to effectively identify, intervene and support those victims. The NHS cannot act alone. The justice system must also command public confidence, which is why the early release scheme for serious offenders, including rapists and murderers, is so damaging. It sends entirely the wrong signal to victims and undermines trust in the institutions meant to protect them. We as the Conservatives will continue to oppose that policy. Under the previous Conservative Government, we introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, recognised children as victims in their own right, published violence against women and girls strategies, and invested significantly in victims’ services, mental health and suicide prevention, but we are honest enough to say that legislation alone is not enough. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has shown that only 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse cases result in a conviction, and only one in five victims feel confident reporting abuse. That demands competence and delivery, not the constant structural upheaval we are going to see in both the justice and health systems. We made good strides in this area and I genuinely believe that the current Ministers in the Department are doing their level best to move it forwards. I think we all agree that there is much more to do, but where the Government are making those strides, we as the Conservatives will support them full-throatedly. I close with three questions to the Minister. 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. We will prevent it by enforcing the law, backing the frontline and putting victims, not systems, first.

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Funding Shortfall · Hansard source

  More

  In Surrey, the high needs block deficit is forecast to rise to £165 million by 2027. Although Conservative-run Surrey county council has earmarked £144 million in reserves to ease that pressure, that cannot be a long-term solution. Can the Minister confirm whether and when Surrey’s safety valve agreement will be extended?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Funding Shortfall · Hansard source

  More

  10. What plans her Department has to tackle the special educational needs and disabilities funding shortfall identified in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” of November 2025.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Puberty Suppressants · Hansard source

  More

  Part of the trial is to ask the child participants the Avon longitudinal study of parents and carers romantic relationships questionnaire. Is the Minister as concerned as I am that children under the age of 13 will be asked sexually explicit questions?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my constituency neighbour, for securing this debate. Housing and planning are among the issues I hear about most from my constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. I do not hear about it in the abstract or as a theory, but in the very practical terms of pressure on schools, GP surgeries, roads and the character of their towns and villages. As my right hon. Friend said, this debate is not really about whether we need more homes. Of course we do; it is about where, how and at what cost. Targets that ignore local reality do not solve the housing problem; they export it. In my constituency, which spans East Hampshire and Waverley councils, housing targets have more than doubled under the Government’s planning framework. Councils are left with a stark choice: rewrite their local plans at speed or have them overridden by the system. In East Hampshire, the annual requirement has jumped from around 570 homes a year to well over 1,100. In Waverley, it has risen from over 700 to nearly 1,500 homes a year. That is not gentle growth; it is a near doubling of development in a predominantly rural or semi-rural area. The consequences are entirely predictable. Schools are already full. GP practices are struggling to recruit. Hospitals are under strain. Roads designed for villages and market towns are now expected to function like urban arteries. Yet the infrastructure is simply not there. We are being asked to build the homes first and hope that the roads, schools and GP surgeries turn up later. What makes matters worse is the sheer imbalance in where this pressure is being applied, as has already been mentioned in this debate. In London, housing targets have been significantly reduced, in some cases by around half, despite London facing the greatest housing demand in the country. Cities are best placed to absorb growth—higher density, established public transport, major hospitals and universities, and the ability to scale infrastructure alongside development. By contrast, market towns and rural districts are being told to carry a disproportionate burden. That does not fix the problem; it just shifts it on to communities that are least able to cope. Take East Hampshire. Around 57% of the district lies within the South Downs national park, which means the remaining land outside the park is absorbing an ever-greater concentration of development. Places like Liphook in my constituency are being stretched to breaking point, and even towns that are ripe for development, such as Whitehill and Bordon, are under pressure because housing development is accelerating faster than services can keep up. Protected countryside on one side, relentless development on the other—that is not planning; it is pressure cooking our communities. If we are serious about meeting housing need, targets must be fair, realistic and aligned with local capacity. Growth should go where infrastructure already exists, not where it is weakest. There is also a serious issue of public confidence. Where councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the Planning Inspectorate almost invariably sides with the developers, regardless of the strength of local objection. In those circumstances, residents rely on their local authority to defend them robustly. I was deeply concerned when a controversial development in Haslemere was approved on appeal, despite well-documented objections and its location within the Surrey hills national landscape. What compounded that concern was the response of the Liberal Democrat leadership of Waverley borough council, which wrote to residents telling them to “move on” before all reasonable avenues to challenge the decision had been explored. That is simply unacceptable. When residents are fighting for their community, “move on” is not leadership; it is surrender. Labour’s new targets risk collapsing trust in the planning system, rather than restoring it. Councils that claim to stand up for local people must actually do so when it matters. We will not build the homes we need by riding roughshod over communities, overwhelming infrastructure and eroding faith in our local democracy. We need a planning system that is credible, balanced and rooted in reality—one that builds homes in the right places and at the right pace, with the infrastructure alongside them. If we fail to do that, we will not just fail to meet the housing need, we will leave communities paying the price for decades to come.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Justice Secretary’s plan to slash jury trials without any guarantee that the backlog of cases will fall has not survived first contact with Labour Back Benchers. The backlash has forced No. 10 to reassure Labour Members that legislation will not be introduced until October next year, but the Justice Secretary’s team insist that it will come in February. They cannot both be right. Can the Justice Secretary confirm at the Dispatch Box when the legislation is coming forward?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  When Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  19. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  These strikes will have a massive effect on my constituents in Farnham and Bordon. I am already getting emails from constituents who are concerned about the fact that their operations will be cancelled. The BMA is being entirely irrational and it holds the lion’s share of the blame for this situation, but the Secretary of State also has to take some responsibility for what is going on. If he gives the doctors a 29% pay rise with no strings attached, it is absolutely no surprise that they come back for more. I welcome the 4,000 extra places. I would like to press him on exactly where those 4,000 places will come. Would it not be better to have published that in the workforce plan, which is continually delayed by his Department? When will that workforce plan actually come about?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I will not; sorry. I want to raise a specific issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), but that is often missed in this debate: the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would mandate the NHS number as a single unique identifier for every child in England—namely ID cards, but on the sly. Ministers have confirmed in the House that that identifier will become mandatory. Wigan is already piloting multi-agency data sharing using it, but Members of this elected Chamber have not been given the evidence, the governance frameworks or the risk assessments that would justify such a change. The Government have produced no credible reassurance that the NHS number will not become a gateway to expanded datasets or new intrusive linkages. There is no clear plan to prevent accidental disclosures that could put vulnerable children at risk, for example by revealing the address of a family fleeing domestic abuse or exposing confidential adoption records. Those are not theoretical concerns; they have occurred in practice. We have seen the warnings from Wales, where NHS numbers were extracted centrally and sent to local authorities with no direct care relationship with the children concerned. The 2024 consultation was highly critical. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and children’s organisations all warned that such policies risked pushing marginalised families away from healthcare entirely. Wales’s own child’s rights impact assessment warned of possible breaches of articles 12 and 16 of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It even warned that children could lose their article 24 right to health if families disengaged from GP registration. However, Ministers insist that the NHS number is not sensitive data. The General Medical Council has already rejected that argument. All patient information attracts the common-law duty of confidentiality. There is no such thing as a harmless identifier. Practically speaking, the Department for Education’s own research warned that mandating NHS numbers would require significant investment, long-term planning and phased roll-out. None of that groundwork has happened. Pilots are under way before Parliament has approved the principle. When trust in Government is already scraping the floor, the worst thing Ministers can do is force through more mandatory digital ID for adults or children, something the public neither asked for nor consented to. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition and more than two thirds of my constituents oppose it. Digital ID will not fix illegal migration, but it will supercharge state intrusion. The public deserve clarity, honesty and, above all, consent.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the wind-ups because of the business in the main Chamber. I begin by restating my firm opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID. I opposed it in this Chamber only a month ago, and the public response has been remarkable. The clip of my speech on social media has now been viewed more than 2.5 million times—not because of any great oratory on my part, but because people across the country are deeply worried about the direction the Government are taking. They are worried about privacy, freedom and the steady expansion of state power without consent.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  To describe this situation as a “dog’s dinner” is offensive to the makers of Pedigree Chum. The deferral of the elections in Hampshire will delay major strategic infrastructure planning, such as the Wrecclesham bypass in my constituency, and deprive the people of Hampshire of an excellent mayor in Donna Jones. Most importantly, though, it is an affront to democracy. As the Minister will know, my seat is a cross-border Hampshire and Surrey seat, so I have three questions for her. First, will the unitary authority elections in Surrey go ahead as planned next year? Secondly, will the Hampshire unitary authority elections also go ahead rapidly? Finally, will we get a mayor for Surrey?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  13. Whether the Prime Minister has had discussions with the Chinese Government on the proposed Chinese embassy.