Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · Incontinence · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your place today. It is an honour to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing it. Her speech included the wealth of experience that she brings to the topic, and I especially congratulate her on putting this issue so clearly on the agenda today in the House. It was a powerful and wide-ranging speech that demonstrated the wide range of issues and conditions that can lead to incontinence. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) told us earlier, incontinence is a condition that affects around 14 million people across the UK, yet too often it remains misunderstood, under-discussed and—worse still—dismissed. One in three women experience urinary incontinence, and half a million adults live with bowel incontinence. Incontinence does not discriminate; whether bladder or bowel, temporary or chronic, or mild or severe, it touches people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. It affects new mothers, people recovering from surgery, those with neurological conditions, the elderly, and even children. However, too many suffer in silence, held back by stigma, isolation, or the belief that nothing can be done. Like other Members, I received some heartbreaking stories from my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Incontinence is a medical issue, not a personal failing. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is something to be addressed through compassion, awareness and proper care. The impact of incontinence can be profound. It affects people’s confidence, their work, their relationships and their mental health. That is why Continence Week, which we are currently marking, matters. We cannot expect people to reach out for help unless we first create a culture where they feel safe and supported in doing so. We also need to ensure that services are in place to respond when they do seek help. That means better access to continence nurses, urologists, and physiotherapists, such as the hon. Member for Dudley. It means investing in community support, and in research and innovation, and recognising that continence care is a core part of our health system, not an afterthought. I therefore welcome the Government’s stated ambition to tackle inequalities in women’s health and to address conditions such as incontinence more seriously, but warm words and long-term ambitions are not enough when so many continue to struggle. For example, the “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance, first published in 2018, was a groundbreaking piece of work, but we now need clear next steps, funding and measurable outcomes. We must not allow this to drift for another seven years while millions suffer in silence. Under the previous Conservative Government, we delivered real and lasting progress in this area. In 2022, we published England’s first ever women’s health strategy, a genuine turning point shaped by listening to more than 100,000 women’s voices. That strategy committed to trauma-informed care, expanded research and, crucially, improved the quality and accessibility of information on the NHS website so that women could make informed choices about their own health. Under our leadership, women’s health hubs were launched with a clear mandate to exist in every integrated care system, bringing services closer to communities and breaking down barriers to care. We also ensured the creation of specialist mesh centres across England, delivering multidisciplinary, regionally-based care for women facing the severe consequences of surgical complications. At a recent roundtable I attended with lecturers from Bath University on mesh, Primodos and valproate, it was clear that there is still more work to do to support these women and to learn from the past. I thank the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for raising the mesh scandal so passionately earlier. On incontinence, the Conservative Government backed National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for vital research into patient-reported outcome measures, empowering patients, improving clinical care and ensuring that the lived experience is properly reflected in decision making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) so powerfully elucidated earlier, men are often forgotten in this area. On the Opposition Benches, we support any culture and any steps that will help men with incontinence. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we men are pretty poor at going for diagnosis and treatment, and that needs to change. The scale of the issue remains significant. Nearly half of women experience incontinence after childbirth and one in 10 experience faecal incontinence, yet only 17% seek help. That is often because they are told subtly or directly that it is simply part of ageing or the price of motherhood. That attitude was unacceptable then and must not be tolerated now. When a third of women suffer pelvic floor disorders after giving birth and still face barriers to care, when men living with incontinence are afraid to leave their homes, and when people are forced to depend on charities for access to basic hygiene products, it is clear that we have a public health problem that transcends mere inconvenience. Will the Department commit to publishing an updated “Excellence in Continence Care” strategy this year, with clear timelines and accountability? Will we see dedicated funding to expand women’s health hubs further, so that continence care is a core service, not a bolt-on? Will the Minister also bring forward a plan for better health services for male incontinence? Will NHS England guarantee national consistency of access to continence services and products, ending the unacceptable postcode lottery? Will the Government protect and grow funding for continence research to improve treatments for men and women? Finally, I pay tribute to the organisations, including Bladder and Bowel UK, Prostate Cancer UK and the Urology Foundation, that are breaking taboos and supporting patients so tirelessly, but it is not their responsibility alone; the Government must lead. We Conservatives made a start, and we now need the current Government to have the same urgency, ambition and delivery to ensure that these hard-won improvements are built upon so that no one is left to struggle in silence.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Like the hon. Lady, I see many benefits from the clause. Like many Committee members, I am surprised that the Government intend to vote against it. As has been mentioned, the clause was inserted in the House of Lords by my noble Friends Earl Howe and Lord Kamall. I think it introduces a very valuable and forward-looking provision—namely, a mandatory debrief session within 30 days of discharge. It introduces a formal mechanism for learning from patient experiences following detention under the Mental Health Act. Although patient feedback mechanisms exist in some services, they are not consistently applied or mandated. The clause ensures that every detained patient has the opportunity to reflect on their care with an independent advocate, and that their feedback contributes to service improvement. It reflects a broader shift in mental health law towards transparency, accountability and the patient voice, and aligns with the recommendations from the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, which the Government have used as an argument in favour of many of the other clauses. Clause 35 is more than just a procedural addition. It represents a shift in culture towards embedding the patient voice and accountability in the mental health care system. It recognises the importance of empowering individuals after detention, supporting their recovery, and learning from their lived experience to improve future services. Mental health charities and third sector organisations have strongly endorsed the clause, seeing it as a meaningful step towards a more rights-based, transparent approach to care. Clearly, the clause empowers patients, because it gives them a structured opportunity to share their experiences and influence service provision. It promotes transparency by requiring hospitals to report publicly on what they have learned and how they have responded. It supports quality improvement by encouraging services to reflect on and address systemic issues in the delivery of care. Furthermore, it has independent oversight through the involvement of IMHAs, which helps to ensure that feedback is gathered impartially and respectfully. The reforms prioritise professional clinical opinion, safeguard children from inappropriate influence during periods of acute vulnerability, and elevate the patient voice in the post-care process. In doing so, they align the Mental Health Act much more closely to modern standards of care, international best practice and evolving public expectations. I believe that the clause is essential to strengthening the Bill and ensuring that our mental health system becomes not only more effective but more compassionate, responsive and just.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To touch on his point about social media, it is a very useful tool, but is deeply pervasive and can cause the bullying, harassment and mental health issues that he describes. As far as I can tell, the risk factors in amendment 47 would not cover something like that unless it was part of something else—for example, part of domestic abuse, armed conflict and so on.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  7. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the extension of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am happy for the Minister to come to Farnham and Bordon—or Haslemere, Liphook or any other of my villages—to meet all the people who tell me what a damaging effect the Bill will have on their small business. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the simple fact is that the Government have not consulted small business properly. If they had, the Bill would be scrapped. I think of the University for the Creative Arts students who rely on flexible work and the NHS paramedic in Farnham picking up extra shifts at the Nelson Arms, as I mentioned earlier. Those are real people whose livelihoods are at risk because of the Bill. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283 on zero-hours contracts and employment tribunals. UKHospitality has been clear that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, that is their preference. The sector relies on these contracts to manage fluctuating demand, and removing that flexibility could devastate those businesses and lead to job losses. There is no job security for those who do not have a job. The House of Commons Library briefing actually supports that, confirming that zero-hours contracts provide essential flexibility for both employers and, most importantly, employees. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283, which would demand a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the provisions concerning zero-hours workers before the Government recklessly legislate against them. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has already made it clear that banning zero-hours contracts will hurt the very workers the Government pretend to protect. But yet again, Ministers plough ahead, blind to the economic damage that they are about to unleash. I turn to amendment 286 and new clause 86 on unfair dismissal and business confidence. The Government’s proposal to grant employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one is another reckless intervention, and one that is raised with me by small businesses day in, day out. The amendment and new clause seek to introduce an impact assessment before clause 21 and schedule 2 come into force. Without that, we have to be clear that businesses will be discouraged from hiring in the first place. Flexibility in employment is not one-sided; it benefits both workers and their employers. Similarly, the right to request flexible working must be assessed properly. New clause 84 and amendment 284 rightly demand that the Secretary of State assess the impact of clause 7 before it comes into force. Rushed policymaking will not help workers or businesses; it will create uncertainty and drive investment away. That is why it is essential that we accept new clause 87 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, because we need an impact assessment of how the Bill will affect businesses. Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear the clock may not have started for my speech, so I will draw to a close. [Hon. Members: “More! More!”] In that case, I shall carry on! No, no; I am conscious of my hon. Friends who wish to speak. This Government seem to have learned nothing from history. We have heard history lessons from Government Members, most of which have seemed to take us back to the 1970s. Economic success does not come from shackling businesses with red tape or giving trade unions unchecked power. It comes from fostering an environment where employers can hire, invest and grow.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s debate on the disastrous impact of the Labour Government’s policies, including on my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, of which Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages are part, is timely. My inbox is filled with complaints and concerns from small family businesses about that impact. Small and family businesses are not just places to shop or to buy things, but the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities. Across the United Kingdom, they provide almost 14 million jobs and contribute an amazing £575 billion to our economy. Yet under this Labour Government, those businesses are under siege. Labour simply does not understand business and sees businesses as nothing more than a cash cow to fund its endless state expansion. For nearly a century, my grandparents and my great-grandparents before them dedicated their lives to Stafford’s shop in Haslemere, and they would be horrified to see this Government’s full-scale assault on family businesses. The family business tax—Labour’s reckless cap on business property relief—will decimate family-run enterprises, breaking them apart when they should be passed down to the next generation. In the Surrey side of my constituency, we are fortunate to have two thriving market towns, Farnham and Haslemere, which are hubs of entrepreneurialism and independent enterprise. Businesses such as Hamilton’s Tea Room, Borelli’s Wine Bar, Farnham Homes, Kilnside Farm shop and Elphicks, one of the last remaining British family-owned department stores, have been the cornerstones of our high streets for generations. Similarly, Haslemere is home to R. Miles & Son, Good Horse saddlery and Davids menswear. Together, these eight businesses have had a presence on our high streets for a total of 439 years. Given that Family Business UK has warned that these policies would cost 125,000 jobs, will the Government reconsider their stance before it is too late? Meanwhile, on the East Hampshire side of my constituency, Liphook Travel Worldchoice has been a family-run travel agency since 1971 and Hogmoor Distillery, though newer, is an outstanding artisan gin and liqueur company based in the heart of the former military town of Bordon. Those businesses, like so many across the country, are already being squeezed by Labour’s misguided economic policies, with increased business rates and tax burdens making it harder to survive. Although Labour misunderstands business, it actively despises the countryside. This Government are rurally illiterate. They do not care about rural jobs, rural businesses or our rural communities. The family farm tax—Labour’s assault on agricultural property relief—is a direct attack on farming families who have worked the land for generations. Bob and Ros Milton of Kilnside farm expanded their business with a farm shop under the support of the previous Government, but it now faces closure due to rising costs. Similarly, Mathias nursery had hoped to pass the business to the next generation, but now fears that that will be impossible. My campaign for local pubs and heritage clubs has seen me do a pub crawl across the constituency. I have visited 17 of the 56 pubs—everything must be done in moderation. I have had invaluable conversations with landlords. Carl from the Nelson Arms pub in Farnham highlighted the importance of zero-hours contracts for his employees, including a staff member who also works as a paramedic and relies on the flexibility that these contracts offer. Yet Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which bans them, will impose a £150 cost on his business.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Pritchard. Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 pertain to audiovisual and radio broadcasting restrictions on tobacco, vapes and the related products that we have been discussing endlessly in this Committee. Although there is a strong argument for the measures from a public health perspective, there may be legitimate concerns regarding freedom of expression and the impact on broadcasters and advertisers —I may be pre-empting points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor will raise. One of the most compelling arguments for the clauses is their role in protecting young people from exposure to tobacco and vaping products. Studies have consistently shown that advertising plays a significant role in influencing smoking and vaping initiation. Research from Cancer Research UK indicates that young people who are exposed to tobacco advertising are more likely to start smoking, and similar findings have been observed with vaping products, where targeted marketing strategies have contributed to a rise in e-cigarette use among teenagers. By restricting tobacco and vape-related advertisements on television, radio and on-demand services, the clauses aim to reduce the normalisation of smoking and vaping. The UK has already seen the benefits of such measures in relation to tobacco: since the implementation of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, smoking rates have declined significantly. Extending similar restrictions to vaping is the logical next step to ensure that history does not repeat itself, with a new generation becoming dependent on nicotine. Critics might argue that the clauses may have unintended consequences for broadcasters, advertisers and the creative industries. The sector relies heavily on advertising revenue, and restrictions on tobacco and vaping-related content may limit potential funding sources, particularly for smaller, independent broadcasters, in an already challenging economic environment. However, as we have seen with the existing bans in relation to tobacco, the public health benefits clearly outweigh the potential issues with the funding that broadcasters could get from vape advertisements. There is a practical consideration about how the clauses are enforced. We must ensure that broadcasters and on-demand services comply with the new restrictions, and that will require regulatory and oversight resources. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of how the provision will be enforced, whether that is through Ofcom or some other means. There is also a concern about what I describe as cross-border broadcasting. Many streaming services operate internationally, so content produced abroad but accessible in the UK may not be subject to the same restrictions, and if it is, ensuring compliance with UK regulations on the global platforms will present a significant challenge. How does the Minister intend to enforce the provisions in those cases? This is a complex issue and a balanced approach is necessary, but as I have said, investing in public health campaigns alongside the regulatory measures could help to ensure that the public receive accurate information about smoking and vaping. I therefore support the clauses.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth; I am sure he can respond to my hon. Friend when he gets up. I think there has been relative unanimity on the Committee. Unlike alcohol and gambling, to use the two examples that my hon. Friend gave, tobacco is significantly more dangerous. Whereas there are safe levels of indulgence in gambling and alcohol, there is no safe indulgence in tobacco products. I think the Minister has made that very clear. If I have misinterpreted what he said, I am sure he will correct me. The rationale for the clause is important: it closes advertising loopholes. Traditional advertising channels for tobacco products have been progressively restricted to reduce their appeal and accessibility, especially to young people. However, brand sharing could present a loophole that companies could exploit to continue to promote their products indirectly. By regulating brand sharing, the clause aims to close that gap, ensuring the intent of the advertising restrictions, which we have previously discussed, is fully realised. Secondly, as with measures throughout the Bill, the clause aims to protect public health. Indirect advertising through brand sharing can subtly influence consumer behaviour, particularly among impressionable groups such as adolescents. Exposure to branding on non-tobacco products or at events can normalise tobacco and vape use, potentially leading to their initiation and then continued usage. Regulating brand sharing is therefore a critical step in protecting public health by limiting the avenues through which these products are promoted. Once again, the clause brings us into line with a number of international standards. Many countries have already recognised the risks associated with brand sharing and have implemented regulations to address it. For example, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, which I previously mentioned, recommends comprehensive bans on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including indirect forms such as brand sharing. By empowering the Secretary of State to regulate brand sharing, the UK is aligning itself with international best practices in tobacco control. However, there are some challenges and considerations. The first is defining the scope of brand sharing. One of the primary challenges I see in regulating brand sharing is establishing clear definitions and boundaries. Determining what constitutes brand sharing requires careful consideration to avoid an ambiguity that could be exploited. I hope the Minister will give us some understanding of what the guidelines and boundaries might look like. Clear guidelines are essential to ensure that both regulators and businesses understand the limitations and comply accordingly. The definition of brand sharing in subsection (2) involves broad and somewhat ambiguous terms, such as “anything which is the same as, or similar to, a name, emblem, or any other feature”. The use of such open-ended language could create uncertainty about what constitutes a violation of the regulations. How precise must the similarities between a relevant product and another service product be in order to be considered brand sharing? It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand that. There is also then the balancing of the regulation with commercial rights, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor alluded to earlier. While the object is clearly to protect public health, it is also important to consider the commercial rights of businesses. Over-restrictive regulation could have unintended economic consequences, particularly, again, for small businesses involved in merchandising or event sponsorship. I have said this before: if the product is legal to consume, we must ensure that whatever regulations we apply are equal and fair for both a large retailer or manufacturer and a small retailer or manufacturer. The regulation is either highly restrictive or highly permissive, but it must be the same. A balanced approach is necessary to achieve the public health goals without imposing undue burdens on legitimate commercial activities. As I have said before in debates on other clauses, enforcement and compliance potentially bring some logistical challenges. The monitoring of so many various channels, including events and merchandise digital platforms, requires substantial resource. Ensuring compliance among diverse industries and settings necessitates a co-ordinated effort between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders and the public. In addition to the questions I have already asked, could the Minister tell us what will be in the accompanying comprehensive guidelines? I urge the Minister to collaborate with public health experts, industry representatives and legal advisers to formulate clear and detailed guidelines on what constitutes prohibited brand-sharing practices. Those guidelines should be regularly updated to address any emerging trends and technologies, which we have discussed previously. Stakeholder engagement is entirely appropriate and important. That includes with businesses and consumer groups, because we need to understand the regulations and encourage, where possible, voluntary compliance rather than compliance through enforcement operations. Educational campaigns can help stakeholders recognise the public health rationale behind regulations. Finally, to go back to what I said about having robust monitoring mechanisms, we need to establish some kind of body to oversee and monitor to ensure compliance. Using technology and public reporting mechanisms can aid in identifying the violations and taking prompt action. In conclusion, I support the intentions of the clause, but the ambiguity around what exactly constitutes brand sharing is something I would like to hear about from the Minister. Potentially, some challenges in enforcement are posed if the clause and the Bill become law.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The withdrawal of the listed places of worship scheme disproportionately affects rural churches. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, six listed churches saved nearly £43,000 in the past financial year through the scheme. Directors of St Andrew’s in Farnham and of St Bartholomew’s and St Christopher’s in Haslemere have raised concerns with me this week about the oversubscribed nature of other grant opportunities, such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which combines heritage restoration under the same scheme as, for example, coastal protection in the Humber estuary. This dilutes the vital church funds needed for their heritage. Can the hon. Lady inform me how churches can be supported to preserve heritage in my constituency if the VAT relief for repairs is not reinstated?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Tourism Levy: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but has she assessed the regional impact of this levy? Although the impact can perhaps be levelled out and absorbed across the whole of Wales, some communities are clearly going to be hit harder than others. How will they be compensated for the impact?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Tourism Levy: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  3. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the proposed tourism levy on jobs in Wales.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  In Farnham and Bordon, which I proudly represent, we are fortunate to have many excellent special educational schools, such as the Ridgeway school, the Abbey school, More House, Undershaw school and Stepping Stones in Surrey, and Hollywater in Hampshire. However, Surrey is a special case that requires urgent and increased Government action. Nationally, SEND education affects about 18% of pupils, but in Surrey the figure rises to a staggering 39%—double the national average. Hampshire largely aligns with the national figures, yet both counties face rising demands. Surrey’s situation highlights the need for immediate, targeted intervention from the Government. Although I remain equally committed to supporting SEND pupils and parents in Hampshire, Surrey’s unique pressures cannot be ignored. Those families need more support, not only from their local councils but, crucially, from central Government. The Conservative Government made significant strides in addressing the challenges. For more than a decade, Conservative Chancellors increased the annual funding to meet the rising demand. Since 2015, we have seen a 283% increase in EHCP agreements, which demonstrates the Government’s responsiveness to the growing number of diagnoses. Despite that progress, there is much more to be done, and the strain on services continues to grow. I have seen the profound impact that early detection and diagnosis can have, particularly in SEND, where identifying needs early is crucial to a child’s long-term success. While local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire are doing their best, they need more resources to manage the increased demand without delays. I am deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to raise VAT on independent SEND schools. That policy risks pushing many children who are not funded by local authorities, such as 40% of the children at More House, back into the state sector, which is already struggling with larger class sizes and fewer resources. A 20% increase in fees will be devastating for those families, particularly given the long waiting times for EHCPs. The Government must rethink their VAT strategy for these schools. Parents in my constituency have shared with me the immense stress and frustration that they face, not just from navigating the system but from the delays that impact their children’s education and wellbeing. These families are already stretched, and the uncertainty takes an untold toll on both the children and their families. There is an urgent need for more trained educational psychologists and special educational needs co-ordinators, and the Government must step up to provide them. It is also critical that MPs across all parties stop using SEND as a political football, as we have seen recently in Surrey. The blame game helps no one. It only serves to confuse and frustrate parents further. We must work together to provide clear, accurate information and focus on delivering the support that families in Surrey and Hampshire so desperately need. We need action now.