Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, of course there has to be a validation process. There has been for a long time, and I do not think that anyone is objecting to that. However, it is a question of how it is being articulated and the people it is focused on. It is being focused on vulnerable people. I have anecdotal evidence from conversations with a significant number of people since I posted that social media video that they feel pressured into coming off the lists. It does not help that trusts have financial incentives to take people off lists. Earlier this month, the Health Service Journal said that three trusts are earning more than £1 million in having people taken off lists. There is no problem with giving trusts a financial reward to do due diligence and validate the lists, but there is potentially a perverse incentive for trusts to try to knock people off them.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend tempts me to be political; I will rise to that briefly. Yes, I have seen them and she is right. There is a clear concern that when the Government make all these proclamations about how brilliant the NHS has suddenly become, the reality on the ground does not meet that for many patients. However—I am being gentle now—that is probably not exclusively a problem with this Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston might kill me, but I am sure other Governments have done something similar. I will go back to amendment 52 because I think it is really important. Let me be clear: it would not prevent people being removed where appropriate; it would simply require the Government to be honest about why. It requires the Secretary of State to publish the number of patients removed from waiting lists each month and, crucially, the reasons why. If everything is being done properly there should be nothing to fear from such transparency, but if there are problems, sunlight is the best disinfectant and the amendment is exactly what we need. We owe it to our constituents and to every patient in the country to ensure that waiting lists are not improved just on paper, or in a press release, or in a social media tweet, or at the expense of the care of real people but actually improved. If we are to strengthen patient choice, particularly in relation to community services that substitute for or prevent hospital admission and treatment, there are some good measures in clause 16. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, there are concerns, so I hope the Minister will be able to pick those up in her comments when she winds up.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 35 has not been moved, but it is very similar to new clause 35, which may be moved and concerns equipment. I will address both together. I think all in this Committee would agree that ensuring timely access to community equipment and wheelchair services is vital for patient independence, dignity and recovery. I have a number of constituents who believe that they are not getting access to that equipment in the time they would expect. We also need to ensure that we give proper consideration to the efficiency and management of resources. In particular, we should look more closely at what happens after that equipment has been distributed. Too often, items such as crutches, wheelchairs or Zimmer frames are not reviewed after issue or returned when they are no longer needed. We are already seeing a massive financial consequence of that. It was reported last year that the Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust is losing around £70,000 a year due to patients retaining unused mobility equipment. That might seem like a drop in the ocean for the NHS, but £70,000 could fund another nurse, if we include the on-costs. These things do have consequences. Despite distributing thousands of items, only 38% of crutches and just 15% of Zimmer frames were returned in 2024. That represents a significant loss of reusable equipment and considerable pressure on NHS resources. It also gets into the mindset of how patients use and value those pieces of equipment and how NHS users think about resources. While I think that we all agree in this Committee that the NHS should be free at the point of use, one of the downsides of that is that patients rarely think about what the cost of their care contributes. I personally think that if people understood how much crutches or medicines cost, they would use them much more usefully. Plenty of times I have spoken to pharmacists in my constituency who tell me that once a patient has unfortunately died, their family then comes to the pharmacy with a sackload of drugs that have never been used. I think that if people understood the cost of those things, they would use them more effectively and with more caution. This is not an isolated issue but indicative of a wider problem across the system. If we were to introduce firm timelines for provision, we would need to ensure that there is a robust process for recovery, reuse and proper management of that equipment. Therefore, while I am not supportive of amendment 35 or new clause 35, I ask the Government to consider how those proposals could be strengthened by embedding clear expectations about the return and reuse of that equipment so that public funds are used as effectively as possible. I will now turn to the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Amendment 51 is important because, while I understand the Government’s intention in clause 16, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, her amendment will prevent any artificial delays in treatment by ensuring patients are seen as soon as clinically appropriate, rather than being required to wait a minimum period. It simply protects the principle that care should be based on medical need—which I think we would all agree on—rather than some administrative target. It helps avoid situations where waiting times are managed on paper rather than reduced in reality. That ultimately safeguards patient outcomes and timely access to care. Moving on to amendment 52, I add my strong support to this amendment, because it goes to the heart of trust, transparency and patient safety in the health system. I have been speaking to constituents and individuals from across the country who have contacted me after a video I posted on my social media that contributed to the exposure of the removal of 351,000 patients from waiting lists in March of this year. The stories I have heard are deeply troubling. Those include patients who have waited years for potentially life-changing treatment only to receive notification late—or in some cases not at all—that they have been removed from the list. For many it came as a shock, while for some it came after months or years of uncertainty. This is not some trivial administrative matter. I would sum up the Minister, when responding to questions on this point, as: “Nothing to see here, this is what always happens.” There has been such a significant jump over a period of two months that there has to be something going on here. The experiences of patients who have spoken to me about this suggest that that is happening. For those patients it is the difference between treatment and deterioration, between hope and abandonment. It is also undoubtedly affecting more vulnerable and less technologically savvy pockets of society, such as the elderly.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support amendment 47, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and to ask a few questions about clause 11. I completely understand the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is probably the most politically impotent of all Secretaries of State: as my hon. Friend said, they pull levers and not much seems to happen, because they do not have the control over the health service that the public think they do—or indeed, that Members of Parliament think they do, judging by the number of us who stand up and demand that the Secretary of State do things in our local areas. I understand the Government and the Secretary of State’s desire to change some of that, but there is concern about the potential politicisation of NHS leadership. Integrated care boards were established in various forms under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 precisely to remove politicisation to ensure that decisions in our healthcare service were made for the benefit of patients on the basis of clinical evidence and the needs of the local population, not on the whim of any Secretary of State or Minister. More importantly, ICBs were brought in to make sure that local health systems, local authorities, clinicians and communities made decisions based on local need. Those politically independent ICB chief executives were expected to exercise professional judgment, make difficult decisions about priorities and resources and sometimes deliver messages that Ministers, and indeed local Members of Parliament, found uncomfortable. If those leaders know that their continued employment ultimately depends on the confidence of the Secretary of State, there is a real risk that the independence of their judgment will be weakened and that patient safety will diminish. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tackles a core question: should an ICB chief executive focus solely on what is best for patients and the local health economy, or should they have to consider whether their decisions may attract ministerial displeasure? Even if the power is rarely used, and even if, as my hon. Friend said, there are currently some guardrails in the clause, its existence will change behaviour—it must do. Leaders will become more cautious, perhaps more risk-averse and potentially less willing to challenge national policy when local evidence points in a different direction. ICBs have benefited from the ability to speak truth to power. A system in which senior NHS leaders fear dismissal by Ministers risks discouraging precisely that kind of honesty. Do not get me wrong: there are good ICB chief executives and bad ICB chief executives, ones who understand their role well and ones who feel that they do not need to engage at all with their local communities. I have a very good ICB in what is currently Surrey Heartlands, soon to be a larger organisation, and an ICB that does not do the job as well—I will not name it, but any student of geography will be able to work out which one it is. Secondly, excessive ministerial power blurs the lines of accountability. The Minister, in her defence, has argued that Ministers need powers because Ministers are accountable. I get that argument, but one of the most important principles of effective public administration is clarity of responsibility. If the Secretary of State gains extensive powers to appoint and dismiss local NHS leaders, it will become increasingly difficult to know who is actually responsible for outcomes. When performance improves, Ministers will claim credit; when performance deteriorates, local leaders may be blamed. If Ministers possess the power to select and remove those leaders, they will inevitably become more directly responsible for those management decisions, so far from increasing accountability, this might dilute it by creating uncertainty about where true authority lies. Thirdly, there is a constitutional concern. Whether one likes it or not, the previous Act created a balance between democratic accountability and operational independence. Parliament rightly determines the funding, priorities and legislative frameworks, and Ministers rightly set national policy, but operational decisions have been made by healthcare professionals and the statutory bodies established for that purpose. That distinction exists for a good reason. No Secretary of State, regardless of ability or commitment, or indeed their own background in the health service, can personally manage every NHS organisation in England, and I do not think they should. The more powers we concentrate at the centre, the greater the temptation for Ministers to become involved in operational matters that are better addressed through professional expertise and local knowledge. My hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to preserve that distinction in a singular and precise way. It recognises that Ministers should govern the NHS and be held accountable at the top by us as Members of Parliament and our constituents, but should not seek to manage every aspect of it. Fourthly, there is a practical problem. Supporters of ministerial intervention often point to examples of failure and ask what should happen when an ICB is underperforming. That is a fair question, but the answer is not that the Secretary of State must personally possess dismissal powers. A range of mechanisms already exist: ICB boards have governance responsibilities; NHS England has oversight powers; professional regulators oversee the conduct of clinicians; there are provisions in employment law for procedures when it comes to misconduct and capability issues; and auditors and inspectors can identify failings. It would be far better if the Bill strengthened those provisions to ensure that accountability was brought forward, rather than giving the Secretary of State the ability to fire and hire as he or she sees fit. Of course, none of those mechanisms of accountability will disappear if amendment 47 is adopted. The amendment would not create any kind of immunity from accountability; it would simply ensure that accountability is exercised through the established governance structures, rather than through direct ministerial intervention on a chief executive. Indeed, one might ask whether a Secretary of State is really the best person to assess the performance of an individual ICB chief executive. Such judgments often require detailed understanding of local service pressures, workforce challenges, demographic factors, financial constraints and so on. Those are matters better evaluated by individual organisations with operational expertise than by politicians operating at national level. Fifthly, I think the clause as drafted would present a risk to recruitment and retention. The NHS already faces significant leadership challenges. Senior leaders are expected to manage enormous budgets, oversee complex organisations and make difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. If we create a system in which their tenure can ultimately depend upon ministerial whim, we may deter talented individuals from seeking those positions. As my hon. Friend said, the NHS needs leaders who are willing to innovate, take calculated risks and make difficult long-term decisions. It does not need a culture in which leaders are constantly looking over their shoulder, wondering whether a politically controversial but clinically necessary decision could threaten their position. Strong organisations attract strong leaders when governance arrangements are stable, predictable and professionally driven. They do not attract them through uncertainty and political intervention. Sixthly, we need to consider the precedent being established. Powers granted to one Secretary of State are inherited by the next, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said. Members may trust the intentions of the current Minister—I certainly do. They may also believe that these powers would be exercised responsibly—and at the moment I think they would be. However, legislation must be judged not on how it is going to be used by one individual, but on how it could be used by any future holder of the office. Therefore, the question is not whether the current Secretary of State or Minister would misuse the power, but whether Parliament wishes to establish a framework in which future Secretaries of State possess the ability to remove local NHS leaders whose decisions, views or priorities may conflict with their political objectives. That is a much more serious question. Finally, we must remember what ICBs were trying to achieve, even if we do not think that they have achieved it or performed in the way that we wanted them to. If we go back to the principle of why they were set up, they were designed to encourage collaboration rather than some sort of command-and-control structure. They were intended to bring decision making closer to patients and communities. They were established to support long-term planning across local health systems. Those objectives, I am afraid, are very difficult to reconcile with a model in which local leaders remain subject to direct ministerial dismissal. Partnership working flourishes when organisations have confidence in their independence and responsibilities. It is weakened when authority is increasingly concentrated at the centre. For all those reasons, I believe that amendment 47 in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raises an important principle. It is not about protecting poor performance or shielding individuals from accountability; it is about ensuring that accountability is exercised through proper governance structures rather than political control. Expanding ministerial powers to hire and fire local NHS leaders risks undermining all of those principles.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Online Harms · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am very convinced of the need for a social media ban. That is why I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s stance on that. On his point about communities, schools and parents, if we do not go for a full ban, there are some technologies that could be used. I think of Jason in my constituency, who runs a company called Orbiri. He is looking to set up communities, where a school—maybe a class or a whole school—can set the parameters for usage time and the sites and apps that are used, so parents do not feel that they are alone but are part of a wider community, all working together to limit and control the social media usage of their children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something like that would help?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Online Harms · Hansard source

  More

  I support a number of the things that the hon. Lady is saying about the dangers of online harms, especially for children, but I am unclear about her position on a social media ban for those under 16. Although I accept her overall point, which is that social media companies have a responsibility, we could send them a really clear signal, and protect children, by bringing in an immediate ban on under-16s using social media. Does she support that or not?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. What an inspiring tour we have had of museums up and down the nation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing the debate and inspiring speeches about so many opportunities. She mentioned everything from Zeppelins to Gurkhas. I do not think anyone was expecting an argument over who owned Dracula—certainly something for us to get our teeth into. [ Interruption. ] I apologise. More importantly, I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to promote and champion the museums in my constituency. The Museum of Farnham, Haslemere Educational Museum and the Rural Life Living Museum in Tilford are not only recognised throughout Surrey and Hampshire but attract visitors from far and wide. People are drawn by the rich local history that they preserve and the way that they celebrate and bring to life the heritage of our local market towns. Museums are deeply valued by the public. Some 89% of UK adults believe that museums are important to our national culture—I do not really understand what the other 11% are thinking, but never mind—and three quarters agree that having a local museum adds real value to their area. Indeed, 54% of people say that they would feel “disappointed” if their local museum were to close and 41% say that they would feel “genuinely sad” at such a loss. Over the past 25 years, under Governments of all colours, about 138 independent non-profit museums and 152 private museums closed, while 418 independent non-profit museums and a further 209 museums opened. That tells us two things: the sector faces real pressures, but it also shows remarkable resilience, and there is such enthusiasm for local museums and heritage. Each museum is different. Some are run by charities, others by local authorities, universities, the armed forces or Government-sponsored bodies. The sector supports about 33,000 jobs and has more than 93,000 volunteers. Yet, increasingly, museums are forced to diversify their activities and income simply to stay afloat as costs continue to rise. The challenges facing museums are clear at the Rural Life Living Museum in my constituency. It began as a private collection in 1968 and has grown into a significant open-air museum in Tilford, with about 40,000 objects and 20 historical buildings that bring 19th and 20th-century rural Britain vividly to life. My family and I thoroughly enjoy visiting the museum, in particular with its open-air, hands-on approach and the volunteers who quite literally inhabit that history. They immerse visitors through working demonstrations at the forge, in the woodyard and along the narrow-gauge railway. The museum operates entirely on ticket sales and donations, but with costs rising faster than income, its future is far from certain. Sadly, that story is being repeated in museums across the country, as we have heard from several hon. Members today. We see similar pressures in Farnham, where the Museum of Farnham sits at the heart of a vibrant and creative community and celebrates the town’s long artistic and craft heritage, recognised in 2020 when Farnham was designated a world craft city. The Haslemere Educational Museum benefits from the expertise of individuals such as Richard Sabin, a trustee of the museum but also the principal curator of mammals at the Natural History Museum in London. The museum in Haslemere specialises in human history, natural history and geology, and provides invaluable educational opportunities for local schools through key stages 1 to 4. Some of my fondest childhood memories involve being taken to the Haslemere museum by my parents to see Arthur the Siberian bear and the 2,500-year-old mummy, with its toes visible through the bandages—I encourage the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) to bring her children to see another mummy. For a small boy, that was extraordinary. The museum was founded in 1888, but this year marks 100 years on the High Street site. It launches a centenary appeal this evening—I appeal to the Minister, because I am sure any donation that the Government were to give would be welcome. More nationally, local museums play a vital role in our communities and in education. Under the Conservative Government, following publication of the culture White Paper, the Mendoza review was launched. In the public consultation that followed, 85% of the more than 1,200 respondents agreed that museums and galleries are primary places for education. The review led directly to the establishment of the museums estate and development fund, which distributed about £100 million in grants to support essential repair and renovation work. The levelling-up fund, shared prosperity fund and towns fund also provided much needed investment in museums and, during the extraordinary challenge of covid-19, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund safeguarded the UK’s heritage, with £296 million specifically supporting museums, heritage sites and historical places. I am proud of that record—the practical support, serious investment and clear commitment to protecting our cultural heritage that the previous Government showed. Unfortunately, by contrast, Labour’s first tranche of funding, announced in summer 2024, disproportionately benefited national museums. Those institutions are already protected by grant in aid and are largely insulated from the financial pressures facing local authorities. Meanwhile, the smaller museums that form the backbone of local cultural life are left to struggle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) stated, many of our local museums are charity-run or heavily reliant on local funding. They often occupy historical buildings that are expensive to maintain, difficult to modernise and in urgent need of repair. In Farnham, for example, the repair bill for a relatively modest museum building has already reached £2 million. When council budgets are squeezed, culture is often the first thing to be cut. At the same time, many charity-run museums face falling donations, fewer volunteers and rising operating costs, including higher employment costs and increased national insurance contributions introduced by this Government. In short, the pressures are growing, but the support is not. The result is that smaller museums are left exposed. Too many lack the staff, time or specialist expertise needed to navigate complex funding systems, co-ordinate bids or build partnerships with larger national institutions. When public money is spent, it must be spent wisely. Last year in Wales, the National Museum Cardiff reportedly faced a £4.5 million deficit, yet at the same time taxpayers’ money was spent on exhibitions such as “The Dynamic”, which explored radical newspaper culture, alongside displays of Extinction Rebellion posters. It is entirely reasonable to ask whether institutions facing serious financial pressures should prioritise political activism over the core mission of preserving and presenting the nation’s history and heritage. Museums should bring communities together around shared culture and shared history. That must remain the central purpose, especially when budgets are tight and buildings are in need of repair.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is rare that we agree on anything, so she will be slightly disappointed now. There is a distinct difference between looking back at movements and discourse that happened in the past and what that museum was doing: promoting a political cause of the moment. I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, have the Government considered ringfencing local authority funding for cultural purposes in order to safeguard local museums? Secondly, what practical support is available to smaller museums to help them to navigate funding applications, manage financial risk and collaborate more effectively with national institutions? Finally, how do the Government intend to encourage private and corporate philanthropy beyond the major cities—for example, through place-based giving incentives, as suggested in the Hodge review? Our museums are not just custodians of the past, but living educational and cultural resources at the heart of our communities. They deserve practical support to ensure they can continue to thrive, educate and inspire future generations.

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  The name of the Labour Member of Parliament whose husband has been arrested is circulating widely via the media. I do not intend to name that Member of Parliament, but if the reports are true, that Member of Parliament sits on a Select Committee that would have sensitive, maybe even secret, information and, through totally legitimate means, has visited a number of our defence sites across the country. Has there been, or will there be, an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to and, at the appropriate juncture, will the Minister release any correspondence between his Department and that Member of Parliament on things such as the Chinese embassy and other matters relating to China?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. I agree with him about the need to use moderate language and be representatives of our constituents, but in addition to that, we are elected to this place—I would hope—because of our judgment and the trust of our electorate. Whatever the outcome of this debate and of these documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew and our constituents knew—we all knew, and we discovered at about 12 o’clock today that the Prime Minister also knew —that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does the hon. Member think that the Prime Minister can still command the trust of this House and the public?

• 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.

• 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.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Farnham Herald . The Tindle group also includes the Haslemere Herald , the Liphook Herald and the Bordon Herald . Does he agree that local papers keep politicians honest, weigh behind the key issues that matter to our local communities and deliver real journalism, whether that be sport or news. Week after week, quality journalists, who live and breathe their own towns and know their areas, are working for the people in those areas.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to colleagues for attending this evening’s debate. A bit of background and heritage: the United Kingdom has long been a global hub for beers, wines and spirits. Dating back to 1698, with the founding of Berry Bros. & Rudd, we are the largest exporter of spirits in the world and the second largest importer of wine by both volume and value. The sector represents some of the very best of British enterprise: from heritage distillers to pioneering new producers who continue to innovate and support our economy. Behind every bottle on the shelf is a small family business, a logistics worker or a hospitality employee whose livelihood depends on the trade. Each year, the United Kingdom imports the equivalent of 1.7 billion bottles of wine, accounting for 99% of all wine consumed here. This vibrant culture of responsible enjoyment sustains our high streets, supports independent retailers and provides essential income for pubs and restaurants that continue to face difficult trading conditions. In 2024, more than £12 billion was paid to the Treasury in alcohol duty, with wines and spirits contributing £8.5 billion—around 70% of that total. The wider wine and spirits sector generated more than £76 billion in economic activity in 2022, supported £22 billion in gross value added and sustained more than 400,000 jobs. However, when more than 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is tax, we must ask who is truly being squeezed—the consumer, the publican or the common sense of good economic policy? The reality is that the margins for producers and retailers are tightening. There is a limit to what the British public are willing to pay before they simply choose to stay at home. Changes in duty directly alter prices on the shelf and on restaurant wine lists. Every percentage point of duty may appear small in Whitehall, but for many businesses, it is the difference between survival and closure. Treasury Wine Estates, the producer of brands such as 19 Crimes and Penfolds, has warned that further tax increases will deepen pressure on hospitality. Its managing director of global premium brands, Angus Lilley, stated that higher costs mean tougher choices for local pubs, higher prices for consumers and less money circulating through the hospitality sector, which keeps our towns and cities vibrant. A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association found that one in four regular drinkers will buy less alcohol from shops if prices continue to rise, and two in five will reduce their consumption in pubs and restaurants. In my constituency, we have excellent local brewers such as Tilford and Kilnside, and craft distillers such as Hogmoor distillery; I had the pleasure of visiting the team recently and sampling their locally made spirits. Those are small creative producers that bring jobs, pride and flavour to their communities, but they will not survive if the alcohol industry continues to face relentless pressure from Government policy that fails to support its long-term sustainability. If we price people out of the pub, we do not just lose the sale; we lose the cornerstone of British community life. Turning to the current picture, sales data illustrates the scale of the problem. In the 12 weeks to mid-June this year, volume sales for wine were down by 3% in the off-trade, rising to 5% for spirits. The picture in the on-trade is even more severe, with wine volumes down by 7% and spirits by 8%. Hospitality has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy since the Budget, accounting for nearly half of all job losses. We are now taxing our way to lower revenues. That is not sound economics; in fact, it is counterproductive. As one industry voice put it: “Britain is becoming the most taxed place to raise a glass and the hardest place to sell one”. Colleagues will recall that in 2023, the UK moved from the inherited EU duty framework to a strength-based system taxing wine by labelled alcohol by volume in 0.1% increments. Alongside that reform, the headline rate increased in August 2023, and it increased by a further 3.65% in February of this year. For a 14.5% ABV wine, that represents a cumulative increase of around 44% in just 18 months.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Having eight minutes to wind up, when usually one gets about eight seconds in this place, is a luxury that I will indulge, at least to a limited extent—I do not want to keep hon. Members from their wine. This has been a fascinating debate and a wide range of issues have been raised. It was wonderful to hear about the wine producers and hospitality industries in people’s constituencies, as exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who is a doughty advocate not just for her constituency as a whole but, from what I can see from social media, for her vineyards and the producers in her constituency. Every day is a school day: I did not realise that Scotland produced wine, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising that—and for talking about his crisp-eating habits. He rightly mentioned the health implications, and I hope that nothing I said in my speech detracted from that. I would like to see more education, and more targeted services and treatment services. I think that would achieve more than taxing the Shiraz that we have with our Sunday lunch, although he may beg to differ with me on that. We have not just talked about wine; the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly mentioned the Scotch whisky industry, which is vital. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), outlined comprehensively how complicated the system is. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for mentioning Blur. I think that dates him and me, but he was right to outline that the last Conservative Government froze duties. That is something that the Government should consider at the Budget. I feel sorry for the Minister, because—behind the Chancellor, perhaps—he probably has the worst job in Government, but it does not have to be that way. He could make everyone very happy at the Budget by being one of the first Ministers responsible for taxation in a Labour Government to reduce tax. We shall wait and see. I was pleased to hear that, in the three-year review, the Government will look at the wider implications and the design of the system—and, I think he said, at small producer relief. However, I was slightly disappointed by the way the Minister dismissed the impact of tax rises on the hospitality industry. That 90,000 jobs have disappeared since the last Budget is a scandal. If the same number of jobs had been lost from a car plant or an oil refinery, we would be debating that in the House and the Government would be stepping in to bail the industry out. Although the impact is dispersed across the country, those 90,000 jobs are equally important, and I hope the Government reconsider in particular their national insurance increase, which has hit the industry so hard. I urge the Minister again to review the cumulative burdens that have been placed on the industry through both tax and regulation, and I hope that when he has his conversations with representatives of the industry tomorrow—I am glad that my debate has spurred him to have that meeting—he listens seriously to their concerns and gives them the relief and response that they seek. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.