Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Royal College of Physicians has said: “Medicines prescribed and administered in assisted dying must be regulated for safety and efficacy for this use.” If that is a requirement of the Royal College of Physicians, we in the House should take it seriously and put it into the Bill. I will now draw my remarks to a close, but I should say that I also support amendment 99, which would require a report on the drug’s effects before Parliament approves the regulation, as well as a number of the other amendments, which hopefully would remove the wide-ranging Henry VIII powers currently in the Bill. In the light of all that I have said, I remain deeply sceptical as to whether the Bill, in its current state, provides the robust, protective and operationally sound framework that such a profound societal change deserves.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of those comments and will try to limit my remarks to new clause 13 and some of the amendments to it. The Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatrics Society have all said that there are problems with this Bill, and I have heard nothing from its sponsor, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—despite trying to intervene on her a number of times—about what she has done to ensure that their concerns have been addressed. This brings us directly to a fundamental concern: namely, the means by which assisted death would be carried out under new clause 13. The impact assessment for the Bill recognises that “The safety and efficacy of those substances used for assisted dying is currently difficult to assess”.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her helpful intervention. If that is correct, I will draw my comments on that point to a close. Amendment 6 concerns CETR frequency. It seeks to change the timetabling of these reviews. The same issues, both positive and negative, run through it as in amendment 3. Amendment 7 would strengthen the legal obligation on integrated care boards and local authorities by requiring them to implement recommendations from the care, education and treatment reviews rather than merely considering them. That would ensure that review outcomes lead to concrete action and improved care. I do not think that anyone in the Committee could possibly disagree with that point. It would lead to greater accountability and would ensure that CETR recommendations are not ignored or delayed. That would clearly improve outcomes, because it would increase the likelihood that patients receive timely and appropriate care. The amendment would also introduce stronger legal clarity. By removing “must have regard to” and replacing it with “have a duty to carry out”, it would remove ambiguity around the responsibilities of the ICBs and local authorities, supporting the rights-based care and the principles of transparency and enforceability in service provision that we all support. I hope that the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford will be able to clarify the problem of resource pressures, which applies to all these amendments. Local authorities and ICBs may struggle to implement all the recommendations due to funding or capacity constraints. What would be the legal sanction for ICBs and local authorities if, through no “fault” of their own—although one might argue that they should have the necessary resources in place—they genuinely do not have the resources to implement all the recommendations? I would hope that such a sanction did not put them into further financial difficulty. The reduction in flexibility concerns me. It may limit professional discretion in cases in which recommendations are impractical or outdated. It may require new systems for monitoring and enforcement, and if recommendations are not implemented it could increase the likelihood of legal challenges.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Across my constituency I hear the same thing from parents, school staff and youth workers: early signs of offending behaviour are often missed or not acted on until it is too late; and in rural areas, stretched services and limited access to youth provision make the problem worse. Given the success of the Haslemere youth hub, will the Lord Chancellor consider expanding community-based justice schemes to ensure young people are not drawn into the criminal justice system when they do not need to be?

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK-China Relations · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is entirely right. I would be very surprised if anyone in the Chamber did not agree with him. The key point is how we move from what I think is relatively universal agreement to actual sanctions and enforcement, to make sure that our manufacturers are competing on a level playing field. As an example of that, a 2023 report from the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University noted that in 2020, China produced 75% of the global supply of solar grade polysilicon, and 45% of that was manufactured in Xinjiang. That is why the amendment that I alluded to earlier was crucial to cleaning up the supply chains and preventing the UK from becoming core to Chinese consumption.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This afternoon I was contacted by the father of Theodore, who lives in Grayshott in my constituency. Theodore wants to go to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate in September, but Capita has not sent the request for his medical record to his local surgery. Will the Minister look in general at how Capita is performing, and will he ensure in particular that Theodore can attend the foundation college in September?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Like VAT on independent schools and putting up costs through national insurance contributions, this Bill is yet another example of Labour turning children’s education into an ideological battleground. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Labour clearly hates any form of education that is not state-controlled, local authority-run schooling, and this Bill is another example of that. Under the Conservatives, pupils soared up international league tables, ensuring that every child, regardless of postcode—except if they lived in Wales—received the best start in life. Labour is intent on reversing that progress, attacking academic freedoms and dismantling a system that has delivered demonstrable results for young people. Indeed, it was a system that Labour used to champion, but now it has come back to power and is looking to dismantle it. Most of this Bill is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Like the Employment Rights Bill last week, it is bodged and being rushed through without proper scrutiny, and behind it all is the cold, dead hand of the union paymasters that fund Labour. I commented on it during debate on the Employment Rights Bill, and we have heard again today—I am afraid the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) has just left his place—that the “Jurassic Park” of the unions is back. Like last week, it is not Jeff Goldblum—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would be totally wrong of me to cast any aspersions on the hon. Gentleman’s teaching ability. I have not sat through one of his classes, but if it was anything like his speech an hour ago, I would perhaps be looking to find some other educational outlet for myself or my child. While I acknowledge that some of the child protection aspects of this Bill are important, much of it represents a dangerous and unnecessary centralisation of power that will harm schools, teachers and, most importantly, pupils. In recent meetings I have had with the Last Wednesday SEND group, as well as with home education groups across Surrey and Hampshire, there has been overwhelming concern about the proposed legislation. Many of those I have spoken to feel vilified for choosing to remove their children from mainstream education in favour of alternative specialised provision tailored to the individual needs of their children. I will take this opportunity to highlight five key amendments that I think are particularly important; I urge Members to give them their full consideration. The first is amendment 206, which would remove the requirement for all academies to follow the national curriculum. Clearly, a national curriculum can provide a broad and balanced education, but education is not a one-size-fits-all issue. The Bill seeks to stifle innovation, which is a dangerous and regressive move. It is particularly concerning for faith schools and alternative provision settings such as Pathways school, a SEND provision school in my constituency. Pathways school plays an invaluable role in educating vulnerable children and providing trauma-informed strategies alongside a high-quality, project-based curriculum. Excellent spaces such as those would struggle to continue under state-imposed education strictures. As a parent, I draw attention to new clause 41, which would give parents the right to review school curriculum materials to ensure their children are fairly exposed to material appropriate for their age group. It is not controversial to say that parents have a unique and intimate understanding of their children’s needs, and it is only right that they have an active role in ensuring the quality and suitability of their children’s education. Moving on to amendments 200 and 202 regarding home education, a key group in my constituency that have ardently opposed state-controlled education are the home educators. Home education is a provision used by many parents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook, because it provides a more personalised approach to learning, which in some cases benefits certain children. Amendment 200 would mandate local authorities to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree that a child can be home-educated. Families are deeply concerned that the Government’s proposals impose excessive state control over home education, failing to recognise the dedication and care that home-educating parents provide. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said— I think I am quoting her correctly—that “all good parents would welcome” this imposition on education. That is deeply unfair to all the good home-educating parents who have contacted me. They do not feel that this is a proportionate measure; they think it is a deep imposition, and they are good home-educators. Amendment 200 is a more proportionate way to address concerns while ensuring the accountability that the hon. Lady wanted. That is especially important for families with SEND children awaiting education, health and care plans—a process that can take up to two years. In my local area, 17% of independent school pupils receive SEND support, yet only 6% have a formal EHCP. Therefore, home education, especially in that interim gap between realising a child needs SEND support and receiving an EHCP, is often the best option for them. Amendment 202 would remove the requirement for local authorities to approve and consent to the home education of children with special educational needs. Removing those bureaucratic hurdles would empower parents to make the best decisions for their children and would ensure inclusivity and equity in education. I want to touch on amendment 192 on neglect and abuse of children that is related to home education. Although I strongly support home education as a valid choice, safeguarding must remain a priority. However, home-educating parents feel vilified by this Government, who treat them as if they were inherently suspect, as the hon. Lady did, rather than recognising their commitment to their children’s education. Amendment 192 would ensure that local authorities may withhold consent for withdrawal from school where there are concerns about neglect or abuse. The entire House was horrified by the tragic case of Sara Sharif, and the amendment is a necessary, balanced and proportionate response—far more so than the Government’s broader proposals, which unfairly target responsible home-educating parents. Instead of a sweeping punitive approach, the amendment focuses directly on children who are genuinely at risk, ensuring that they remain in a monitored environment where safeguarding concerns can be identified and addressed. The Bill is an ideological attack on academic freedoms which will hurt the very children who Labour claims to support. It imposes unnecessary constraints on schools, weakens parental choice and undermines educational innovation. The poorest pupils will suffer the most. Academic freedoms have driven up standards, allowing schools to tailor their curricula to meet the needs of pupils. Labour’s insistence on enforcing a rigid national curriculum will stifle progress and limit opportunities. Its move to weaken the academy system will leave struggling schools in limbo, harming the very children who need urgent intervention. The Bill tears down 25 years of progress—progress that has had a demonstrable impact on children, improving their educational outcomes, life chances and business and employment opportunities, and benefiting the country as a whole. I urge the House to reject this damaging Bill and to stand up for the best interests of our children. Let us protect parental rights, uphold educational freedoms and ensure that every child has access to safe, high-quality and inspirational education.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to follow the King. [ Laughter. ] I rise on behalf of my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook who are opposed to this fundamentally anti-business Bill. Nothing has highlighted more clearly than this debate the old adage that where we think the Labour party is wrong, it thinks that we are evil. Nothing that has come from Labour Members has given any consideration to the absolutely correct concerns that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), raised in his opening remarks. The Bill, which has been bodged both in Committee and today, has been put together simply to assuage the union paymasters that fund so many Labour Members. The Bill highlights Labour’s complete misunderstanding of how to help business, employees and, of course, the economy overall. We have a Government who talk about growth but legislate to destroy it. The Government claim to be pro-growth and pro-business, yet the Bill is precisely the opposite. The Institute of Directors has warned that it will lead to slower growth, deter investment and bury business under an avalanche of unnecessary regulation. Even the Government’s own impact assessment, which Opposition Members have mentioned on a number of occasions, concedes that business will face a staggering £5 billion in additional costs: an economic straitjacket that will choke innovation and job creation. Labour Members seem to have failed to realise that being pro-business, as the Conservatives are, is being pro-worker, because if businesses do not exist there will be no one to employ workers. In my constituency alone we have over 5,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of them operate in the education, retail and hospitality sectors, which rely on flexibility to survive, yet the Bill’s attack on zero- hours contracts threatens to wipe out opportunities for students, part-time workers and those juggling multiple jobs to make ends meet.

• 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.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  We disagree on whether this change is going to raise any money. However, I want to understand the policy point being made here, namely that to raise the money to fund the state education sector, the Government have decided to raise tax on the independent education sector. Why did they decide to raise money from the education sector rather than from any other sector, or from any other rich individuals?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on leading today’s debate. I declare an interest as the father of children who currently attend an independent school. I am afraid it is not a pleasure to speak today about the vicious, vindictive and, ultimately, financially valueless policy that the Labour Government have brought in. As has been said, no other country—no serious country—in the world taxes education. The sorts of schools being taxed are faith schools; arts, drama and music schools; single-sex schools; and independent schools to which armed forces parents send their children. As a side note, a member of our armed forces said to me last week that, in their view, this policy was a breach of the military covenant. This is not about a tax break, as Labour Members have said. Tax has never been levied on education in this country, so this policy is an additional tax on education. It is not a tax break. As other hon. Members have said, parents who make the sacrifice to send their children to the independent sector are saving money for the state sector. Across my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, we are lucky to have 11 excellent independent schools that cater both to junior and to senior pupils. But unfortunately, only last Friday we discovered that one of those schools will close at the end of this academic year. The Royal school in Hindhead has been a cornerstone of education since 1840. It was formerly the Royal Naval school, and was specifically set up to educate girls—the founder had the ambition for girls to become independent members of society, and it was a pioneering school in that effort. As other hon. Members have said, single-sex education has worked wonders for girls in terms of not only their education but their social mobility. The school became co-educational more recently but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) said, this is a real problem. I recognise that the school had ongoing financial difficulties, but it is deeply unfortunate that the Labour party’s policies on low-fees schools—those that charge around £3,000 per term—seem to have been the final blow to the school’s long-standing viability. The Royal school has been not only a significant education institution for generations of pupils but a key part of the fabric of our community, employing people and helping the state sector with areas where it cannot produce. I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to its dedicated teachers and staff who have worked tirelessly over the years, and to acknowledge the sense of loss felt by all of us in the Haslemere community. However, it is equally important to highlight the profound impact that the closure will have on the parents and families who are now faced with the difficult task of finding alternative provision. Mr Chancellor, a single father of an adopted child, spoke to my office only this morning. He took on the financial strain of a fee-paying place at the Royal school to allow him to drop his child at school and know that, between the hours of 7.45 am and 5.30 pm, his child would be cared for, fed and looked after. That allowed my constituent the flexibility of extra time to work on his small business. That is the sort of impact there is on the hard-working local people the Labour Government profess to want to support. Families such as Mr Chancellor’s will either have to seek places in other independent schools or, regrettably, be forced to turn to an already overstretched and underfunded mainstream education system. Although Mr Chancellor has commended the work of Surrey county council admissions team—who were also left in the dark about the school’s closure—there is clear anxiety for parents whose children’s fate is currently unclear. State schools across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook are already bursting at the seams. The fees charged by independent schools are often only a quarter, or even perhaps half, of the cost of state school provision per pupil. That has meant that for decades independent schools have taken huge strains from the state system in educating a percentage of pupils from nursery age until they are young people. Last October, following a meeting I organised in my constituency with the then shadow Chancellor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt)—and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I wrote to the Department for Education and the Treasury. The Exchequer Secretary’s reply emphasised that the policy was supposedly forecast to raise around £1.8 billion, but realistically, even if that were true—the Opposition dispute that heavily—that is a mere drop in the ocean for Government spending, particularly when TaxPayers’ Alliance research reported that the policy comes at a net loss for the Treasury, as state spending has been forced to stretch per capita to facilitate 35,000 pupils now expected to be educated in the mainstream schooling system. Last week, Surrey county council admitted to me that it does not have enough state school places to accommodate children transferring to state schools. When will the Government understand that these policies are crippling local authorities that are trying immensely hard to cope with the volume of displaced children? It is not just about the fact that there are not enough places in the state sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire will know all too well that Alton Convent school in his constituency closed last year. During the general election campaign, I knocked on the door of a gentleman whose children had just got a place at that school, only to find that they now would not have it. But they could not get a place in the local state school because he had not sent his children to the local junior feeder schools. He would not have been able to get a place at the local school even if there had been one. In my constituency, no group has been more profoundly affected by the Government’s damaging policies towards independent schools than the parents and families of children with special educational needs and disabilities. The closure of the Royal School and the narrowing of available educational options serve only to exacerbate the already significant challenges faced by these families. Across my constituency, we are fortunate to have three special schools: Undershaw, Pathways and More House. Since my election, I have met multiple headteachers, including Jonathan Hetherington, the headteacher at More House, a renowned SEND school for boys in Frensham. Only this morning, I attended a meeting with 25 parents from the Last Wednesday SEN support group in Farnham. Because Wednesdays are not great for Members of Parliament, they were charitable enough to change their name to “First Monday” this week, just for me. I joke, but one lady was in tears this morning about the impact that this spiteful policy will have on her child. Many will be forced to navigate a new school and new academic curricula, all while receiving little to no support and without a formal education, health and care plan. Some of my constituents, across both counties—Surrey and Hampshire—are having to wait 24 months to receive their EHCPs. Between 2019 and 2024, the uptake of EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire —both well above the national average. When he responds, can the Minister tell us what is being done, and what conversations he is having with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to expedite that process? In my local area, I am genuinely concerned about the fact that 17% of independent school pupils receive SEND support, but only 6% of them have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or who are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners: “Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.” So there is no assurance for those children and those parents. I did not receive any assurance in last week’s debate on SEND education support, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent sector who receive SEND support but do not have a formal EHCP will not be included at all in the SEND education support plans, as the Prime Minister seemed to outline in June. Increasing VAT on independent school fees to 20% is not just a fiscal policy; it is a direct assault on the educational choice and social mobility of our constituents. This policy threatens to attack thousands of students in an already strained system, undermining the very fabric of our diverse educational landscape. The influx from the independent sector will exacerbate existing pressures, leading to larger class sizes and diminished resources for all. Is this really the legacy that this Labour Government want to leave: a society in which educational diversity, which leads to educational excellence, is sacrificed at the altar of a misguided and malign fiscal policy fuelled by class envy? I urge the Minister to reverse this punitive tax and champion a system that upholds choice, fosters excellence and truly invests in the future of every child.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way, sorry. That created a national system with new, clear standards under the Green Paper, and a consultation that set out the Conservatives’ commitment to delivering the support that children with SEND truly need. To oversee those vital changes, the SEND system leadership board brought together sector leaders across education, health and social care to drive improvements. The Local Government Association has warned, however, that without proper reform, SEND provision will deteriorate and become financially unviable. A 2024 National Audit Office report echoed those concerns, highlighting the 140% rise in EHCPs since 2015 and warning that the system will become financially unsustainable if unchanged. Information from the Children and Young People Select Committee last year indicated that there were 2,784 children and young people waiting for autism and ADHD assessments in East Hampshire in my constituency, with waiting times averaging around two years. During that time, children and their families are unable to access the necessary provisions, and that negatively affects their quality of life and puts pressure on local schools. That situation increases the risk of adverse outcomes in educational attainment, mental health and future employment. I am working closely with local organisations such as SEN Talk CIC, which is a charity founded by a constituent of mine. I have seen its profound impact: 92% of children participating in its programmes report a positive change in their lives, and 80% gain valuable lifelong skills. That is just one of the great initiatives that support many children in my constituency, particularly SEND pupils who are home educated. Although home education is not right for every child, it is a fundamental right that is employed by parents across the UK to give them a hands-on approach to their children’s education. I have spoken to Kate from Nurtured Neuro Kids and others who have expressed their considerable concerns about the impact that the Government’s rushed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will have on SEND children who are educated from home. They are very upset by the lack of positive acknowledgment from the Education Secretary of the important work that they do to take the strain from the mainstream system, and the lack of consultation or consideration for Conservative amendments that would have protected their work. It is therefore important for constituents such as Kate to be assured that the Government will take steps to ensure that all children with speech and language needs get the help they deserve. It is clearly a wise and welcome decision for the Government to continue the Nuffield early language intervention programme, which provides crucial support to children with speech and language needs. We must acknowledge, however, that there remains significant disparity in access to funding and support, regardless of the region or the individual specialist needs of the child. Every child who struggles with speech and language must have access to support, regardless of where they live. Despite a relatively collegiate debate, a number of Members—I pick out the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Gloucester—have seen fit to blame the Conservative record and point out Conservative councils’ record in this area. Of the three councils with the highest appeal rates for EHCPs, however, two are Liberal Democrat and one is Labour, so I gently say to Government Members that this is a nationwide problem. Rather than point scoring, it would be better for hon. Members to work together, so that those unfair decisions, and the impact they have on families, are quickly resolved. The comments from the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) were particularly uncharitable. I point out to him that in the spring Budget statement, the last Government committed to 15 special schools, with which this Government are not continuing. I urge the Minister to address the root causes of the problems in the SEND system, including funding and the decision to tax independent schools. Proper reform of the system, including reform of the EHCP process, would give children a proper educational choice. Without it, we risk what the Public Accounts Committee called a “lost generation of children”.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am under a lot of time pressure, and I want the proposer of the motion to be able to get in, so I will not. I have to leave time for the Minister too, and I really want to hear her answers to my questions. As I was saying, I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that she has engaged with parents and teachers in this situation. And what steps is she taking to ensure that vulnerable children do not suffer the greatest because of this Government’s policy? Despite the—I have to say—utter nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), the Conservative Government launched a review of the SEND system in 2019 to end the postcode lottery, and committed an extra £700 million in the year 2020-21, an 11% increase on the year prior. Moreover, to ensure that children and young people received the most appropriate support for their needs, the national SEND and alternative provision implementation board was established.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate. As Members have said, we seem to discuss SEND in this House pretty much on a weekly basis, and rightly so. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and I do cross-party work with colleagues in this Chamber and beyond to ensure the experiences of constituents are heard in this place. I, too, have a number of special schools in my constituency—both state and independent. Hon. Members will have to forgive me for not talking about every single contribution that was made today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comments about sensory and calming rooms, and I hope the Minister will take them into account. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose commitment to education in his constituency is obvious. I hope the Minister will consider the statutory changes that he asked for. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), whose moving and heartbreaking story touched us all and will have resonance with all our constituents. Clearly, special educational needs and disabilities are extraordinarily important. That casework fills my postbag, and a lot of it comes from my predecessors, which demonstrates how long some of these cases can go on for. The Conservative Government’s reforms, through the Children and Families Act 2014, marked a significant shift in raising awareness, changing the narrative and addressing educational shortfalls in the system that, under a previous Administration, had failed to adequately make legislative changes for SEND children. The Act created EHCPs, a vital tool for allowing parents to receive the support that they need for their children in the education system. Only a minority of SEND pupils actually have an EHCP. According to data from the Department for Education for 2023-24, 1.6 million pupils in England had SEND conditions. Of those, 1.2 million received SEND support without an EHCP, meaning that 400,000 had an EHCP. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: in her plans, what happens to the other 75% of SEND pupils? Nearly 17% of independent school pupils are receiving SEND support, but only 6% of those have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners that: “Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.” Will the Minister confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent system who receive SEND support with no formal EHCP are not included in her plans, as the Prime Minister outlined in June? The 2014 Act was a step change. Now, we need a further step change from this Government. In the Public Accounts Committee’s recently published inquiry into the SEND emergency, it was revealed that the Department for Education does not fully understand the root causes behind the surge in demand for EHCPs. In my area, between 2019 and 2024, EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire—well above the national average. In the Committee’s inquiry, the Department admitted that it had not adequately examined the barriers to promoting inclusivity in mainstream schools. That is particularly concerning for the three SEND schools in my constituency—the Ridgeway school, Hollywater school, which is currently expanding due to Hampshire county council’s funding, and the Abbey school —which are now under extreme pressure from the exodus of children, once educated in the independent sector, who are now entering the mainstream system. I am also worried by the lack of provision and support given to independent special educational schools, which is affecting three schools in my constituency: More House, Undershaw and Pathways. Those three schools educate nearly 1,000 children with complex SEND needs, and, without these independent schools, my local state schools will crumble under the pressure. While the Government’s £1 billion for SEND is entirely welcome—this funding injection will be a positive boost for local authorities—we have seen that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education are not listening to those parents of children who do not have an EHCP and are educated in the independent sector. Therefore, I ask the Minister—

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

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. It seems strange that the Government want to have such wide-ranging powers in this area. Unlike other parts of the Bill, where technologies and such may move on and where I appreciate the need to future-proof, here it is very clear. I do not think that at some point in the future we will believe that smoking in playgrounds, or smoking in a field with nobody else around, are better or worse than they are now. I have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the amendments are relatively similar, if not word for word the same. It almost takes us back to coalition days in 2010—let us hope that does not happen too often—and shows that His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have significant concerns. While the Minister and his colleagues have said that they will not extend a smoking and vapes ban to hospitality venues, there is a lack of trust on our part, because even if it is not in the current Minister or Secretary of State’s mind, a future Secretary of State may be minded to put such a ban in place. That is why the amendments tightly define exactly where the smoke-free areas could be. It is obvious that we do not want people smoking in children’s playgrounds, nurseries, schools or higher education premises. We have had some debate about this on other clauses, but I personally believe that we should not be smoking in NHS properties either. None the less, to return to a point I made previously, if we are going to permit people to do something within the law—people born before 1 January 2009 if we are talking about smoking and everybody over the age of 18 if we are talking about vaping—they must have somewhere safe to be able to do it. The point of the clause is to address the impact of smoking and vaping on others. I take the shadow Minister’s point that clearly, if someone is smoking in a playground, it will have a greater impact on other people than if they are standing in the middle of a park or field with nobody else around. There needs to be an element of proportionality. As the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not want to do anything that could harm our already stretched hospitality industry, which is under extreme pressure. If the Minister or Secretary of State were minded to start imposing bans in hospitality, that would have a significant impact on the hospitality business. I support the two amendments.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Child Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State should consider what she just said. The Bill has specific clauses about home schooling. I know that the Labour Government do not like any form of education that is not in state-run, local authority schools, but those who home school have significant concerns that the Bill will put unfair burdens on them and will change the relationship between those who are lawfully and legally educating their children at home and the state. Will she meet home schooling representatives to discuss their concerns and to ensure that while the Bill contains the relevant safeguarding, those who home school are made to feel that they are contributing to their children’s welfare?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am sure the shadow Minister can come in after me if she wishes to opine on clause 100. Clause 99 grants the Secretary of State the authority to introduce and amend regulations concerning tobacco and vaping products. The provision ensures flexibility and responsiveness in the ever-evolving landscape of tobacco control that we have talked about previously. It is vital to ensure that the UK’s tobacco and vape regulations remain robust and up to date, especially given the increasing prevalence of vaping among young people and the emergence of new tobacco alternatives. There are a number of real positives about clause 99. First, it provides adaptability to emerging public health concerns. The regulatory flexibility allows the Secretary of State and his Ministers to swiftly address any new health risks. A 2021 study by Action on Smoking and Health UK found that youth vaping rates had risen from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2021, so, by ensuring that new products can be regulated promptly, clause 99 provides a mechanism for responding to those emerging trends. The clause aligns us with international partners and best practices, and with global tobacco control standards, such as the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. Nations such as Canada and Australia have successfully implemented similar regulatory powers to adapt quickly to the new threats posed by novel tobacco products, demonstrating that adaptable regulations lead to better public health outcomes. The final positive of the clause is the stronger consumer protections. Without the ability to introduce rapid regulatory amendments, harmful substances may enter the UK market. As I have mentioned, in 2019 illicit vaping products containing vitamin E acetate led to serious lung illnesses, noted in the US. By strengthening the regulatory framework, Government can proactively prevent such issues. I have a couple of potential challenges. First, as I mentioned, there is always potential for malign industry influence. The tobacco and vaping industries have a history of lobbying against stringent regulations. Indeed, since this Bill Committee has been sitting over the past week or so, my inbox has filled with such representations. The UK must ensure transparency and public health prioritisation in all its regulatory decisions. Secondly, in balancing the public health and economic impacts, we have to be careful about over-regulation possibly stifling innovation within the vaping industry, which some argue plays a role in harm reduction by helping smokers quit traditional cigarettes. Opposition Members have made that point a number of times: we want to ensure that the regulations are effective and robust, but, where vaping is being used as a smoking cessation tool, the regulations must be flexible enough to allow novel products to come on to the market, which could in future help smokers even further. Clause 100 clarifies the scope and the applicability of the Bill, which means that it ensures coherence of enforcement. A clear definition of which products and businesses fall under the new rules will prevent, I think, ambiguity in their implementation. The positives of this clause are that, where there is clear application, the reduced ambiguity in interpretation and enforcement means that businesses will understand their obligations and consumers will know their rights. That is absolutely essential. For example, the smoke-free public places legislation that came into effect in 2007 clearly benefited from the defined scope, which reduced any legal disputes. By defining the reach of the Bill, clause 100 allows authorities to target enforcement promptly. Without clear application provisions, which we see in this clause, regulatory loopholes could be exploited. The clause closes them. Likewise, tobacco companies may attempt to bypass our regulations by selling non-compliant products online from overseas suppliers. Again, the strong application in clause 100 ensures that the law extends to online and cross-border sales. However, perhaps the Minister will outline how he understands that that will be enforced. That brings me to my real concern, or I suppose question, about clause 100. The risk of online sales makes enforcement much more complex than it would have done had we introduced such a Bill 10, 15 or 20 years ago. How will the UK work with other international bodies to curb illicit cross-border sales, especially when things are sold online? Also—I have mentioned this point before, but I will continue to do so—when small retailers are struggling with compliance, there has to be some form of education and support for them from Government so that they can comply. The majority of the vaping industry, where we have decided it is legal, obviously needs a clear set of guidelines from the Department and the regulatory bodies to comply with the regulations.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Those sound like fairly reasonable timeframes; if the Minister were minded to follow those, I would support him, notwithstanding what I have already said. On clause 91, which I support, we need to ensure that there is a comprehensive stakeholder consultation for whatever the Minister plans to do in this area. There needs to be some kind of phased implementation—by which I mean an eight or nine-month period, or whatever—to ensure that manufacturers can catch up with whatever is being implemented. As I have said previously on other clauses, there must be robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure that manufacturers and retailers comply. Once again, this is all about educating the public about what the legislation means and what they should be expecting. Public education campaigns on this matter are essential.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have any concerns about the impact of the Bill on vapes as a smoking cessation tool? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, vaping in children is abhorrent, and I am glad that the Bill is addressing that, but how can we ensure that, as a cessation tool, vapes remain part of the panoply of options for smokers who are trying to give up? Professor Sir Chris Whitty: That is a very important question. I think everybody would agree on two things, and then there is a way of making sure that we get to the exact middle point of this argument. First, as you imply, in this country—it is not universally true—there is a strong view that we should try to continue our support to allow current smokers who are finding it very difficult to get off because of their addiction, which has taken away their choice, to move to vaping as a step in the right direction. I think that is broadly accepted in this country. As I say, there are some countries where that is not accepted so, to be clear, that is not a universal view. At the other extreme, as you imply—or state directly, actually—I think everybody would agree that the marketing of vapes to children is utterly abhorrent. I think almost everybody would agree that marketing vapes to people who are current non-smokers, given that we do not know the long-term effects of vapes because we have not had them for long enough, is a big mistake. We should not allow ourselves to get into a position where, in 20 years, we regret not having taken action on them. The question then is: how do you get the balance? In my view, this is sometimes made more complicated than it needs to be. I think it can be very simply summarised: “If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; and marketing to children is utterly abhorrent.” That is it, although it is sometimes made a lot more convoluted. Our view is that the Bill gets that balance right. In general, if people’s profession is getting people who are current smokers off, they tend to be more at the pro-vaping end, because they see the dangers for current smokers. People who deal with children, such as Dr Johnson, who has taken great leadership in this area and is very much in the centre of her profession, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health take a very strong anti-vape view, because they have seen the effects on children. It is getting the balance between those two, and I think that the Bill does that. But—and it is an important but—the Bill takes powers in this area, and that means that if we go too far in one direction or the other, there is the ability to adjust that with consultation and with parliamentary secondary legislation. That allows for the ability to move that point around if it looks as if we have not got it exactly right. It may also change over time as the evidence evolves.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the rollout of Project Gigabit in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your unexpected chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Broadband and internet access are as vital today as electricity and water. They underpin our daily lives, helping us work, learn, access healthcare and stay in touch with loved ones. In my former career in healthcare, I saw the transformative potential of digital connectivity. From telemedicine to electronic records, fast and reliable broadband has revolutionised how care is delivered, making it more efficient and accessible, but for too many of my constituents in rural areas these opportunities remain out of reach. Over recent years, the UK has made remarkable progress in expanding broadband access. Project Gigabit, launched as part of the Conservative Government’s national infrastructure strategy in 2020, aims to deliver gigabit-capable broadband nationwide. Nearly four years on, 81% of UK households have gigabit access, compared with just 7% in January 2019—a dramatic leap that highlights the success of the initiative. In constituencies like mine, Farnham and Bordon, that progress has been essential. Faster, more reliable broadband has driven economic growth, created jobs, improved educational opportunities and enhanced social inclusion. However, the roll-out has not been without challenges, especially in rural areas where significant disparities persist. The Conservative Government committed £5 billion to Project Gigabit to deliver the fastest broadband to homes and businesses across the country. That funding has supported 37 major projects worth £1.9 billion and reached more than 1 million premises. An additional 118,000 gigabit vouchers have been awarded, enabling rural households and businesses to upgrade their broadband infrastructure. The rural gigabit connectivity programme, with £200 million-worth of investment, targeted the most remote and hard-to-reach areas. These upgrades have transformed connectivity in places previously left behind. Public sector buildings such as GP surgeries, libraries and schools have also benefited, ensuring that vital services have the infrastructure to support their communities. The resilience provided by gigabit broadband was especially crucial during the covid-19 pandemic, enabling remote working, virtual learning and digital healthcare. For those not covered by Project Gigabit, the universal service obligation introduced in the Digital Economy Act 2017 provided a safety net. That legal guarantee of a minimum of 10 megabits per second ensured that no one was completely left behind. Despite these successes, however, there remains a stark urban/rural divide in broadband access. Although 81% of urban premises now have gigabit-capable broadband, only 44% of rural premises can say the same. These statistics highlight the ongoing challenges facing constituencies like Farnham and Bordon.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I agree. As Conservatives, I am very happy to work with the DUP on any matters that are in our interest together. It just goes to show that this is not just a regional issue—it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We need to support small businesses. That brings me to a number of those compound challenges that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also talked about. According to a Lloyds bank report, 11 million people—nearly 21% of the UK population—are digitally disadvantaged. In Surrey, an estimated 200,000 people face digital exclusion. It is the same in Hampshire, particularly in Headley Down, Grayshott and Liphook. Even in more populated areas, such as Farnham town, broadband speeds are far below the national average, affecting businesses, schools, and families. For many of my constituents, the lack of reliable broadband creates barriers to accessing healthcare, education and job opportunities. It also isolates people socially, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. I pay tribute to two county councillors in my constituency, Debbie Curnow-Ford and David Harmer, who are working hard to help with that. In hard-to-reach areas such as Dippenhall and Moor Park, alternative technologies offer some hope. Satellite-based internet, for example, could provide connectivity to rural areas where traditional infrastructure is not economically viable. Competitive bidding within Project Gigabit has already allowed smaller telecom providers to target these underserved regions, breaking Openreach’s historical monopoly. Earlier this week I met representatives from CityFibre, which operates in parts of Hampshire, including Bramshott, Liphook and Headley Down. Their involvement shows how opening the market to competition fosters innovation and provides tailored, affordable broadband packages to meet local needs. That diversification is critical for ensuring fair and affordable access for all. Diversifying the network also encourages local internet service providers, such as Grayshott Gigabit in my constituency. It is an award-winning full fibre broadband service and the winner of the Internet Service Providers’ Association UK award in 2024 for best rural provider. Those smaller-scale operatives can only continue to expand if they have continued Government support. While I recognise that the new Labour Government have pledged to deliver nationwide gigabit broadband by 2030, I want to hold them to account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) pointed out when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, we must avoid recreating the digital divide seen in Wales, as referenced earlier, where only 76% of premises have gigabit access, compared with nearly 90% in England. The Labour Government must ensure that rural areas are not left behind. We cannot repeat past mistakes, in which funding and resources disproportionately favoured urban centres, leaving rural communities to fend for themselves. To address those challenges, I join colleagues in writing to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology with the following requests: that the full £5 billion allocated to Project Gigabit is retained; that the funding is divided proportionately between urban and rural areas; and that rural areas where broadband is not commercially viable are prioritised for future investment. As I have said, Project Gigabit has already transformed lives and communities, but there is much more to do. We owe it to constituents such as Victoria, the residents of Dippenhall and the families in Moor Park to deliver the connectivity that they deserve. Let us ensure that no community, urban or rural, is left behind in the digital age. It is time to close the digital divide once and for all.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday afternoon, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), I arranged a meeting with parents, governors and teachers at independent schools. They were unanimous that imposing an education tax partway through an academic year will have disastrous impacts on the education of every child, but especially those with special educational needs. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Labour’s education tax on the caseload of EHCPs, and on the capacity of local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire to meet them?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not agree that this is about not just transparency but hypocrisy? When my constituents, because of Labour’s scrapping of the winter fuel payments, have to choose between heating their homes and clothing themselves, they can see the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister in getting tens of thousands of pounds for clothing and glasses. When they have to decide whether to send their children to an independent school for special educational needs and disabilities because the Labour party is going to add VAT to school fees, while the Prime Minister can rent out a flat costing tens of thousands of pounds for his children, they smell hypocrisy. When will the Prime Minister come and apologise for that and when will he return all of that money?

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman talks about the elite, but does he understand the impact of the policy he is advocating, which is essentially that the elite, the rich, will still be able to afford independent education, while those who are making sacrifices to be there will be the ones who fall out, especially those with special educational needs?