Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I will not keep the Committee too long. We need to look closely at what the clause is trying to achieve, both on innovation, which I support, and on the prizes. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East asked a number of pertinent questions about the prizes, and I want to expand on that before I talk about the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. We have no idea what scale of prize we are talking about. Is it thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds or millions of pounds? Will the prizes be given to individuals or to organisations? Will they be given to NHS bodies? I think not, or at least not exclusively, because the clause suggests that they could be for research. Will they be given to the private sector—I know that Labour Members have antibodies against the private sector—or to university research functions? It is very unclear who the prizes will go to. Even more interestingly, proposed new section 1CC(3)(b) says that prizes may relate to “work done at any time (including work before the commencement of this section).” So they could be given for something that happened prior to the Bill coming into force, but we have no idea how far back that could go. Are we talking months, years or decades? There is no clear outline about who will get the prizes, how much they will be, what innovations or technologies they will be for, or the point in time that is being referred to. Then the clause says that the Secretary of State may set up a committee. I have been in enough Bill Committees to know that civil servants do not write something into Bills unless they have an idea of what they want to do with it. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what sort of committee it will be, how many people will be on it, how much remuneration they will receive and how they will establish themselves and fulfil the function that the Secretary of State gives them. If we do not know that, the proposal is so open-ended that I would have real concerns about letting it go forward in the manner in which it is currently written. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East suggested—I do not think he was joking—that the word “prize” made this sound like a game show. That is part of what we need to understand. Will the Secretary of State set up a competition in various areas of healthcare, technology, disease or treatment? Will they say, for example, “We want to find the best technology for dealing with cataracts”? Will a call go out for people to submit bids and say, “We have produced this amazing new laser treatment,” in order to win the prize? Or will it be entirely open-ended? Will people come into the Department of Health and Social Care to this new committee and say, “We have created this amazing piece of innovation—give us some money for having done so”? It is so unclear in the Bill. As I say, I am absolutely certain that the Minister knows the answer to those questions because this clause and subsection would not be in the Bill if she had no idea what she was hoping to achieve by them.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Dr Dash, in her evidence, said that—I am slightly paraphrasing, so I hope I have not got this wrong—NHS England has a number of investigatory bodies that it has established recently, and that although they were not perfect, they were much better, and they could be doing this job. What is your response to that? Dr Benneyworth: NHS England has an investigations unit that commissions regional and national investigations, sometimes from private organisations. We work very closely with the NHS England patient safety team. As I said, we have supported their work in rolling out local investigations around the patient safety incident response framework. We have been instrumental in supporting the training and education around that. We are the only safety investigator with protected disclosure. There is no other body that is like us and can do the same type of investigations in this country, and we are internationally looked at. In fact, I am doing a podcast with Canada tomorrow. Numerous countries are looking at us and saying, “We want the same thing.” There is a handful of investigators like us in Finland and Norway, and they have excellent safety outcomes for their patients, but the rest of the world is looking at us and trying to learn from us, and I am frequently asked to speak internationally about this.

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

  More

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

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I do not think those two points are contradictory. One is an issue of the legislation, which is what I am talking about and what the Government are potentially looking to change, and another is how the system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. I have been very clear in my speech that although I absolutely believe—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—that the legal requirements should remain, I am in no way sugar-coating the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements. The third test is whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Demand is rising rapidly: over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the Government’s proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving the fundamental constraints: namely, workforce funding, certainty and system capacity. The White Paper promises more educational psychologists, therapists and specialists, but training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years. So the question is simple: how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? At the same time, the Department’s own figures show that there are now 400 fewer teachers than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less. Local authorities are at the sharp end of the system and are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. Colleagues will know that in Surrey around £100 million has been invested locally to expand SEND provision alongside further investment in staffing, yet demand continues to outstrip capacity. In Hampshire, SEND overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. This is not unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire; across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs without that long-term funding certainty. The result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure. Taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities; it is a failure of the system to meet demand. And into that system the Government propose a decade-long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHCP applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms take effect, and that is certainly not going to ease pressure—it is, in fact, going to intensify it. Through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I consistently see that SEND cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine co-ordination between education and health. Yet SEND was almost entirely absent from the NHS 10-year plan, and when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but is grouped into very broad categories, which is not joined-up government but fragmentation. That needs to change. I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs. They act as a pressure valve. I am aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit, but the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I am fortunate to have excellent specialist provision in my constituency, including at schools such as Hollywater, Undershaw, More House, Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway school, which support children with complex needs every day and should be supported. In conclusion, families do not need another wholesale structural overhaul or a decade of transition. Instead, they need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHCPs with individual support plans, including the transition and implementation? Secondly, will she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legally enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Thirdly, when will additional SEND staff be trained and in post? Fourthly, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? Finally, will the Government publish detailed data on specific conditions and system performance so that outcomes can be properly measured? I say to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that this is not about defending a White Paper; it is about defending the families we represent. Families are not asking for perfection; they are simply asking for a system that works. The question for the Government is simple: will they strengthen what exists or will they replace it with something weaker, slower and less certain? On the current trajectory, that is the risk, and it is one that I believe this House should not accept.

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

  More

  No, I will not. That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression. The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended. Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly: “CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.” That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility. The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote: “We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.” That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned. There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.

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

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that the speeches we have heard today have been wide-ranging and passionate. I thank all those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately did not manage to speak and the many Members who supported this debate. I am leading it, but plenty of Members across the House supported it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The one thing that united every speaker in this debate was a clear desire to improve a system that is not working for young people in our constituencies. We may disagree about the exact process to get there, but I say to the Minister that nobody in this House is expressing anything other than what they have heard from their own constituents. In some cases, that may be support for the Government’s proposals, but we have to be honest that many of our constituents are expressing concerns. The Minister should not squander this Government’s opportunity. I know there are antibodies from Government Members whenever I open my mouth about anything, but I am passionate about this issue, and I think that we—together, on both sides of the House—can improve what the Government are doing and ensure that the legal protections remain, while improving the system. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in writing a number of the questions asked by Members across the House that she was unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. I also hope that she will assess the responses to the White Paper with an open mind, with the aim of ensuring that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we are to solve—if that is the right word—the issue of special educational needs, and, more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with such needs, we need to understand the reasons for those needs. Instead, there is a feeling that families who are already exhausted by the system are becoming disengaged from the very process that the Government’s proposals are supposed to improve. Across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, SEND is the most prominent issue in my casework. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex and too often unresponsive. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I see those challenges not just locally but reflected across the country.

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

  More

  I do not attribute any unfair or untoward motive to the Government; I think they are trying to improve the system. However, as I said in my opening remarks, my view is that if we improve it properly and get it right, that will save money. The danger with the way the Government have approached this is that they are looking to save money and then thinking about how they can solve the system. That is the danger. Let me move on to the three tests that I mentioned at the start. The first test is whether the Government’s proposals strengthen legal protections. I accept that education, health and care plans, introduced in 2014, are not perfect, but they provide something essential: clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability. The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the Government have not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. That creates a clear risk: replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics: funding, school places and workforce numbers. Those are important, but at the heart of this issue are children, families and carers who rely on the system. I thank the hundreds of families, from my constituency and across the country, who have contacted me since the debate was scheduled. I applied for the debate before the White Paper came out, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I focus pretty much all my comments on the White Paper. I am sure that other Members will speak about the issue more widely. In my opinion, any credible reform of SEND, including the Government’s White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections, improve delivery on the ground and address the underlying pressures in the system. If it does all three, it can and will save money in the long run, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals fall short on all three. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I will address the process by which they have been brought forward. The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that the proposals risk eroding rights, while others have asked whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to consultation at all. At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial—that workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views. That matters because reform of this scale depends on trust.

• 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?

• 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.

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

  More

  The Secretary of State mentioned the need for more medical staff across the world and, of course, in this country as well. At the general election, he pledged to double the number of medical school places by 2030. Is that still a commitment, and how far has he got with it?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Funding Shortfall · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

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

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining the situations in which his constituents find themselves, as mine do in many cases. Is he as concerned as I am that mandatory registration for home education essentially risks treating every parent as a potential safeguarding concern, rather than recognising the fact that they are doing their absolute best for their children? They absolutely want to comply with the law and should not be treated as criminals in the first instance.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the Government’s supposed intention for the Bill, but is he aware that Amanda Spielman, the former Ofsted chief inspector, said that this Bill was “very likely” to have a detrimental effect on children’s education?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about branded school uniforms, headteachers in my constituency have often bulk bought school uniforms through a supplier, so it can be more cost-effective to buy the uniform through the branded supplier than to buy it on the high street. Surely what the hon. Gentleman suggests could have a perverse outcome. Does he not think that if branded items can be bought at a cheaper cost, they would be better than buying off the peg?

• 20 Nov 2025 · World COPD Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate the day after World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease day. He gave an excellent speech, although I think he was being characteristically modest when he mentioned his dancing ability—I am sure he is much better than he claims. As we have heard, COPD is a group of conditions that too often goes unnoticed until it is dangerously advanced. More than 1.7 million people across the UK have a COPD diagnosis. However, NICE estimates that around 600,000 more are living with the condition undiagnosed, and indeed this afternoon we heard figures that are even higher than that. I am fortunate to have a relatively low rate of COPD in my constituency, at about 1.46%, but that figure masks the variation within my constituency. Those differences are reflected across the country: rates are significantly higher in the north of England, and in the 10% most deprived areas the prevalence is nearly double. People living in the poorest areas are five times more likely to die from COPD than those in the wealthiest. Research from Asthma and Lung UK shows that the poorest 10% of households are more than two and a half times more likely to have COPD than someone from the most affluent 10%. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted, this is, in every sense, a disease that tracks inequality. Where someone lives should never decide how long they live, yet for COPD far too often it does. Before the pandemic, around 70% of people diagnosed with COPD said they faced barriers to accessing that diagnosis, and 14% were initially misdiagnosed—often told that they had a chest infection or a lingering cough. Some were simply sent away after raising concerns with their GP. However, the pandemic made a serious problem worse: Government figures demonstrate that already inadequate diagnosis rates plummeted, and they show little sign of recovering. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, spirometry—the gold-standard diagnostic test—which has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, continues to be a problem. The consequences of that pause are stark. There was a 51% reduction in diagnoses in 2020 compared with the year before, meaning that around 46,000 people missed out on a diagnosis in that year alone, and around 92,000 over the course of the pandemic. As the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) said, late diagnosis means more advanced disease and higher mortality, more frequent exacerbations and quicker deterioration in quality of life. Those flare-ups can cause permanent lung damage and require long hospital stays. COPD is now the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions, rising three times faster than general admissions. The pressure on the NHS is enormous: an estimated £3.9 billion a year, including £1.4 billion for exacerbations alone. Lost productivity costs £1.7 billion, and reduced quality of life accounts for a further £2.2 billion. When diagnosis fails, costs rise, outcomes worsen and patients suffer the price of delay. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has rightly pointed out, late diagnosis is not the only driver of pressure. Asthma and Lung UK, formerly the British Lung Foundation, found that patients who received the five fundamentals of COPD care experienced fewer flare-ups and were better equipped to manage their symptoms, yet more than three quarters of respondents said that they were missing at least one part of that basic care. Those with the most recent diagnoses were the least likely to receive the full package, so the situation is getting worse, not better. Asthma and Lung UK notes that many people must effectively learn to navigate the NHS themselves to access the care that they need. That is not acceptable. These are people who are already struggling, and they should not have to fight the system as well as the disease. Around 420,000 people in the UK may have had their working lives cut short by COPD. More than half of respondents to the Asthma and Lung UK survey said that their mental health had worsened since diagnosis, so we can and must do better. The NHS long-term plan includes commitments on respiratory disease, including for early detection and improved access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on progress towards those commitments. This November, waiting lists continue to rise. We need a credible strategy to ensure that the NHS can manage the winter safely while maintaining high-quality care. We need a realistic plan to address the continuing backlog in elective and non-emergency care, and a targeted approach to address persistent gaps in respiratory services. The national respiratory audit programme—formerly the national asthma and COPD audit programme—was launched in 2018 and is led by the Royal College of Physicians. It has been invaluable in identifying gaps and variations in care. As part of the programme, NHS England developed a best practice tariff for COPD, which is met when 60% of COPD patients admitted for an exacerbation receive specialist input after 24 hours and when all COPD patients receive a discharge bundle. I have mentioned it before in the House, but one of my proudest career moments was working for the Getting It Right First Time programme. In 2021, our respiratory medicine report, published by Dr Martin Allen during the pandemic—it was, therefore, focused on the immediate problems—raised a number of issues. For example, pulmonary rehabilitation remains one of the most effective treatments available for COPD. Of those who complete the programme, 90% report better quality of life or improved exercise capacity. The long-term plan proposes expanding access by 2028. If achieved, that could prevent half a million exacerbations and avoid 80,000 admissions. As 2028 is not that far away, will the Minister update on progress towards those targets? The NHS RightCare pathway provides a comprehensive framework for improving diagnosis, management and treatment. It highlights the importance of timely pulmonary rehabilitation and early intervention, so I welcome the Government’s rolling it out. Finally, tackling smoking remains fundamental. Between 2022 and 2023, there were around 400,000 hospital admissions attributable to smoking, and 16% of all respiratory admissions were smoking-related. Between 75% and 85% of COPD deaths remain linked to smoking, yet only around half of COPD inpatient services report having a dedicated tobacco dependency adviser. What are the Government going to do to improve that situation? I call on the Minister to take urgent action, first by implementing a national strategy to raise awareness, strengthen early diagnosis and reduce risk factors such as smoking and air pollution; secondly, by ensuring that all COPD patients have timely access to treatment, pulmonary rehabilitation, and integrated health and social care support for patients and carers; and, thirdly, by committing to increasing research investment, and to introducing innovative treatments and transparent data-driven accountability to improve outcomes and reduce avoidable hospitalisations. We cannot keep treating COPD as a winter crisis when it is, in truth, a year-round emergency. The time to act is now. The evidence is clear. Too many people remain undiagnosed, too many are diagnosed too late, too many do not receive the basic standard of care to which they are entitled and too many end up in hospital when their deterioration could have been prevented. We have the data. We have the clinical consensus. We have the pathways. We do not lack knowledge; we lack resolve. People living with COPD deserve timely, high-quality care and the support that they need to live fuller, healthier lives. It is within our gift to deliver that; let us not fail them.

• 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.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The simple answer is we do not—I cannot add more than that. As the hon. Member has drawn me on this, our problem is that we do not think that is deliverable because the Government have not met any of their targets thus far. From a parochial point of view, in Waverley and East Hampshire my constituents face the doubling of housing targets, whereas in London, where the infrastructure is already in place, the targets are being reduced. That is not joined-up thinking; that is a Government who are spraying their house targets all over the country without thinking about how they will actually deliver them. As I said, the average price of a family home in Farnham is £660,000, which would meaning paying £23,000 in stamp duty. If we can get our proposal through, that would be an enormous cut. Most important, it is fully funded—part of that £47 billion savings plan—and consistent with our golden rule that every pound saved is split between reducing the deficit and growing the economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calls stamp duty the “most economically damaging tax in the UK”. The London School of Economics found that it “cuts mobility and investment”. The Centre for Policy Studies calls it a “tax on… aspiration”. They are all right. Our plan would save first-time buyers up to £18,000 in London and £4,000 in the south-east. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said, combined with our first jobs bonus, a couple could save £28,000—enough to get on the ladder and build a future. We have heard a number of hon. Members across the House claiming that they support the principle of removing the stamp duty land tax, with the notable exceptions of the hon. Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). What those three Members forget is that people buying a house are almost always part of a chain. Just because someone at the top of the market might be buying a £2 million house—I think they are overreaching a little with £2 million, but even if that were the case—everybody else down that chain would benefit. As soon as we can get the market moving, we will allow people to buy and sell and will give the youngest people, those buying their first home or those trying to upsize because they are starting a family the ability to actually buy. It is not just the people who are technically covered by the tax—it is everybody within the whole chain. In contrast, Labour froze the thresholds, dragging more families into higher bands. The Housing Secretary even tried to block 237 homes in his constituency. “Build, baby, build”—I think not, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, a number of Members across the House, especially on the Labour Benches, have expressed sympathy for the principle of the policy, but they seem entirely unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to get there. We saw that with Labour’s total inability to cut the welfare bill by a tiny amount earlier this year. Even if they were not willing to take those decisions, though, as every Member of this House knows, this motion is not binding on the Government, so Labour Members could happily support it to show that they would, in principle, like to see this tax cut. I suspect, though, that their principles will be overridden by the decisions of the Whips Office. The Liberal Democrats were characteristically fence-sitting—so much so that I think the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) must have left the Chamber to remove the splinters. The reality is that this Conservative Opposition is the only party with serious thinking about how to get the housing market moving again. Our alternative is clear: we will abolish stamp duty on main homes, scrap business rates for hospitality, leisure and retail and give high streets the breathing space to grow again. That is the difference—we listen to people who build, hire, own and aspire. The choice before the House is stark: a Labour party that punishes aspiration, or a Conservative party that rewards it. Do we want a Government who trap people where they are, or one who set them free to move, work and grow? Only the Conservatives have a serious plan to get Britain working, grow the economy and give every person a real stake in their community through the security of home ownership.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here. The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight. As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31.