Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, left off, with new clause 52 on dental provision. I have a lot of sympathy for what she is trying to achieve with the new clause. In my own constituency, as far as I can tell, looking earlier today, not a single dental practice is taking new NHS patients for dentistry, whether that be children or adults, and that is extraordinarily concerning. Even more concerning—this somewhat relates to the changes that the Government are making in the clause through bringing the commissioning of dental services to ICBs—I have a fully equipped and fully functional dental surgery in Haslemere hospital in my constituency, but it has remained entirely unused for a number of years, because it sits within the hospital, which is run by the Royal Surrey NHS trust, but is commissioned by the ICB. That seems like an utter waste of resources. That is something that could be clarified through new clause 52 and, I hope, through the clauses tabled by the Government. On new clause 2, about GP practices, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for North Shropshire did not want to take my intervention because she will not be able to answer my questions, unless she intervenes on me now, which I hope she will. Again, I sympathise entirely with what she is trying to achieve. We want to ensure that people have timely access to their GPs. I am sure that, like me, she has constituents who cannot get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. They can wait numerous weeks, upwards of five or six weeks, for something that they should be seen about. A lot of questions are unanswered by new clause 2, however. I will not repeat the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I have some others. For example, the new clause states that the Government must “establish a scheme to provide every patient with the right to a GP appointment”. Although the hon. Lady clarified that that could be a telephone consultation, what is not clear is whether that is an appointment at the named GP practice at which the patient is registered, or is just with any GP, through something such as the NHS 111 service.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend’s point is correct. There is so little detail in the clause about how these prizes will be awarded and how the committee that will award them will be set up that we have no idea how conflicts of interest will be dealt with. That is another reason that the Minister needs to explain to the Committee how this is going to work. My hon. Friend mentions “Dragons’ Den”. I see her as the Deborah Meaden of our Committee, so I look forward to seeing that play out—I will not say what that makes me. What I see from amendment 58, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham— I hope I am not misrepresenting her—is once again an attempt to codify, clarify and strengthen what is fairly woolly wording within the Bill. In particular, her amendment rightly emphasises the importance of “timely adoption and spread of clinically effective innovations”. Timeliness is so important to patients. We need innovation quickly. Again, it worries me that the prizes could be given for innovations that could have happened weeks, months, years or decades ago, according to the wording. We also need to ensure that innovation is not in isolated pockets, either in terms of geography or type of service. We need something that is consistently delivered across the healthcare system. By highlighting the need to address things such as procurement, the regulatory sector and cultural barriers, my hon. Friend’s amendment would support a more proactive and enabling environment for innovation to flourish, not one that shuts it down, as some Labour Members have suggested. Crucially, paragraph (d) of the amendment represents a significant and commendable commitment to fairness and inclusion by prioritising equal access to new technologies, medicines and models of care regardless of geography or socioeconomic background. It would help to tackle long-standing inequalities and move decisively towards ending the postcode lottery that we often see in care quality. The focus of the amendment would ensure that innovation benefits all patients, not just those in the most advantaged areas. It would ensure that rural and coastal communities are aligned with the urban. As someone who represents a semi-rural seat, I see those inequalities in service delivery, quality of care and innovation. The large towns in my constituency receive far more money and get far better services than the surrounding villages. I have many concerns about the clause as it currently stands, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the Opposition’s questions. I entirely endorse amendment 58.

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

  More

  Q Sarah, when we were at the Health and Social Care Committee, you and your fellow panellists seemed to suggest that the Government could achieve what they needed to in the 10-year plan without this reorganisation. Could you delve into that a bit more and tell us why you think that is the case? Sarah Woolnough: The Government have an incredibly ambitious agenda, which is partly articulated in the 10-year plan. Our ongoing concern has been that some of the biggest-ticket items that the Government rightly want to achieve to fundamentally shift power to patients—delivering a shift towards prevention, moving care closer to home and allowing more digital enablement—do not require this kind of legislation or a reorganisation. I go back to my first answer: what is honestly the opportunity cost of doing some of this at the expense of more focus and attention on, for example, delivering care closer to home? There is a lot of energy and activity in that area, but the Government want to make really good progress over the next few years. To take that example, if you are really serious, you need to understand what the barriers are to delivering more care in the community, closer to people and patients, and wrapping services around patients. It requires you to flow money differently and to have a different incentive scheme, but that is nowhere near this piece of legislation. Our worry has been about what is not in the Bill, and what is the rightly and fantastically ambitious agenda to improve health for people and patients, versus the opportunity cost of a largely technical piece of legislation that reorganises some central functions.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Renewables Sector: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  We are losing over 1,000 jobs a month in our oil and gas industry, and despite what the Secretary of State has just said, we are not seeing a similar uptick in green jobs. Skilled workers are losing their jobs in oil and gas, and are actually leaving the country. The Government’s actions are making the United Kingdom poorer and less secure, and we are waving goodbye to highly skilled jobs. How can the Secretary of State honestly tell this House that there is a transition going on?

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government. Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go. Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions. In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector. Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.

• 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.”

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  If I were being generous, I would say merely that the hon. Member has not listened to my speech or read the motion in front of us. I have not mentioned anywhere that we will be cutting back on renewable energy. If Labour’s position is misguided, the Liberal Democrats’ position is outright reckless. They would pile further taxes on the North sea through an expanded energy profits levy, despite clear evidence that such measures deter investment and ultimately reduce tax revenues. Some analyses suggest that scrapping the EPL could deliver an additional £25 billion to the Treasury over the next decade. At the same time, the Liberal Democrats would smother the sector in layers of environmental, social and governance reporting and regulation, slowing down investment, increasing costs and driving production overseas. And for what? They would do so to meet accelerated net zero targets that are divorced from the reality of how Britain actually uses its energy. Here is the fundamental point: electricity accounts for only around a fifth of our total energy use. The rest still comes from oil and gas for heating, transport and industry. We are not about to replace that overnight; nor are there credible plans to do so from this Government. The choice is not between oil and gas or renewables. We need both. The real choice is whether we produce that energy here under our own environmental standards, supporting British jobs and British revenues, or whether we import it from abroad at a higher cost and with higher carbon. The British public understand this. Around three quarters say that we should produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports, and they are right. Our plan recognises that. It backs domestic production, cuts unnecessary net zero taxes and delivers cheaper energy while maintaining our environmental commitments. I say to Ministers: stop outsourcing our energy; stop exporting our jobs; and stop pretending that dependence is a virtue.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the figure is £25 billion, which is a significant injection into the Treasury however we look at it. The simple truth is this: if we increase domestic supply, we can ease pressure on prices, reduce reliance on expensive imported LNG and cut costs. That is not ideology—it is basic economics. The idea that new licences would take too long does not survive scrutiny either. Much of the North sea’s infrastructure already exists. Pipelines and platforms have spare capacity. New fields can be tied into existing systems, accelerating production and reducing cost. What Labour presents as inevitability is in fact a political choice. In the non-statement the Chancellor made earlier today, she talked about cutting red tape. Perhaps she should think about cutting Red Ed first of all, because this choice has consequences. The ban on new licences risks leaving 2.9 billion barrels of oil and gas in the ground and puts at risk 200,000 jobs. Those are not abstract numbers. They are skilled, well-paid jobs that have powered communities for generations. This is not transition; it is industrial retreat.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman); it is like a greatest hits of the 1970s. At a time when the war in Ukraine continues and instability spreads across the middle east, energy is not simply an economic question but a matter of national security. Yet under this Labour Government, Britain is making itself more dependent, not less. The irony is that even Labour Back Benchers know this—they are in the papers every day telling us that offshoring emissions while importing energy from abroad does nothing for climate change and weakens our resilience. The reality is stark: Britain is not reducing demand for oil and gas; we are simply choosing to import it. In 2024 alone, we imported more than $11 billion-worth of crude from Norway. At the same time, liquefied natural gas shipped from abroad can carry up to four times the emissions of gas produced here at home. This is not environmental leadership, but carbon outsourcing with a higher bill attached—a bill that is being paid by British businesses and families, who are facing some of the highest energy costs in Europe. Labour’s central argument this afternoon simply does not stand up. Labour Members claim that producing more gas in the North sea will not reduce prices because there is a so-called world price, but that misses the fundamental point that our own home-grown gas and oil produces hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we do not use it, we will miss out on billions in tax revenues that could be used to reduce energy prices for the consumer.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Profits Levy: Gas Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the Secretary of State is totally uninterested in the reality of what is happening in the industry because of the EPL. A thousand jobs a month are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s decision, all the while we are importing more at a higher cost with high emissions, jobs are being lost, investments are being turned away and our energy security is being undermined. At the same time, despite what the Secretary of State says, bills are going up for my constituents. Why will he not rectify that and sort out the problem for the whole country?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Profits Levy: Gas Sector · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Energy Infrastructure Technology: Chinese Imports · Hansard source

  More

  Given reports from Norway and Denmark that Chinese-manufactured electric buses contain remote kill switch technology, and that the recent UK-China engagement appears to have delivered an embassy for the Chinese and little more than a Labubu for the United Kingdom, how can the Minister be confident that Chinese-made energy infrastructure does not pose similar national security risks? What steps is she taking to remove our reliance on Chinese-made infrastructure?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Energy Infrastructure Technology: Chinese Imports · Hansard source

  More

  17. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of energy infrastructure-related technologies imported from China on security.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of taxation on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I am grateful to colleagues for attending this debate. Small and medium sized-enterprises are the backbone of our economy. They create jobs, sustain local communities and keep our high streets alive. However, since the autumn Budget 2024, they have been met with higher taxes, higher costs and a Government who appear indifferent to whether they survive at all. It is almost impossible to know where to start with this debate, given the Government’s complete failure on the economy and sustained neglect of business and enterprise. The Prime Minister speaks the language of growth, but lacks the backbone to take the decisions needed to achieve it. If the debate were simply an exercise in cataloguing failure, we would be here all day. Instead, I will focus on the real-world consequences of that incompetence for the small and medium-sized businesses that keep our economy moving. In my constituency, I repeatedly hear the same message from business owners about staffing pressures, soaring energy bills and rising financial costs, which in many cases have more than trebled as a direct result of decisions taken by this Government. That is not anecdote; it is reflected clearly in the data. Research from Xero shows just how precarious the situation has become: two in five SMEs do not even know whether they were profitable last month. That is not confidence; that is business flying blind. Since the 2024 Budget, Labour has made a deliberate political choice to increase the burden on retail, hospitality and leisure. Those are not marginal sectors—they are the lifeblood of our town centres, as major employers and key drivers of local economic activity.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for, as always, bringing his experience from Northern Ireland. That emphasises the point that I was making: this is a whole-country problem. He is absolutely right that we are on a knife edge. We are at a tipping point for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and if they go under, the consequences will be dire. If one wants to speak Treasury speak, that means the Treasury will actually raise less money. The only way that the Treasury will raise more money is by freeing up businesses to expand, grow and employ more people. That is how we will get our economy going, not by taxing every single business until the pips squeak. I turn now to hospitality, which has been a focus of mine since I was elected. It underpins community life and provides work for young people and for those who rely on flexible hours. Yet the Government slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40%—an ideological and damaging decision—which will be followed by eye-watering increases in rateable values from April this year. UKHospitality data shows that the average pub will see its business rates rise by 15% in the first year, climbing to a 76% increase by year three. At the same time, online and out-of-town competitors are being protected. Distribution warehouses used by online giants will see increases of just 9% in year one and 16% by year three. This is not a level playing field; it is actively tilted against the high street. The Government’s so-called emergency pubs relief, announced this year, does little to address the scale of the problem. It is a sticking plaster, not a solution. Just one in 20 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will benefit, and even then the average pub will still be paying £5,700 more in business rates than before. Business rates are simply not being reduced, and those pressures are compounded by the changes to employer national insurance contributions introduced at the 2024 Budget. For the hospitality sector alone, that amounts to £1 billion every single year. More than 774,000 hospitality workers have been dragged into employer national insurance for the first time, disproportionately affecting part-time staff such as bar workers and waiting staff. Flexible work is being punished. Young workers are being hit hardest, and employing people is becoming more expensive at precisely the wrong moment. That is not pro-growth and it is not pro-work. VAT policy has also failed small businesses. The £90,000 VAT registration threshold actively discourages growth and creates perverse incentives for firms to cap expansion. The Government have ignored repeated calls for a reduced VAT rate of 12.5% for hospitality, a policy that would support growth, improve competitiveness and align the UK with many of our European neighbours. The refusal to act is holding back an entire sector. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), is chuntering from his seat. I am sure he will be able to hold his own debate at some point to tell us all what is going on in his constituency. I suspect that, if he were honest, he would tell us about the impact that his Government’s policies have had on the sector, and how they are absolutely destroying his high street, as they are mine. These pressures are not theoretical; they are being felt by real businesses across my constituency. For example, at Birdies café in Farnham Park, business rates have increased by 450%—from £290 to £1,600 a month—a change that has already cost the business a member of staff. Energy bills have risen from £300 to £400 a month to £3,500 a month, while rising wage costs and changes to employment law have forced the owner into rolling three-month contracts—a worse outcome for workers, driven entirely by the Government’s pressure and policies. At the Bat and Ball pub, business rates are doubling from £800 to £1,600 a month. Minimum wage changes have added £56,000 a year to its wage bill. Across my constituency, community businesses such as the Antiques Warehouse, the Packhouse, the Bluebell pub, Serina, the Six Bells, the Healy Group, and Hamilton’s in Farnham; Acorns Coffee, the Dairy, Issaya and Smallworld IT in Bordon; Oliver’s café and wine bar and Davids menswear in Haslemere; Passfield Stores in Passfield; Little Latte in Tilford; the General Wine Company and Stedman Blower in Liphook; and the Greatham Inn in Greatham have all written or spoken to me and are facing the same relentless squeeze from Government tax and regulatory decisions. These are not failing businesses; they are community anchors being priced out by this Government’s policies. These issues are not confined to hospitality. Yesterday I met representatives of Medicines UK to discuss the impact of Government policy on suppliers of generic medicines. They raised serious concerns about the extended producer responsibility packaging tax. Packaging is obviously mandated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for safety reasons, leaving companies with little ability to reduce their tax liability. As a result, costs are either absorbed or passed directly on to the NHS and therefore the taxpayer.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I usually respond to matters related to the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is a pleasure to be here to debate a more rural point. I represent Farnham and Bordon, which is a semi-rural seat. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I must declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance and a member of the Conservative Rural Forum. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for her expositions of very many tragic cases, especially her powerful remarks about the appalling case of Emma and Lettie Pattison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his very practical approach to this debate; I think the Government should take on board the number of issues he raised. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) discussed the synergies between gun licences and other licensing regimes—in his case, for pilots. I look forward to him taking me on a trip at some point. I also thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for her, as ever, interesting contributions, drawing on her rural experience. Whenever we decide to create new rules that restrict the behaviour of the many in response to the actions of the few, we must be extremely careful. Where genuine loopholes exist because of data silos, or because of how long-standing rules interact with novel cases, it is right that they are closed. As has been mentioned, while the firearms marker is not mandatory, a digital version has been rolled out to all general practices in England, with implementation completed in May 2023. The key point that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned was that the Government must continue to monitor the efficacy of the current system to ensure that only those who are suitable are able to hold a firearms licence and, more especially, to publish the data surrounding that. As has been mentioned, many organisations are supportive of mandatory markers, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but we must have the data to take an evidence-led approach. Protecting the integrity of the firearms licensing system is essential for public safety, but any measures must remain proportionate and avoid placing unnecessary burdens on medical professionals or responsible licence holders. As we have seen so often in recent years, the net result of successive, well-intentioned changes to the law can be a system that makes life unduly difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding people, while failing to stop the criminal minority. Unfortunately, under this Government, we have seen a renewed assault on civilian firearms ownership, which is set to directly punish those in rural communities who rely on firearms as tools of the trade. For farmers, land managers and pest controllers, firearms are part and parcel of everyday life, and access to those tools is vital. Without them, it would be impossible to protect livestock and manage the local population of certain animals, as farming communities have done for centuries. None the less, without any particular justification, and without ever proving that it would actually prevent criminals from getting hold of firearms, the Government have announced that they plan to regulate section 2 firearms, such as shotguns, under the more stringent regime that previously applied only to section 1 firearms. We have heard vague gestures in the direction of public safety, but no clear case has been made for the substantive measures proposed, and we certainly have had no indication from the Government that they have considered the particular needs of rural communities. If shotguns are to be regulated like long-range rifles, how do the Government expect farmers and pest controllers to continue their work? Given that, as we have heard, many police firearms licensing departments are overwhelmed by the volume of applications, has there been any consideration of the delays that extra work for these departments would create? One of my constituents recently submitted a renewal application within the timeframe recommended by the police, allowing more than six months for processing. The only response received was, by return of post, an extension of the existing licence, as the department acknowledged that it would be unable to issue a new licence within the six-month period. The routine use of licence extensions is concerning because it allows firearms to remain in circulation without a timely, full reassessment of suitability. Meanwhile, some of the Government’s proposals will not help with public safety, but will put additional burdens on the police force or make them more likely.

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

  More

  I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to impress something upon the Minister. When he spoke about the uses of shotguns, he talked about target shooting and hunting. I gently say to him that these firearms are needed for far more than sport; they are used for land management and for farming. I encourage him, if he has not already, to meet the organisations that represent rural communities to understand how vital shotguns are for rural land management.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think I have mentioned the Climate Change Act, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I think what my constituents want— [ Interruption. ] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he is barracking me before I have even had a chance to answer. My constituents tell me that they want green policies and sensible moves to reduce carbon and pollution, but they do not want them to hobble our economy and hit them in their pockets at a very difficult time when they are being taxed to death by the Government. The owners of Rutland London in my constituency spoke to me about the Government’s much-vaunted policy paper “Backing your business: our plan for small and medium-sized businesses”, which came out recently. They said that the plan “while promised to cut red tape, lacks delivery details, relies on third-party co-operation, and depends on enforcement rather than details, plans or even an outline, none of which have been set out to us.” Once again, we have another supposedly amazing thing that this Government have done, but businesses do not want it. During the general election, Labour told the public that it would not raise taxes—it said that 41 times. Then, as we have heard, the Government raised taxes to raise £40 billion. At that point we could have had a sensible discussion about how we were going to reduce the size of the state, reduce inefficiencies and increase productivity, but we had none of those discussions. Essentially, we had a tiny change to welfare, which this Government, because of their Back Benchers, could not get through. While I disagree with the Labour Back Benchers on that, I am asking them now to find the backbone that made them stand up to their Front Bench last time and to do so again. If the Chancellor comes to this House and raises taxes on working people, I ask them to find that backbone and vote against the tax rise. Their constituents will thank them, and the country will thank them. In the minute or two I have left, I want to focus on local leadership. I think it is incumbent on us as local leaders to meet and listen to constituents and businesses. That is why I am running a business roundtable next week, and I am very grateful that the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is coming to speak at it. I recommend speaking to businesses not just because we are local leaders, but because Members on the Labour Benches would learn something. They would learn that their constituents are not in favour of this. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made some reference to our constituencies not being the same, but I can tell him that in my constituency, as I am sure is the case in his, there are business owners suffering, families struggling, farmers worried about what they will do with their taxes and small businesses that will be broken up because of this Government’s tax. There are also thousands upon thousands of people who have either lost their job or will not get into employment because of what this Government have done. It is time for this Government to act—stop tinkering, stop the gimmicks, and stop punishing hard-working families and small businesses. This country deserves more than promises. It deserves action, certainty, and a Government who are on the side of those who work, innovate and contribute every day. What we need from the Chancellor in two weeks’ time is a Budget that actually invests in growth, supports jobs, protects household incomes and cuts the red tape on businesses that I described earlier. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity seriously and ensure that the Chancellor and the Government listen to their constituents and my constituents and produce a Budget that restores confidence, ambition and hope in this nation.

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

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It makes very little sense to design a system that punishes small wineries for doing precisely what we want, namely innovating, employing and exporting. We need a tax framework that supports the makers, not merely those who take. There is a revenue reality to this as well. Between April and September this year, receipts from alcohol duty were £300 million lower than during the same period in 2024. If that trend continues, the Treasury will collect around £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We have reached the wrong side of the Laffer curve, where higher duties result in lower total receipts. The Treasury cannot continue to draw from the same barrel and expect it to refill itself. That should give the Chancellor, the Minister and Treasury officials pause for serious reflection. With the autumn Budget approaching, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas of concern. First, have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, a full assessment of the impact of successive duty increases on consumer prices, business sustainability and overall tax receipts? Secondly, will the forthcoming three-year review of the duty system consider whether the current tax by ABV model is appropriate for wine, a product whose alcohol content varies naturally with climatic conditions? Thirdly, will the Government revisit the structure of small producer relief so that it more fairly supports genuinely small-scale producers, including English winemakers and craft distillers, in line with the original policy intent? Finally, will the Treasury review the cumulative impact of wider regulatory costs, such as the extended producer responsibility packaging levy, business rate changes and other compliance burdens, to ensure that they do not disproportionately harm low-margin businesses within the sector? I thank the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and Treasury Wine Estates, whose compelling evidence shows a sector under extreme pressure, a tax system that is internationally uncompetitive and an approach that risks delivering diminished returns to the Exchequer. When consumers are price sensitive, hospitality is struggling, and revenues are falling despite higher rates, it is right to ask whether the system remains fit for purpose. The objective must be a framework that is fair between product categories, proportionate in its impact, and effective in raising the revenue on which our public services depend. The UK’s wine and spirits sector is one of our quiet economic strengths. It deserves a regulatory environment that allows it to thrive, invest and continue contributing to communities and the Treasury alike. The Government should remember that a thriving economy fills the Exchequer, and a suffocated one drains it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and in particular how the Government intend to support the stability, competitiveness and long-term sustainability of this vital industry.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree. The truth is that Labour does not have the backing of small and medium-sized businesses because it is stifling growth with its costly net zero commitments, layers of red tape, changes to the living wage, cuts to business rate relief, the Employment Rights Bill and higher national insurance contributions. That is a toxic cocktail designed to choke off enterprise and ambition. The Conservatives have a very good record on supporting local businesses. Just think back to the pandemic, when we delivered 100% business rates relief for many businesses. Indeed, when we left office last year, business rates relief was at 75%. Yet what did Labour do? As soon as it came in, it slashed that relief to just 40%, which is absolutely crippling for small businesses in my constituency. That is why I am proud and pleased that we have announced the abolition of business rates altogether, meaning that nearly a quarter of a million businesses will benefit. Financed by the golden rule, that is responsible, sustainable and, most importantly, pro-growth. An hon. Member on the Government Benches argued that removing the rates will let landlords raise rents, but that assumes a balanced market. The reality is oversupply, with retail space outstripping demand. Abolishing business rates will therefore not drive up rents, but will make high streets more sustainable. The Brightwells development in Farnham, in my constituency, proves the point. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency last week, we met Steve at Hamilton’s, Mario at Serina, and Julian at The Castle pub. All three said the same thing: business rates are crippling, HMRC’s red tape is growing and energy bills are too high. That is why I am delighted that we have a plan to scrap business rates and cut energy bills for those small businesses. In Bordon, in my constituency, we are working intensely to ensure that the new high street and town centre can thrive. We are making progress, but that progress will be undermined by this Government’s attack on business. These are not just businesses; they are the heartbeat of our community. They train young people, they create jobs and they invest in the place they call home. I am also afraid that the disconnect that Labour shows nationally is echoed by the Liberal Democrats in my area. They simply do not understand the struggles that our high streets face under this Government and therefore have no empathy for our local businesses. High streets are not just the commercial zones; they are social, and the social and economic soul of our towns. Supporting them requires a Government willing to protect essential services, invest in rural areas and cut through the bureaucracy that holds small businesses back. Conservatives understand that if we back ambition, we build prosperity. If we bury it in bureaucracy, we destroy it. Our high streets and the communities that they serve deserve better than that.

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain to my constituents how banning new drilling for oil and gas while importing gas from other countries at a higher cost will bring their bills down by £300, and can he say when that will happen by?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The Treasury has been flying more kites than we saw at the end of “Mary Poppins” in the papers over the last few weeks, but if they are genuine, the Chancellor is preparing the most destructive raid on homeowners in living memory. Families across my constituency are bracing themselves for new taxes on homes worth more than £500,000, capital gains tax on family houses, a revaluation of council tax, and even a land value tax. This is not reform; this is a sledgehammer aimed squarely at aspiration, mobility and stability, and once again it is the south and the south-east that will be punished the most. In Farnham, where the average house price now exceeds £608,000 with the price of detached homes at nearly £900,000, families could face annual bills of nearly £5,000 on top of mortgages, council tax and energy costs. In Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon, households will not be spared; these levies will strip thousands from budgets already stretched to the limit. And what of pensioners and downsizers in Grayshott, Churt, Bramshott, Tilford, or Frensham? They will face the grotesque prospect of capital gains tax on their primary residences.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Family Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Although the aims of the sustainable farming scheme are laudable, many farmers across Wales are expressing real concern about its complexity, the potential reduction in food production and the adequacy of the financial support on offer. What assurances can the Minister give that the scheme will be simplified, sufficiently funded and implemented in a way that supports both the environmental goals and the economic viability of Welsh farming communities?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  This Labour Government have begun a full-scale assault on the British economy. In just one year they have presided over a shambles that has punished workers, hammered businesses and betrayed every promise they made on tax to my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Let us look at the facts. National insurance is up, with a 1.2% rise that the IFS confirms will fall largely on working people. Agricultural property relief has been slashed, which the National Farmers Union warns threatens family farms and food security. In my constituency, farming is not just a way of life; it underpins our local economy and communities. When I visited Bob Milton of Kilnside farm, he told me that his business now faces laying off staff and selling land just to meet Labour’s new tax burden. That is not policy; it is economic sabotage. On the changes to business property relief, a small business owner now faces a tax penalty simply for owning their own premises and hoping to pass their business on. These changes punish success and threaten continuity for family firms across the country. And what is the result of all this? Inflation is stuck at 3.4%, well above the Bank of England’s target of 2%; unemployment is up to 4.6%, the highest in four years; borrowing was at £17.7 billion in May; and public debt is forecast to hit 96.1% of GDP, with annual debt interests soaring to £130 billion, by 2029-30. The tax burden is heading to an historic high—the highest on record, in fact—yet Labour still refuses to rule out new taxes on homes, pensions or savings. Their Chancellor will not even say whether small business owners are working people, and the Prime Minister dodged the question altogether. In Farnham, shop vacancies have risen from 9% to 10.5% in just one quarter—that is, 16 more shuttered high street shops. In Haslemere and Bordon, employers tell me they are freezing and cutting hours. The Shooting Star children’s hospice that serves my constituency will have to spend £90,000 in new NIC costs—enough to hire three nurses. That is now going straight to the Treasury.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right—I hope this matter has cross-party support in the House. As she points out, a significant number of charities across the country hope that the Bill will pass today, as do I. That brings me nicely on to what Jane Lyons, the former chief executive of Cancer52, has said: “Rare and less common cancers make up a massive part of the cancer burden in this country. They need proper structural attention—not just well-meaning inclusion in generic plans.” She is right. We need dedicated leadership and a single accountable individual or office for rare cancer research and care. We need smarter data platforms, such as the adapted Be Part of Research system proposed in the Bill, and we need a clear strategy for delivering orphan drug access, so that the UK becomes a destination for innovation, not a detour. When the NHS 10-year plan speaks of transformation, we must ensure that that transformation is inclusive. When we talk about prevention, early detection and innovation, we must be honest about who gets access and who does not. If we are serious about improving outcomes for all cancer patients, rare cancers must not be treated as an afterthought. They must be recognised for what they are: a major public health challenge hiding in plain sight. The 10-year plan gives us the tools, but it is now up to this House and to Ministers to ensure that those tools are used equitably, strategically and with urgency. That is why I was incredibly saddened to hear that Dr Susan Michaelis, the founder of the lobular moonshot project, died a couple of days ago. Susan’s life and legacy exemplify why this Bill matters. Lobular breast cancer affects 22 women every single day in the UK and more than 1,000 globally. It is not rare in the strict legal sense—more than six per 100,000 are diagnosed annually—but due to the severe lack of research, awareness and tailored treatment, it deserves to be treated as such by our systems. Susan was due to meet the Secretary of State on 14 July—this coming Monday—to discuss how to accelerate the vital five-year research project she helped to initiate. Thankfully, that meeting will still go ahead. The campaign will not stop. The lobular moonshot project will continue—for Susan, and for every woman still facing this disease without the research-backed options that she deserved. Susan is far from alone. A constituent recently wrote to me about their mother, who died in 2011, just three years after her diagnosis with glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive and incurable brain tumour. The average glioblastoma survival time is 12 to 18 months; only 25% of patients survive more than a year, and just 5% live beyond five. Another campaigner spoke movingly about the delays she faced before being diagnosed with a rare kidney cancer—initially misdiagnosed, postponed by covid, and ultimately caught too late. There are so many rare cancers, and the stories repeat. Rare cancers are not rare to those living with them; they are rare only to the system. According to Jane Lyons, the former CEO of Cancer52, “Something like 47% of all cancer diagnoses are for rare and less common cancers, but they account for 55% of all cancer deaths…That’s a massive number of challenges—and a huge opportunity for impact.” Sarcoma UK’s recent report found that one in three sarcoma patients waits more than six months to be diagnosed. Referral pathways are frequently misapplied, and this delay is not a minor inconvenience; in cancer care, it can be fatal. The Brain Tumour Charity has called the Bill “essential for any real hope of progress in finding a cure.” The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce has declared that this legislation is “crucial for early diagnosis and equity of access.” The Urostomy Association, in its rare cancers manifesto, calls for urgent structural change to improve data, screening and outcomes, and Lynch Syndrome UK has spoken powerfully about the opportunities to accelerate genetic-led, AI-informed cancer prevention if rare cancer research is properly funded. I believe that the Rare Cancers Bill will help to achieve that. It has three core provisions: first, a named lead for rare cancer research so that this agenda has a home in Government and a voice at the top table; secondly, a review of the orphan drug regulations to create better commercial incentives for new treatments and trials; and thirdly, a patient-focused data system built into the Be Part of Research platform so that people are no longer left in the dark about trials that could change their lives. This is not just about saving lives; it is about improving them. It is about ensuring that families are not left with grief and regret when better systems might have given them hope. Today, as we consider the Rare Cancers Bill, let us remember people like Susan Michaelis and the countless families who have campaigned for change they may not live to see. Let us recognise that rare cancers are not someone else’s problem, but a public health injustice hiding in plain sight. Let us pass the Bill—not just for the scientists and clinicians, but for every patient, and for every parent and partner who has watched a loved one suffer from a cancer few people can even pronounce. This is our chance to correct the imbalance, drive innovation and deliver real, lasting change. If we seize this moment, we can ensure that every patient—no matter how rare their cancer—can access trials, treatment and the possibility of life. Let us not waste this opportunity. Let us be clear-eyed about the gaps and build an NHS that genuinely serves every patient, with every type of cancer, in every part of this country. Together, let us leave a legacy worthy of those we have lost, and transform care for those still fighting.