Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement that those who are convicted of such crimes will not be able to take part in the asylum system, and I suggest that she may want to extend that to all crimes against the person. The question that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) asked was this: will the Home Secretary ensure that no fallacious human rights claims can be made that mean that these people cannot be deported if convicted of these crimes?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, the situation is stark. Although I welcome the fact that we have secured a temporary banking hub in The Shed, in Bordon, on the Hampshire side, it rapidly needs to have a permanent location. In Liphook, there is no banking hub, no agreed plan and no clear process for securing one. Across the border in Surrey, in Haslemere, we are fortunate to have one of the 100 national hubs up and running, but in nearby Farnham, Barclays has just gone and Santander goes next month. All this means that more than 100,000 people across my constituency have not a single bank and only one building society. Constituents are right to be concerned. Link, the UK’s main cash access body, has stated that Santander’s closure will have, “no significant impact on the community”. I strongly disagree; it absolutely will. This cannot continue to be a postcode lottery. Banks were once embedded in towns and communities but now they are being erased with little left behind. Banking hubs are a partial answer, but the system needs reforms. The process is slow, the criteria too narrow and the scope of services too limited. Hubs must be located centrally, open five or six days a week, accessible to those with limited mobility and reachable without a car. They should serve both individuals and small businesses and, crucially, offer face-to-face banking, not just cash points and machines.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister is about to get to this, so I apologise for intervening, but as I raised in my speech, we want to be very clear about how she will measure success based on the Bill. By what metric, and by when, will we be able to judge whether the Government’s policy has worked?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that everybody across the House wants to see small boat crossings diminish and hopefully conclude entirely. Likewise, I think that most people across the House feel that we need to have a fair, robust and effective way to deal with illegal immigration. This, as I have said previously in the House, is a moral issue. We do not want to see any more women, children or men dying in the channel. When I raised that with the Home Secretary on 22 July, she seemed to agree with me, but thus far agreement does not seem to have matured into action. Indeed, when the Minister of State responded to me on a similar point on 6 November, she was much more equivocal about how the Government were going to deal with this really serious issue. That is no surprise when we come to the Bill, which has ripped the heart out of the previous Government’s Illegal Migration Act. All the deterrence put into that Act has been pulled out. That is important for two reasons. First, this Bill will clearly not stop the small boat crossings. Secondly, it sends a message to those traffickers who want to exploit people and bring them across the channel that the Government are not serious about stopping the problem. We can see that from the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the X-raying and medical checks of migrants have been ripped out. That is something that EU countries do on a routine basis.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Far be it from me to criticise a Member of the other place, especially one with such a distinguished medical career. All I would say gently to the hon. Member is that this is not novel or unique to this country; it is being used in countries across the EU. Likewise, on the Rwanda scheme, which the Government scrapped, we can have a debate about whether it was right or wrong, but EU countries are looking at similar schemes. If the Government do not like Rwanda, why are they not looking at other sites? It is not just me who is saying this. The National Crime Agency has said clearly that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. While the Australians have done it, that was with a deportation scheme, but that is not being introduced by the Government. Likewise, the former chief immigration officer Kevin Saunders said that the United Kingdom needs a “big deterrent” and that everyone has told the Prime Minister that. We need a big deterrent to stop migrants. Forget about the gangs: if we stop the migrants from wanting to come to the UK, the gangs will not exist. I come at this from a moral point of caring about ensuring that people do not die in the channel. We need a deterrent, which is sorely missing from the Bill. It should not surprise us that the Government are not robust on this, because Labour voted against every tough measure that the previous Government introduced in the Illegal Migration Act. Labour Members voted against measures to tackle illegal immigration 134 times. They voted to block, delay or weaken our plans to stop the boats 126 times in the last Parliament. It is therefore absolutely no surprise that their Bill does nothing to stop that and will lead to more dying in the channel. We need a fair migration system. We need to support those who genuinely need our help or whom we genuinely need to fill gaps in our labour market, but we must not be taken for fools by the trafficking gangs, nor must we be taken for fools by this Labour Government. I accept some of the analysis of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who said that we have a problem with our birth rates. However, the way to solve that is not through unlimited mass migration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, we cannot build an economy reliant on mass migration. We must build home-grown resilience. Again, this is a moral issue. If we denude developing countries of their most highly talented people, those countries will never be able to rebuild themselves and become successful, and the problem that we are dealing with will just carry on. I have no confidence in the Government to sort this problem out. That is because, as we have already seen this evening, the Government have no answer on how many of the people who came over on small boats they have deported. Perhaps more tellingly, they have no ambitious target about when any of the measures they are proposing will start to solve the problem. As I said, we need a fair, robust and effective immigration system, and not this insipid Bill, which will not secure our borders or deter the people traffickers, and, I am afraid, will lead to further deaths in the channel.

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

  More

  Absolutely, and we heard that clearly in the evidence sessions before we began examining the Bill in detail. However, as Members on both sides have mentioned, the tobacco and vaping industries are extraordinarily innovative in getting around regulations; that is really what I was referring to. That brings me to my next point. The effective implementation of clause 90 will require strict monitoring and enforcement, so local authorities, through their teams, must be equipped with sufficient resource to ensure compliance and tackle any attempts to circumvent the regulations. My final point is about what I call the potential stigmatisation of vapers. We clearly do not want anyone to start vaping, but those who are already vaping or those who may be trying to use vapes as a smoking cessation tool must be taken into account. Although discouraging nicotine use is a priority, the Minister must avoid unintended consequences, such as stigmatising vapers using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool. The regulatory framework should differentiate between the combustible tobacco products and reduced-risk alternatives where appropriate. To ensure that clause 90 achieves its intended objectives while addressing the concerns that I have raised, I ask the Minister the following questions. Will he consider differentiated regulations for vaping products, ensuring that the public health messaging does not inadvertently deter smokers from switching to the less harmful alternatives? We need clear guidelines for implementation, so comprehensive guidance should be issued to businesses, law enforcement and regulatory agencies to ensure smooth implementation. There needs to be a public awareness campaign that complements that to educate consumers about the changes of packaging and reinforce the risks of tobacco and nicotine addiction, and we must have certain timelines for producers so that they understand what the new requirements are and how they will be implemented. We need to ensure that the Government conduct regular evaluation of the effectiveness of clause 90 using data-driven analysis to assess its impact on the smoking and vaping rates, and we need strong law enforcement and border control agencies to prevent the illicit trade and ensure compliance with the regulations. Perhaps this does not need to be said, but the Minister should engage with public health experts and harm reduction advocates to refine the regulations and address any emerging concerns as they come in the future.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Hongkongers live across the UK and in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including in Haslemere and Liphook. I declare an interest—this is also a plug—in that I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. If any Member in this room wishes to join, I encourage them to do so. We are not favoured by the Chinese Communist party, I can tell you that. Among the many wise and important decisions that the Conservative Administration made over the last 14 years, one of the most important was launching a special immigration route in June 2020, in response to the escalating political situation and the Chinese Communist Government’s implementation of the dangerous and oppressive national security law. The visa has welcomed Hong Kong residents who hold British national overseas status, and their immediate families, to live, work and study in the UK, away from restrictions on their freedoms and political rights. Since the launch of the scheme in 2021, as has been mentioned, more than 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to Britain using that bespoke immigration pathway, with more than 26,000 emigrating over the past year. For many people, the scheme has not only been a lifeline, but has ensured their families’ survival and their own. We have seen many cases, including those mentioned today, involving brave political and democratic prisoners such as Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong and Benny Tai. First, I will address the important role that Hongkongers have played in key sectors, such as healthcare, which is my own background. My work in the health and social care system means I have seen the impact that BNO visas have had on the core institutions in this country, such as the NHS. As of June 2023, more than 700 Hongkongers are working in the NHS, with Asian people being the second largest nationality, next to British, working in our healthcare system. Access to services such as the NHS is available to anyone who resides in the UK, and BNO visa holders pay the immigration health surcharge during the application process. If they contribute to our system through their employment, it is only right that they benefit in their times of need. My second point is about our security and defence policy. Alongside its allies Iran and Russia, the Chinese Communist party—the Government of China—is the single greatest threat to democracy, peace and freedom here in the United Kingdom and across the western world. As has been mentioned, that is evidenced by the crackdown on political and freedom of speech, as happened with Jimmy Lai, and its integration into international universities and education systems. We saw that specifically in the UK with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was shelved by the Education Secretary over British universities’ desire to protect their operations against authoritarian states such as China. The protection granted to the Chinese state amid crackdowns on freedom is disastrous for not only British students, but for Hongkongers in the UK, and it creates problems with security. China does not believe in the dual national status of descendants, so they will continue to be recognised as Chinese nationals and therefore denied UK consular access, as in the case of Jimmy Lai. Only yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated Mr Lai’s case, and the Prime Minister agreed with the Opposition that his imprisonment was a breach of the 1984 treaty. In his party’s manifesto, the Prime Minister committed to continuing the Conservative-instated BNO visas. However, the repression of democracy is not exclusive to the mainland and Hong Kong. As has been mentioned, we saw it here in the UK in the attacks on Hong Kong protesters in Chinatown in London, a 20-minute walk away from here, and outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester a year later. As a result, and for the protection of those to whom we issue BNO visas, it is essential to gauge a better understanding of the transnational threat that BNO holders face in the UK. I call on the Foreign Secretary, when he meets the Chinese Government, to raise these issues and absolutely confirm the new UK Government’s commitment to standing up for Hongkongers and against the Chinese Communist party. I have submitted questions over this to the Home Office about naturalisation and British citizenship protections. Finally, in the 20 seconds left to me, I want to reiterate my earlier point about freedom. China is a country where dissent is stifled and free speech tightly controlled. The internet, a tool of liberation and information in many parts of the world, is censored. Citizens who speak out against the Government or challenge the state’s narrative can face imprisonment or worse. We must not let the plight of Hongkongers in Hong Kong or in Britain be ignored or put to the side, so I ask this of the Minister. We must stand up for them, and I welcome the commitment that I hope she will give in a moment to that cause.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not agree that the reality is that a low-level border guard at the Gibraltarian-Spanish border would not implement this without at least knowledge and tacit consent from Madrid. Given that, how can she continue to negotiate with Spain if it continues this low-level aggression at the border?

• 22 Jul 2024 · Border Security and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Home Secretary agrees that this is a moral issue: we must never again see people dying in the channel. However, does she also agree that deterrence must be a part of the panoply of measures that we put forward? I am not clear on what deterrent measures she is going to put in place or—because this question has failed to be answered a number of times—what will happen to failed asylum seekers from countries such as Syria, Iran and Afghanistan?