Mandatory Digital ID

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

We should start not by asking what the Government can do, but what the Government should do. Mandatory ID cards are an overreach and far above what any Government should be doing. I have reached out to my South Shropshire constituents with a survey to ask for their views, and they are strongly against it. Among the points they have raised is digital exclusion.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions digital exclusion. Some 28% of people over the age of 75 do not have a smartphone. How are they going to access digital ID?

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. That has been a concern in South Shropshire, where I have huge areas that do not have high-speed connectivity. A lot of elderly people are not able to use an iPhone or computer, so they feel that they will be digitally excluded. Whether it is mandatory or voluntary, it is still—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I recently conducted a local survey after being contacted by hundreds of constituents about this digital ID issue. The results were clear. Over two thirds of respondents opposed the introduction of mandatory digital ID, with the majority of them being “strongly” against it. Over 80% of respondents said that they believed such a system would infringe on personal privacy and do little to tackle illegal migration. Around 30% of respondents supported some form of digital identification, often for specific limited purposes. However, even among that group, most respondents said that they did not believe it would meaningfully address illegal migration or illegal working.

[Stuart Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way this idea was launched is a complete smokescreen and did not reveal the real reason for digital ID? The real reason is to gain control over the British people.

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government is so low—I think that it was about 12% in the last poll—it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce such a reckless policy, which fundamentally affects personal freedom and privacy without a clear case, clear cost or, most importantly, clear consent, because it was not in the manifesto. My constituents feel that this decision is being forced on them without consultation, without explanation and without consent.

Like many others, I have deep concerns about privacy, data security and Government overreach. People are rightly worried that digital ID could pave the way for intrusion into areas such as banking, health records or even social credit-style monitoring.

Other Members have raised the issues around digital exclusion, which I entirely agree with, and most importantly the cost of the scheme. We must oppose digital ID every time that it comes in front of us. As has already been said, 3 million people have signed a public petition opposing digital ID. The message from my constituents and from the wider public is simple: the proposal is unwanted, unjustified and unwise. The Government should stop, listen and think again. My constituents demand transparency, safeguards and solid evidence that any proposed system will genuinely solve real problems without sacrificing privacy, liberty or fairness.

Life Sciences Investment

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I am tempted to say no, just to see what reaction that gets! But of course I will meet any hon. or right hon. Member across the House to discuss the life sciences sector. Whether we are talking about the north, south, east or west, including in my own constituency, the life sciences play a key role and will continue to do so.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I must declare that my wife works in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry. The Minister and the Chancellor claim to want to boost growth, yet investment is fleeing the very sectors that he claims are a priority. Is it not the case that the vague aspirations of the Government do not meet the real-world test and that the people who are going to suffer from this are his constituents and, unfortunately, mine?

[Ian Murray]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on what she does in the sector—she is the only one in the family with a real job. That shows the depth and breadth of the sector across the country; everyone will know someone who works in it. We have £86 billion from the spending review going into research and development, and £2.5 billion backing the life sciences sector plan. Economic and geopolitical issues are of course affecting the pharmaceutical industry at the moment. As I said in my opening remarks, MSD’s quarterly report said that it had to take $3 billion out of operating costs over the next few years; unfortunately and regrettably, this decision is part of that plan.

Points of Order

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his point on the record.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are significant concerns in Whitehill and Bordon in my constituency about changes to healthcare provision and meeting the needs of the rapidly growing local population. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 28 January about this issue, specifically about the future of the Chase community hospital. I have sent follow-up emails, but—three months to the day later—I have still received no response to that letter. The refusal of the Secretary of State to engage with my constituents on this matter is concerning. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on securing a ministerial response to the proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the hon. Member’s comments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

4. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on proposals to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme after 2026.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

7. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the extension of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

There is no question but that churches are facing many challenges in this space. The in-year increases in the running costs for parishes, such as the national insurance increases, increases in energy costs and, obviously, the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, have presented challenges, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Church Commissioners distributed £1.2 billion to support parishes between 2023 and 2025.

[Gregory Stafford]

The Government’s decision to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme for only 12 months, with a reduced budget and a new cap, has caused significant unease in my constituency and across the wider diocese. The rector of Farnham has expressed his concern over a nearby project that faces a massive £750,000 shortfall thanks to Labour’s amendments. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging the Government to continue, at the very least, the previous support for projects that have already received planning permission, if not reinstate the scheme as a whole?

[Marsha De Cordova]

As I have outlined, I raised my concerns when I met the Secretary of State to discuss the impact on the many churches that will be affected, particularly those that already have projects and works ongoing. I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the potential funding opportunities that may be available to churches in Farnham.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

11. What assessment the Commissioners have made of the effectiveness of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

12. What discussions the Commissioners have had on the continuation of VAT relief under the listed places of worship grant scheme.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)]

The listed places of worship grant scheme provides support to religious communities with listed buildings by refunding the cost of VAT on repairs. The Church Commissioners view this scheme as an effective way to deliver transformational benefits to local communities, enabling restoration, repair and improved access. I welcome the support shown for the scheme by hon. Members across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I absolutely recognise the importance of the scheme and the difference that the cathedral’s social impact projects are making in her community. I would be very happy to put my hon. Friend in touch with the director of property strategy for the Church in Wales, so that they can discuss this issue and, I hope, lobby together to ensure—to say it once again—that the scheme is renewed.

[Gregory Stafford]

The withdrawal of the listed places of worship scheme disproportionately affects rural churches. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, six listed churches saved nearly £43,000 in the past financial year through the scheme. Directors of St Andrew’s in Farnham and of St Bartholomew’s and St Christopher’s in Haslemere have raised concerns with me this week about the oversubscribed nature of other grant opportunities, such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which combines heritage restoration under the same scheme as, for example, coastal protection in the Humber estuary. This dilutes the vital church funds needed for their heritage. Can the hon. Lady inform me how churches can be supported to preserve heritage in my constituency if the VAT relief for repairs is not reinstated?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank the hon. Member for the question. As he will have heard throughout this Question Time, we are keen to ensure that the listed places of worship grant scheme continues, because we can see not only the immense benefits it brings to our communities, but how it helps to alleviate some of the challenges of raising funds. It is important that all our heritage buildings, including our churches, are preserved and that adequate funding is available for them. I would be very happy, if the hon. Member wishes, to meet him to discuss this further.