National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I welcome the opportunity to consider the new Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. I start by repeating my thanks to Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill. Four new amendments have been made during consideration of the Bill in the other place, which we will seek to address today.

As I reminded hon. Members last week, when we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable, and we have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest of those decisions, but they, along with other measures in the Budget, have enabled us to restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place before us today put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise. Let me be clear again: to support the amendments is to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.

It is with that in mind that I turn to the first group of amendments: Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. These amendments seek to create powers as part of the Bill to exempt certain groups from the changes to employer national insurance rates and threshold in the future, including exemptions for care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care and those providing hospice care. It also includes powers to exempt businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees from the changes to the employer national insurance threshold.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I just want to understand very clearly why the Government think that the NHS, under the banner of NHS England, should—rightly, in my opinion—be exempt from national insurance contributions, but that other parts of the NHS, such as GP surgeries, dentists and hospice care, should not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am just flummoxed by the Government’s approach to the Bill. Clause 1 raises employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. Almost more damagingly, clause 2 reduces the threshold at which they start paying it from £9,100 to just £5,000. The Government know how damaging this measure is for healthcare. We can see that because they have taken action to exempt the NHS from it. That will cost billions of pounds, because healthcare providers cannot just diversify as other sections of the economy might be able to. They cannot raise prices. A general practitioner’s customer is the state, and prices are fixed by the Treasury. As a result, the Government know exactly what the impact of this proposal will be on hospices. We have already heard that without an exemption, they will face an additional £30 million of costs every year as a result of these changes.

When the Bill was first announced, I assumed that there had been an oversight by the Treasury and that it would be addressed as the Bill progressed. But both last week and this week, the Lords have moved to fix what was originally considered to be perhaps an oversight. Today’s decision to seek to reverse Lords amendments 1B and 5B in particular demonstrates beyond doubt that it is not an oversight but a deliberate decision taken by Labour to penalise hospices for the care of the dying, and to do what with that money? We may be in the obscene position in a few weeks’ time of funding for state-assisted dying being raised by taxing palliative care. This is absolute madness. If Members wanted any other reason why they should not support the Government, that is an overwhelming one.

I make one last reference to the emptiness of the Government Benches. There are now two Labour Members sitting there who are not required to be—[Interruption.] I take it back, there is only one. That indicates to me that Labour Members do not want to be associated with the Bill. They will scurry through the Lobby later, but they are not brave enough to stand up and defend the decision of their Government.

[Gregory Stafford]

You do not need any convincing of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but were you to, the Lords amendments demonstrate why we need a House of Lords. They are the ones standing up and delivering the amendments that this Government are trying to wriggle out of this afternoon. Amendments 1B and 5B, which the Government are trying to derogate from, are essential for our care services. The financial strain that the Government’s national insurance contributions will put on the care sector is astronomical—some predictions are of around £2.4 billion on social care alone. Ultimately, that will lead to reductions in services and, unfortunately, closures, especially in the hospice sector.

The Minister has repeated what he and other Ministers have said on many occasions: they are giving a certain amount of money to the hospice sector, but as Opposition colleagues have stated, that is capital spending. What they desperately need is revenue spending to cover the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Government patently do not understand whole-system cost, which is a key element of fiscal policy? When care providers—whether hospices, in-home care providers or social providers—fall over as a result of these measures, as they will, those costs will get picked up by the rest of the system, and that will have a net cost to the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has been made by Opposition Members on numerous occasions. It does not surprise me that Labour Members do not understand the economy. I did hope that they would understand the care sector, which has been telling them time and again that this national insurance increase will hit it disproportionately and cause it to reduce and, indeed, close services.

I think of Phyllis Tuckwell hospice in the centre of Farnham in my constituency, which is fortunately going through a multimillion pound rebuild as we speak, but when it reopens, it will be hit by these national insurance contributions and will have to make decisions about what services it can provide to my constituency and the surrounding areas of Surrey and northern Hampshire. Likewise, on Friday I will see Shooting Star children’s hospice, which is a fabulous children’s hospice that I have visited on a number of occasions. What is galling to me is that I see photographs of Labour Members turning up to Shooting Star and similar hospices, putting their arms around people and saying what a wonderful job they are doing, but later today they will walk through the Division Lobby to take money away from them. What hypocrisy.

We already know that there are workforce challenges in the care sector, and especially in the hospice sector, so why on earth are the Government targeting those sectors for raising national insurance contributions? As Opposition Members have mentioned, this is not an abstract cost that will hit some sort of nebulous business; this is a cost that will hit patients and, in the hospice sector, those who are dying, because care will be taken from them. It is a tax on community care. It is a tax on dying. The Labour Government should be ashamed that they are bringing this in.

[Sir Roger Gale]

We have rightly concentrated a great deal on children’s hospices, and I still hope that at the 11th hour the Government, as a socialist Government, may have some compassion and give some ground. But the other area, which we have not touched on enough, is the independent care providers who are providing services in people’s homes. They will not be able to employ the people that they need—they cannot do so now—even if they can get them. That inevitably means that those cared for will end up in hospital, at still greater cost to the health service.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, echoing one made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). That is correct: there will inevitably be a net cost to the Exchequer because of this policy. He is right that home care has not been touched on but will be affected. Home care companies in my constituency will not be able to expand their staff, which is vital to meeting people’s needs.

Pharmacies, which we have not touched on a lot, are in the same position. A few weeks back, I visited Badgerswood pharmacy in Headley in my constituency, and I was told that the measure will hit it hard and cause a real problem in service delivery for my constituents.

This measure will not only have a massive effect on those businesses—GPs, pharmacies, the hospice sector and the home care sector—on the economy, because there will be a net cost, and on patients, who will not receive the services in the wider NHS family that they deserve, but it runs entirely contrary to the Government’s stated policy of wanting to bring healthcare close to home and close to the community. Although they are exempting acute hospital care, which takes place away from the community, they are taxing the bit that they say they want to expand. It is totally illogical, even on the Government’s own policy. I hope that the Government have an 11th hour change of heart, either today or at the emergency Budget tomorrow, because it is vital that we support these sectors.

We see with Lords amendment 21B that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as it were. If the Government were so convinced that their policy was the right, just, fair and proper one, they would allow a review to go ahead so that we could see its impact. The fact that Government Members will be walking through the Division Lobby to hide this policy from the British people tells us all that we need to know: they know that this policy does not stand up to scrutiny, and they are running from it.

[James Murray]

With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by Opposition Members.

Although I feel that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), will not support us on the Bill, I none the less recognise that she seems to support the extra funding that we put into public services in terms of GPs, dentists, hospices commissioned by the NHS and so on. Although she will not agree with the difficult decision that we have taken to raise that funding, I got the impression that she supports our spending on those public services.

I turn to the official Opposition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), claimed that very small businesses will feel the greatest impact from the changes in the Bill. I can only conclude, therefore, that he has not read the Bill, because he would have seen that we are doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, with the result that the very smallest businesses will not pay any national insurance contributions at all when they are employing up to four people earning the national living wage.

More widely, the shadow Minister and many of his Opposition colleagues refuse to take any responsibility whatever for the state of the public finances or the public services after 14 years of the Conservative party being in control. They also resisted the opportunity to acknowledge that the approach we are taking in government to compensate the public sector for changes in employer national insurance contributions is the same one that the previous Government took with the health and social care levy. That came up time and again, and even when the shadow Minister was intervened on, he missed the opportunity to acknowledge that our approach is the same one that he and his colleagues took in government.

The amendments from the other place would require information that has already been provided. Either they do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, or—most seriously—they would undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. Let me be clear: to support the amendments that create exemptions is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. I therefore ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

Family Businesses

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Kilnside farm in my constituency, run by Bob Milton, is only 36 acres in total. It is a tiny farm, yet it will be subject to the new taxes. How can the Minister say that only 4% will be affected? Even the smallest farmers in my constituency will be hit.

[James Murray]

To correct the hon. Gentleman, I did not say that only 4% will be affected. We have set out that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to be affected in 2026-27. That means that about three quarters of estates will be unaffected and will not pay any more inheritance tax. All the data on that has been set out in a letter from the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at that document, he will see some of the stats that I refer to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

The economy that this Labour Government inherited was a total mess. We had a Conservative Government who, for so long, ignored the problems that were building up. Instead of looking for the solutions, they obfuscated and kicked problems into the long grass. When they did make decisions—such as Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—they led to catastrophic outcomes for our economy, many of which our constituents are still paying off in their mortgages, today and for some time to come. Whether it was for a failed Rwanda scheme or for dodgy covid contracts, the Conservatives wasted money by making bad decisions, and the public paid the price.

Inevitably, inheriting an economy in such a perilous state meant that there were difficult decisions to make: decisions that could not have been anticipated until the true extent of the previous Government’s economic incompetence had been exposed in the summer of last year. What the Budget did last autumn was set out clearly our path to recovery, fixing the foundations, focusing on growth and ensuring that we are giving our economy the stability, the investment and the reform that are required to get us away from the doom loop of the Tories and back to growth.

Yes, there have been tough choices. We on the Labour Benches do not shy away from that. However, these choices mean that we can invest in our public services, including our NHS, driving down waiting lists.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Becky Gittins]

I will not.

The UK Government have prioritised investment in Wales’s future. The result of last year’s Budget is the largest funding boost that Wales has received since devolution—£21 billion of new money—and people in Wales will see the benefits through the Barnett formula, but also through direct spending. The Budget provides a record £1.7 billion spending boost for the Welsh Government to support public services such as our NHS. The investment in our public services means more neighbourhood policing, which again is something our constituents and our local business communities desperately want. More funding will be available to support the delivery of 13,000 more police officers, police community support officers and special constables in our communities, keeping our streets safe and protecting small retail businesses from the shoplifting that was allowed to run rife under the previous Government’s £200 rule.

This is what my constituents want, and they want a Government on their side. The Opposition are more than happy to take all the benefits that this additional investment will provide, but I politely suggest that, by not outlining how they will pay for it all, their position lacks real credibility. I note that the Shadow Cabinet has already racked up about £7 billion in unfunded spending commitments, which again is not serious enough.

I am heartened that the Government are taking concrete steps to protect the smallest businesses and charities. The employment allowance will double to £10,500, meaning that some 250,000 employers will gain, and an additional 820,000 will see no change at all. I know that organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses have welcomed these changes, as do the many small businesses in Clwyd East that gain from the uplift in the employment allowance.

In north Wales, we have already seen the benefits of two Governments working together, in Wales and at Westminster, with both being utterly focused on investment and growth. We have already seen investments in Airbus, Kellogg’s, Shotton Mill and more in our little corner of north Wales, with the same business confidence as was exemplified by the £63 billion raised at this Government’s investment summit. Green jobs will be critical in north Wales’s future. Last week, the port of Mostyn in my constituency paved the way for some 300 new jobs helping support the offshore wind industry.

When I go out to speak to businesses in my constituency—family businesses such as Jones Brothers and Clawdd Offa Farm—they simply do not make representations like those we have heard from the Opposition. They share the Government’s passion on the skills agenda and apprenticeships, reforming our restrictive planning regime and the need for investment in our NHS, which this Government are already prioritising. This Government are continuing to promote entrepreneurship, attracting billions of pounds of investment and providing the certainty that our businesses need, not least as part of the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone.

Businesses in Clwyd East deserve better than the faux outrage from the Conservatives, and this Government will not allow them to pretend to be the champions of British business, rather than the Conservative Government who sold our farmers down the river through detrimental trade deals, and the Conservative Government who ran down our economy with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, short-term thinking and decimated business confidence. It is the Labour Government who are committed to providing our economy with the stability and investment it needs to grow, laying the foundations for thriving businesses at the heart of prosperous communities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Today’s debate on the disastrous impact of the Labour Government’s policies, including on my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, of which Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages are part, is timely. My inbox is filled with complaints and concerns from small family businesses about that impact.

Small and family businesses are not just places to shop or to buy things, but the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities. Across the United Kingdom, they provide almost 14 million jobs and contribute an amazing £575 billion to our economy. Yet under this Labour Government, those businesses are under siege. Labour simply does not understand business and sees businesses as nothing more than a cash cow to fund its endless state expansion.

For nearly a century, my grandparents and my great-grandparents before them dedicated their lives to Stafford’s shop in Haslemere, and they would be horrified to see this Government’s full-scale assault on family businesses. The family business tax—Labour’s reckless cap on business property relief—will decimate family-run enterprises, breaking them apart when they should be passed down to the next generation.

In the Surrey side of my constituency, we are fortunate to have two thriving market towns, Farnham and Haslemere, which are hubs of entrepreneurialism and independent enterprise. Businesses such as Hamilton’s Tea Room, Borelli’s Wine Bar, Farnham Homes, Kilnside Farm shop and Elphicks, one of the last remaining British family-owned department stores, have been the cornerstones of our high streets for generations. Similarly, Haslemere is home to R. Miles & Son, Good Horse saddlery and Davids menswear. Together, these eight businesses have had a presence on our high streets for a total of 439 years. Given that Family Business UK has warned that these policies would cost 125,000 jobs, will the Government reconsider their stance before it is too late?

Meanwhile, on the East Hampshire side of my constituency, Liphook Travel Worldchoice has been a family-run travel agency since 1971 and Hogmoor Distillery, though newer, is an outstanding artisan gin and liqueur company based in the heart of the former military town of Bordon. Those businesses, like so many across the country, are already being squeezed by Labour’s misguided economic policies, with increased business rates and tax burdens making it harder to survive.

Although Labour misunderstands business, it actively despises the countryside. This Government are rurally illiterate. They do not care about rural jobs, rural businesses or our rural communities. The family farm tax—Labour’s assault on agricultural property relief—is a direct attack on farming families who have worked the land for generations. Bob and Ros Milton of Kilnside farm expanded their business with a farm shop under the support of the previous Government, but it now faces closure due to rising costs. Similarly, Mathias nursery had hoped to pass the business to the next generation, but now fears that that will be impossible.

My campaign for local pubs and heritage clubs has seen me do a pub crawl across the constituency. I have visited 17 of the 56 pubs—everything must be done in moderation. I have had invaluable conversations with landlords. Carl from the Nelson Arms pub in Farnham highlighted the importance of zero-hours contracts for his employees, including a staff member who also works as a paramedic and relies on the flexibility that these contracts offer. Yet Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which bans them, will impose a £150 cost on his business.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Member acknowledge that what the Bill actually says is that no one should be forced on to a zero-hours contract? It is not the case that someone who wants that flexibility will be denied it.

[Gregory Stafford]

I understand that the hon. Member has gone through the Bill line by line, but the businesses that are reporting to me, and apparently also speak to him, are seriously concerned. In our villages, including Churt, Tilford, Passfield and Headley Down, the village shop and the pub are the heart and soul of our tight-knit communities, but Labour is simply making it harder for them to survive.

Why are the Government, who are supposedly focused on growth, causing businesses in my constituency to downsize, sell up and move out? These policies are not just misguided; they are ideological. Labour’s hatred of business and contempt for the countryside are now enshrined in policy. Since their election, the Government have accepted £5.6 million in donations from trade unions. It is no wonder that their policies prioritise union interests over business interests. The Business Secretary apparently met trade unions every three days in his first three months in charge. Where is the same access for small businesses?

Conservatives believe that businesses are the engines of growth. To grow our economy, we must create jobs, drive innovation and foster prosperity. That is why we are calling for the reversal of Labour’s family farm tax, crippling jobs tax and the reduction in business rates relief. When will the Government acknowledge that their policies are driving up the cost of living, not reducing it?

While this Labour Government continue their war on businesses and the countryside, I shall finish by extending my deepest thanks to the incredible businesses across Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon that truly are at the heart of our community’s social and economic fabric. The Conservative party will always stand up for family businesses, farmers and our rural communities, to ensure that they can thrive, create jobs and, importantly, pass on their legacies to future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am proud to represent a constituency with so many fantastic small businesses, and employers in Broxbourne are more likely to be small businesses than under the national average. Entrepreneurs in the towns and villages I represent are working hard and taking risks day in, day out, growing our local economy and creating jobs.

Earlier this month, I was told by a Government Minister standing at the Dispatch Box that I was “sort of right” that private business creates growth. Let me gently tell the Government that it is not the Government who create economic growth in this country; it is the thousands of business owners outside of this place who work hard day in, day out, creating jobs right across the country, investing in their companies and investing in their supply chains.

We have heard good speeches in this debate from Members on my side of the Chamber explaining how it is business that creates economic growth, not Government. A Labour Member alluded to the £25 billion national insurance increase and £5 billion employment regulation not mattering to family businesses, because they are small and do not employ many people. That is no way to treat family businesses in this country. We should be telling them that the sky is the limit. We should be saying, “Invest in and grow your business, and we will help and support you. We will create the right environment for you to take those risks,” because it is a massive risk when people put their life savings and their blood, sweat and tears into a business that they want to grow, particularly when it is from their home. They are taking an incredibly risk in saying, “Do you know what? I’m going to take that jump. I’m going to make an offer to someone and employ my first employee.” We should be creating the environment for people to be able to do that. The more family businesses we have, and the more family businesses that upskill, create local jobs and invest in their business, the more money the Treasury gets to spend on our public services. We should not be hampering businesses. The Minister was making a ludicrous point.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Having listened to most of the debate, I make the allied point that while Labour Members have justified the need to raise taxes—which, like him, I entirely disagree with—we have heard not a single word from them about the impact of tax rises on family farms, family businesses and employers.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I go out and speak to farmers and small business owners, as he does in his constituency, and I have met not one who thinks the Government are on the right path. I do not know who Labour Members speak to in their constituencies because—

Bank Closures: Rural Areas

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His constituency, and indeed a lot of our coastal communities, will have that profile of constituents that is older and more settled, and they will want to see things delivered in the way that they are used to. That does not mean that they shun change completely, but they do have a legitimate expectation.

Let me take the House briefly through the timeline narrative of justification, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of that great Tory intake of 2015—those were the days; it is nearly 10 years—will remember being told that there would never be a town without a bank.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Simon Hoare]

Let me just finish this point.

That was the first promise, but it seemed to disappear quite quickly. Then the Post Office came in, and then there seemed to be an over-reliance on building societies. I notice that Nationwide—I think it is Nationwide; I could be wrong—is saying in its television advertisement that it pledges not to close a branch before 2028, but it is under exactly the same cost and other pressures as its high street competitors.

Then we were told that the answer to the maiden’s prayer was going to be the banking hub, but there has been quite a lot of disappointment surrounding that. I suggest to the Minister that that is in part to do with the erroneous conflation of access to cash and access to banking services. Link has assessed, perfectly properly, that in Blandford there are ATMs at the local Tesco, at the local Morrison’s and at Nationwide, but just try asking an ATM to amend or set up a standing order or direct debit. A small businessman or businesswoman who wants to extend their line of credit or has a question mark over something cannot ask an ATM those questions. Saying that there is access to cash, as important as that is, is far too blunt an instrument when trying to assess the impact of these closures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I would not like to claim that I am the Member of Parliament for the whole of Surrey. My Hampshire residents would not be pleased about that. Just last Friday, the Barclays bank in Farnham closed, leaving the whole of my constituency of 101,000 people with just one bank, Santander, and one building society, Nationwide. We are lucky enough to have a banking hub in Haslemere, and we are going to get another one in Whitehill and Bordon—Liphook does not have one—but given that there are only 100 banking hubs across the country and that the Government say they are going to put forward 350, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are going to have to turbocharge those banking hubs, not just for access to cash, but more especially, as he mentioned, for proper banking services for residents in rural constituencies?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend who represents Surrey and part of Hampshire.

I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on this point if it is easier, but it strikes me that there is scope for a little bit of wiggle room with regard to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The Act did not give the Financial Conduct Authority powers to reflect on and assess wider banking services. The Minister’s party, when in opposition, was very keen that it should do so. When my party was in government, for some unknown reason we resisted amendments to that effect, and Labour, then in opposition, did not push them to a Division. I just think that there is too gaping a lacuna in all of this, in that it is only access to cash that is assessed, and not access to banking services.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Sadly, I have not yet tried the wares of Sheppy’s cider farm, but I would welcome the opportunity to visit, try those wares and support it as we all need to do in the face of these changes, which affect everyone.

The second organisation is one of my GP practices, which emailed me. It operates as a legal partnership, as it has done since the inception of the NHS, but as it is a GP practice it lacks flexibility to absorb the increased costs. It cannot raise prices and it cannot do more than it is already doing and drive up activity levels. As it is designated as a public authority but does not get an employment allowance exemption, it will bear the full cost of the impact. It tells me that the rise in national insurance and the lowering of the thresholds will force it into reductions in clinical staffing, adversely impact patient care and increase waiting times. That is exactly the opposite of what the Government say they want.

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

The hon. Lady made that point powerfully. I have spoken to a GP surgery in my constituency that will have to cut seven members of staff, including a GP, a nurse, a social prescriber, a pharmacist and others providing ancillary services. These changes will affect not just her constituents and my constituents but every single constituency in the country, because every single GP practice will have the same problem.

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s point. All Members across the House want to see our NHS thrive and to see the healthcare and social care that our constituents deserve. I urge the Government to think again about their plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that rather long intervention. I must say that the Conservatives do not understand the economy. If someone cannot get a train to work, they cannot work; if they cannot get a hospital appointment, they cannot work. Time and again, I hear from employers that they want investment, stability, and for their employees to be able to contribute in the workplace. To separate public services and the private sector into two diametrically opposed parts of the economy is what the Conservatives did for 14 years. They cut public services time and again, and we all face longer-term costs because of that fact.

The Labour Government understand that. Sadly, the Conservative party still does not. The choice we are still hearing is for continuing austerity. No one in this country voted for that and no one on the Labour Benches, at least, wants that. We want NHS waiting lists to fall. We want crumbling schools rebuilt, and investment in our vital public services and armed forces.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the Health Committee, so I ask him this with all seriousness and genuineness. Does he not see the risk of this tax rise for GP surgeries, the hospice sector and the voluntary sector, which supports a lot of what the NHS does?

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What we have both heard on the Health Committee is that the NHS has been left on its knees after 14 years. All sectors of the health service are crying out for investment. I hear in my constituency from doctors and nurses who are thankful that, finally, they are being recognised with decent pay. Opposition Members declare them to be trade union barons. No. They are nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers.

As I said, we need to invest. Ministry of Defence homes in my constituency must be invested in. My old primary school, Deanesfield, with its crumbling classrooms needs to be invested in. The Labour party has a plan to make that happen and it is vital that we fund those measures—measures that any responsible Government would take. Therefore, we do have to make difficult but necessary decisions and ask the largest businesses to pay slightly more to help fund those vital public services. I understand the concerns that have been raised, but as the Minister put forward, half of businesses will not pay the extra contributions and some, the smallest, will pay even less.

VAT: Independent Schools

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her passionate speech. I think I am correct in saying that she was an Oxford University Student Union officer when I arrived at the university. I remember her passionate defence of socialism then, and I have seen it again today. Her daughter, sitting in the Gallery, will be very proud of her, following her speech.

Unfortunately, however, that defence of socialist principles runs like a thread through the Labour party today. It should not come as any surprise that this new Labour party, which is willing to tax some of the poorest pensioners in the country, has no compunction about taxing some of the most needy children in the country—a shameful act. I am not talking only about the more than 3,000 pupils in my constituency who receive an independent education; I also speak for the many thousands in the state sector on whom this policy will have an impact. Labour Members seem to forget completely about the impact on the state sector.

As I walked along Firgrove Hill in Farnham during the election campaign, I met a father who had just heard that the independent school to which he was going to send his two children had closed. That was in July, and there was no place at the local state school, Weydon—a fabulous school. Even if it had spaces, however, that father would not have been able to send his children there, because he had not sent his children to a feeder school, so even if there are places, not all children can get in.

This measure will have a massive impact on education for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There are independent SEND schools in my constituency, including More House, a fabulous boys’ school. Jonathan Hetherington, the headmaster, has spoken passionately about what this policy will do to his school: 60% of his pupils are on an education, health and care plan, which means that 40% will be affected by the tax. What will happen to those pupils? For one thing, they are likely to drop out immediately because their parents cannot afford it. Perhaps they will then apply for an EHCP, but it will take many months, if not years, for them to get it, and they will be out of education during that time. It is a total disgrace. Equally importantly, when they get the EHCP, it will add a massive cost to the local authorities, which are already overstretched. The simple fact is that independent SEND schools are saving those authorities money.

We also have to realise that independent schools are huge employers, certainly in my constituency. In June, during the election campaign, I knocked on a door in an area that was not affluent—in fact, it is the most deprived part of my constituency. The gentleman who opened the door informed me that he would be voting Conservative because of Labour’s potential policy on this matter. When I asked him why, he said that he was a groundsman at one of the local independent schools, and feared for his job because the school was likely to close; so this policy affects the economy as well.

If education is not a charitable purpose, and if educating our children is not a fundamental principle that we in this House should support, I do not know what we are here for. Labour needs to review this policy, and scrap it as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have come here today to speak on behalf of the children and young people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I recently spent half a day at an independent school in my constituency, where I spoke with the students, and I have also hosted them here in Parliament. I found them thoughtful and polite, and a credit to their parents and the school. I recognise the role that the school plays in my community. I think it is right that the school retains charitable status, which allows it to claim gift aid on donations and to reinvest surplus revenue without paying tax. I am fully committed to the school and to its fundraising efforts. That is because I want all children in my constituency, whether they attend state schools or fee-paying schools, to have the best opportunities to develop their talents and intellect, no matter their background.

I wish I could say the same of Conservative Members, but their actions in government tell a different story. At a recent roundtable with primary school headteachers in my constituency, I heard stories of school dinner debts of £1,000 per school because they are having to feed hungry children. I heard of children coming into school with wet uniforms because there is no glass in their windows. One teacher talked about having to support children who had experienced horrific abuse but were not getting support through CAMHS. I also heard about children who arrive at school behind where they should be because of the closure of Sure Start.

On social mobility, is it not the truth that the Conservatives scrapped child trust funds? Under them, Sure Start centres were closed down, school playing fields were sold off and the education maintenance allowance was abolished. Apprenticeships are down, youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010 and there is a five-year waiting list for CAMHS. A decade has been lost because every school budget has less funding per pupil today than it had in 2010. Is that not the truth?

Here is another truth—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like hearing it, but in the past 20 years, private school fees have increased by 55%. I checked Hansard to see whether we had a debate with them all expressing their concern for the state education sector and about the impact of that increase, but it turns out that when the increase is to make elite education even more elite, they are silent. I see no reason why private schools cannot absorb the cost.

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Sam Rushworth]

I was coming on to that, and if anybody in an independent school is struggling to cut their cloth accordingly as the state sector has done, I could introduce them to headteachers in my constituency who have had to do that because of cuts imposed by the previous Government.

I also suggest that independent schools look at social tariffs and other ways to raise revenue. Nobody wants to be doing this; this is not about the politics of envy. Conservative Members have so far opposed every measure that we are taking to increase revenue or cut spending, and perhaps they need to realise that that is why they are on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, as we try to fix state education, which is essential for our children.

Winter Fuel Payment

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for clarifying his use of language. I can assure him that everyone on the Labour Benches, including my colleagues on the Front Bench, are doing everything they can to make sure that vulnerable pensioners who need pension credit receive it. We say that in good faith, and we mean it.

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

What does the hon. Member say to the 18,883 pensioners in my constituency who will lose the winter fuel payment? They include Rita, who looks after her husband who has multiple sclerosis. She wrote to me today to say that she has to make the choice this winter between heating their home and paying for essential medication.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In the letter that the Office for Budget Responsibility published this afternoon, the Chair said,

“I welcome the important actions announced today by HM Treasury to improve the transparency and credibility of their institutional arrangements for forecasting, planning, and controlling DEL.”

That is really important. By taking these actions, we will ensure that never again can any Government do what the Conservative party did: cause a £22 billion black hole in our public finances.

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

Residents in Farnham and Bordon will be concerned to hear about the scrapping of the new hospital programme, especially those living in the north of the constituency who are served by Frimley Park hospital. Will the Chancellor confirm that work on RAAC-affected hospitals, like Frimley Park, will still go ahead? Will she tell us when we can have assurance on that so that we can reassure our constituents?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be rightly angry with the previous Government for making unfunded spending commitments that they knew they could not pay for. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will meet all those with affected hospitals—including those affected by RAAC—to ensure that we can as quickly as possible address the challenges that his constituents and so many others now face because of the unfunded promises made by the previous Government.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on his maiden speech. I do not think that we crossed over at university, but mutual friends tell me that he was an excellent president of the Oxford Student Union. We can tell that his debating skills were honed there, and we saw that in evidence this evening.

I want to express my gratitude to the people of the new Farnham and Bordon constituency for placing their trust in me and for allowing me the honour to represent them here in Parliament. I feel that giving a maiden speech is a bit like giving a best man’s speech at a wedding, as you are surrounded by disapproving elderly relatives who are going to hang on every word, but I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that none of the jokes that I have made before in any best man’s speeches will be given in this House, especially as I know that my mother-in-law is watching on the Parliament channel.

I also wish to thank my family—especially my wife, Caroline, and my daughters, Susannah and Lucy, who have put up with me a lot over the past year—for their patience and support, as well as my parents, James and Theresa.

Other hon. Members have noted that they are not the first people in their family to be Members of Parliament. I am not even the first sibling to be a Member of Parliament. I pay tribute to my brother, Alexander, who served the people of the Rother Valley constituency so diligently in the previous Parliament.

Apparently, it is also customary to express gratitude to our predecessors in the seat—a small political obituary, as it were. Fortunately, both my immediate predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), are still, as Members can see, very much in their political prime. None the less, I want to thank them for their generous support and advice since I was selected. They have both achieved amazing things for the constituents whom I have inherited. Campaigning was a sobering affair. On the doorsteps I was told: “Oh, we do like Jeremy”, or “Damian did such wonderful stuff for us”, or “You have very big shoes to fill”. To rub salt into the wound, the week before the election, the local paper ran a story on how much the people of Haslemere would miss the shadow Chancellor—believe me, I know my place.

Speaking of predecessors, the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, Lord Arbuthnot, should be praised for his sterling work on the Horizonscandal and for bringing justice to the sub-postmasters so cruelly affected. I still hope that those who were responsible—by act or omission—are brought to justice.

The newly created Farnham and Bordon is a county constituency crossing Surrey and Hampshire, making the life of a new Member of Parliament even more complex than it already is. More than that, the name, while referencing the two largest towns in each county, ignores the other towns of Haslemere and Liphook and the many villages that range between the larger population centres. Many argued for, and I supported, a less specific but more all-encompassing name for the constituency, such as the Wey Valley, taking its name from the beautiful River Wey that runs through it. Clearly they are not romantics in the Boundary Commission, so Farnham and Bordon stuck. The only saving grace is that its initials spell FAB, which sums up the area that I represent.

This “FAB” constituency ranges from Farnham in the north to Haslemere and Liphook in the south, Whitehill and Bordon in the west, and the western villages of Surrey, such as Tilford, in the east. Bookended by the north and south downs, it is an area of outstanding beauty, with thriving market towns, pleasant villages, and a thriving sports and arts scene, including the prestigious University for the Creative Arts. It also has a significant military connection, most obviously in Bordon, which was home to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers until 2015 and is home to the Longmoor ranges, where Ukrainian troops are being trained. Military history is everywhere, from Amesbury school in Haslemere and Hindhead, where Montgomery lived during the war, to the Canadian war graves and memorial in Liphook, and the site of the first-ever two-minute silence in this country on Castle Street in Farnham. The residents of this new constituency are ever thankful for the role that our armed forces have played in keeping us safe.

From Arthur Conan Doyle to Jonny Wilkinson, King John to Flora Thompson, and Graham Thorpe to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), heroes and villains have been born, lived, worked and played in this fabulous constituency, but it is not the beautiful scenery, the historic gems, or the famous people who make this constituency the best in the country. It is not even the fact that my grandparents ran Stafford’s sweet shop in Haslemere for many years—what little boy would not want grandparents who ran a sweet shop? It is the current residents, businesses and community spirit that make FAB special, and a joy to represent. Every day there are local events, charitable occasions and community festivities to get involved with. Indeed, I doubt that anywhere else in this country can rival the number of duck races in the area.

Following that Cook’s tour of the constituency, one might be forgiven for thinking that there are no issues to solve—a home counties garden of Eden. It of course cannot be denied that there are many areas of significant affluence, but it should not be concealed that there are areas of high deprivation, and I will champion their improvement. The constituency’s location is both a benefit and a curse. Within easy commuting distance of London, it provides a rural haven for those who wish to live outside but work in the city. That also makes it rich pickings for housing developers who look for any open space, green or otherwise, to build on. I am not against housing development—we need homes for our children and grandchildren—but we need the right homes in the right places, with the right tenure mix and with the supporting infrastructure.

Conservative-run East Hampshire district council has done everything that it can to persuade the new Government to modify their housing targets to make them more appropriate for our area, including writing to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that she will respond positively. Indeed, if there is one issue that unites the whole of the new Farnham and Bordon constituency, it is that infrastructure has not kept pace with development. That is particularly acute in Bordon, where thousands of houses are going up without the supporting infrastructure. The GP surgeries, the NHS dentists, the schools, the roads and the leisure centres all need upgrading and expanding rapidly to meet that housing growth. We must not build more houses until infrastructure catches up. Otherwise we will be left with housing estates devoid of services, security and society. I am deeply concerned about the new Government’s plans on house building. Labour’s changes to planning, imposing top-down targets and removing the rights of local people to have their say on developments, is a retrograde step that has been met with anger from my constituents and resolute opposition from me.

I mentioned the need for health services in our area. Having spent most of my career in healthcare, latterly working for seven years in the NHS, improving clinical services and patient outcomes, I know that both locally and nationally things need to change in the NHS. We need to have a grown-up and honest discussion with the public about how we are going to deliver, provide and fund the NHS and social care going forwards. For an ageing population with increasing healthcare needs and diminishing birth rates—that is, the people who are going to pay for the NHS—we need a cross-party discussion that brings all parties together to make long-term decisions on how we proceed with health and social care in this country. If I achieve nothing else in my time here, starting that conversation, and hopefully progressing it fruitfully, will be something to hope for.

As a traditional, common-sense Conservative, I believe that we cannot pay for health and social care unless we have a strong economy. Despite a global pandemic, a war in the east of Europe and instability in the middle east, and regardless of the picture that the Government are trying to paint in their press releases, the most recent statistics show that the economy is turning around and is on an upward trajectory. I will oppose any measures by this Government, including the misguided nationalisation of industry and the socialist labour rules, that I believe will hamper or reverse that trend.

Equally important is to safeguard ourselves from external threats. The rise of a resurgent Russia, China and North Korea is something that we should all be concerned about. I do not believe that it is hyperbole to say that we are in a pre-war era, and we need to ensure that our borders, skies and infrastructure, both physical and digital, are safe from threats. That is why I absolutely believe that we should move to 2.5% of GDP spent on defence immediately, and increase that to 3% when practical.

In short, we must protect our economy, healthcare and national security to ensure the prosperity and safety of our country, but mindful that maiden speeches are not meant to be controversial, I shall leave it there and return briefly to the subject of my FAB constituency. In 1668, Samuel Pepys recorded that the people of Liphook were “good, honest people”. Given his own morals and motivations, I am not sure whether he meant that as a compliment, but I assure the House that it is as true now as it was then for the residents of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our surrounding villages, and I pledge to be a good, honest servant of them in this place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Rachel Blake to make her maiden speech.