Campaign Responses

I receive hundreds of campaign emails each week. In this section, you can find my responses to each campaign.

UPDATE - 27.04.2016 - This section of my website is currently undergoing constant updates and if a campaign response is not here that you're looking for, please keep checking and it will be updated. If you would like a personal response, please email or call 0161 427 0660.


EU Referendum Statement - 29.06.2016

Local residents will know that I have been campaigning for Leave and I so I welcome the emphatic result which the Britain delivered last week.

After over 40 years of membership, it was high time to unshackle ourselves from a political project that has become protectionist, introspective, and unfit for purpose and the E.U.’s vision for the future, of further and further political, social and financial integration, was increasingly at odds with British values. Free from the control of the E.U., the British people will be free to govern themselves again, our business will be able to trade more globally, not merely with the near continent. We shall forge new trade and diplomatic relations with neighbours across the world, whist maintaining the close and important ties with our friends in Europe.

I appreciate however that there are a lot of people who don’t agree with the result, who didn’t expect it, or are understandably upset by it. However I want to urge the people of the Stockport area, whichever way they voted, to ignore the prophecies of doom which have evidently scared people, and to reassure you that, if handled correctly, this Brexit journey we now embark on will leave us better off in the long run.

We now need to go forward with unity in the country. There must be sensible, pragmatic and mature exit negotiations with the E.U. as a whole and individual nation state. We should ignore the hostility of the E.U. mandarins – who are already reacting with petulance, providing re-enforcement (as if any were needed) as to why we voted to leave, by attempting to dictate to us when the UK should appoint its new Prime Minister and to rush us into the exit process.

There is no immediate rush. We shall leave on our own terms, on terms that are best for Britain. The next Prime Minister and his or her Government will need to exit the E.U. and secure the right settlement: to get back control of our democracy; get back control of our money; and to get back control of our borders. And above all they will have a country to reunite and reassure that we made the right decision.

I am optimistic for the future. We may have said ‘No and Goodbye’ to the European Union, but we still say ‘Yes’ to the countries of Europe, and now also say ‘Hello’ to the wider world.


Junior Doctor Contracts - 20.05.2015


Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the recent Junior Doctor strikes and the contract that the Government and BMA are working on together.


I am very pleased that both groups have been able to come together once more and have taken an important step forward in the delivery of a 7-day NHS.


The new contract is better of patients, doctors and the NHS. The Government will introduce better training, safety and working conditions for junior doctors. It is better for hospitals as weekends will be treated as a regular working day, but most importantly it is better for patients as they know that they will have access to a great and improving service every day of the week.


The key points of the new contract are:


·         Better for patients - who will have access to a great and improving service 7-days a week.


·         Better for junior doctors - guaranteeing better training, safety and working conditions.


·         Better for the NHS - linking pay progression to attainment, tackles locum costs and scraps unsafe incentives for long hours.


I am pleased that a comprise has been found and that we now have a deal that will hopefully now be supported by the profession as a whole. I for one fully appreciate the hard work of junior doctors and value their contribution to society as a whole.


Thank you for taking the time to contact me.


Academisation of Schools - Article in the Stockport Express - 04.05.2016

I am proud to have many good schools in the constituency and enjoy working with them as part of my duties as an MP – especially when classes and school groups come to visit me in Parliament and see first-hand the Mother of All Parliaments and the home of modern democracy.

As a former teacher, my approach to working with schools in decisions on policy is one of collaboration and cooperation, which as I said in my maiden speech “engaging with the teaching profession is the best way to secure improvements”.

The Government is doing a lot of good things for education in our country, especial the reforms of the funding formula to a fairer system. This will give a better deal for local schools in the Stockport area and a move which I support entirely.

However, lots of people have been in touch with me regarding schools the Governments recently announced intentions to see all schools, regardless of current performance, turned into academies. For some schools, becoming an academy may be the best route to sustained improvement, but I do share some of the concerns over a one-size fits all model.

I have therefore raised these concerns directly with the Education Secretary, both when she gave evidence to the Education Committee, and in a private meeting before the bank holiday weekend, to ask that schools and teachers are listened to, and that we explore ways to improve schools beyond simply forced academisation.

Ultimately we should remember that what really matters, is the strength of the education that children receive, and not the model of school governance.


Dubbs Amendment - 3,000 Refugees

Thank you for contacting me about the amendment proposed by Lord Dubs calling for the Government to relocate 3000 children from Europe.  There is no doubt that the Syrian crisis has had devastating consequences for the children of the region.  I worry about them, as you do.

Instead of taking children from mainland Europe, the Government has decided to take 3000 children as part of a resettlement scheme focused on the children at risk in the Middle East and North Africa, which is supported by the UNHCR.   I believe this to be the right decision.  The Government's focus has been on how it can play the most effective role in an extremely difficult situation and not make matters worse.  The children in Europe are in safe countries, and we can help them to be cared for where they are.  The children in the region are sometimes in extreme danger.  It is also critical that any action we take does not lead to inadvertent consequences where people traffickers encourage more children to put their lives at risk by making the dangerous sea crossing to Europe.

No other country in Europe is doing more than us to help solve this crisis. Unaccompanied children in Calais with relatives in the UK are quite rightly being reunited with their families.  The Department for International Development (DFID) has now committed £46 million to help support refugees. This will include a fund of £10 million which has been created to focus specifically on the needs of children in Europe. The fund will support reunification with family who are already in other EU countries, including the UK. It will also identify children in need, provide safe places for at-risk children, set up a database to help trace children to their families, and offer services such as counselling and legal advice.  Separately, I understand that seventy-five UK experts are being deployed to Greece to facilitate more effective reception screening and processing of newly arrived migrants. This approach will also help identify children and see that they are given appropriate support and care at the earliest opportunity.  I am all for helping our European neighbours wherever we can, but I do not see value in moving children from safe countries.  It is more important that we help those in the zone of conflict. 

I believe all Members of Parliament are committed to doing the right thing for children affected by this conflict.  I continue to follow this matter closely and will always get involved whenever I can.


I am proud of the contribution the UK is making and the good we have already done. While I understand your support for the Lord Dubs amendment, I do believe that the approach set out by the Government provides the best way to help the most vulnerable.  

Please find enclosed a list of the actions that the Government have taken on this matter.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.


Academisation of Schools 

Thank you for contacting me about the academisation of schools following the recent budget and Education White Paper. 

I have studied the white paper concerning the proposals in great depth as I believe that such a far reaching reform should not be undertaken lightly. I will be giving it further scrutiny as member of the Education Select Committee. Please find enclosed a copy of the speech I made in the House of Commons about the matter.

I will continue to monitor the progress of this proposal very closely as I believe such undertakings should not be done in haste. 

You may be aware that a debate took place in the House of Commons on Wednesday of this week. It was interesting to note the number of Conservative MPs who voiced concern about compulsory academisation of schools. Therefore, I anticipate that any legislation coming forward will take heed of these concerns. 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.



The Prime Minister recently presented his draft renegotiation deal on the UK’s relationship with the EU. This effectively triggered the start of the EU In/Out referendum, which will likely be later this summer.

The deal was supposed to contain measures limiting the EU’s encroachment over UK law and allow us to impose limits on EU migrants claiming benefits. However I believe that the draft deal on offer falls far short of what many will have imagined when we spoke of “fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with Europe”.

This is fundamentally about “who governs Britain?”. A question about which people in the UK are significantly out-of-step with what bureaucrats in the EU, see as the direction of Europe. That is why I believe personally it is time to withdraw from the EU, and I shall be voting to Leave in the forthcoming referendum.

That is not to say that I am anti-European. I love and respect the diversity of cultures, people, languages, goods and produce, cuisines, and histories that make up Europe. Indeed this is what gives the continent strength. However, I do object the incessant efforts by the European Commission, to trample over these diversities in order to smooth the way for ‘ever closer’ political union. I feel it disrespects our differences, our diversity and our freedoms. It saddles us with huge swathes of law and regulations that suit our continental neighbours more than ourselves, but which the UK has to fall into line with the EU on these matters and many more.

I look forward to speaking to many of you over the coming months of the referendum campaign, and whilst I do not expect all to agree with my individual point of view, I hope that many will take this opportunity not just vote out of gut instinct or fear, but rather to examine the case closely, to express their view and their vote on what they believe is right for Britain.


William Wragg MP votes to support airstrikes against ISIL in Syria

Statement Following the approval of the House of Commons last night, the RAF has begun airstrikes against ISIL in Syria:

Whether or not to use military force is one of the most significant decisions that any Government takes. The need to do so most often arises because of a government’s first duty: the responsibility to protect its citizens.

I believe that the House of Commons has taken the right decision to take action to degrade and destroy ISIL in Syria; to remove their safe haven and command centre. It is the logical extension of our already ongoing action against ISIL in Iraq. I voted in support of the action, and did so in full accordance with my conscience.

I awoke this morning to several messages of relief and thanks for a vote for military action but also to some of disappointment.  For the avoidance of I do not believe those who take a contrary viewpoint to me are a ‘terrorist sympathisers’ and I fully respect that there is the range opinion on the matter.

We should however be clear that this is not about the ‘bombing of Syria’ or a war ‘against’ Syria – as some opponents of action have erroneously argued. This was a motion of action against ISIL in Syria; a group of fundamentalist terrorists, intent on the destruction of all who disagree with them; who rape, murder, and pillage indiscriminately; and execute people by means of beheading, crucifixion, and burning alive. They are not the kind of people who readily agree to negotiation, nor who tolerate compromise. 

Neither is this about starting a war; there is already a war in Syria and neighbouring Iraq.  The clear aim of the UK’s involvement in Syria must be to help to bring the war to an end, difficult though that will be to achieve.

This action is part of a comprehensive response to this threat which includes not just military action, but a parallel political process through the International Syria Support Group. It is also about continuing our humanitarian effort in Syria and our counter-extremism strategy at home.

The action authorised last night is in the national interest, and is reinforced by a resolution the United Nations Security Council. We will now work with our allies against this threat to our country to help keep Britain safe.

For information I copy below the wording of the motion, which was supported by myself and 396 other MPs from across the country.

Yours faithfully,

William Wragg MP 


House of Commons Votes and Proceedings Wednesday 2nd December 2015 ISIL in Syria (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249)

 “That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an ‘unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and calls on states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to ‘eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria’; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government’s continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK’s particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government’s commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”





Thank you for contacting me about Tax Credits. I would like to apologise for the delay in responding, however I was unable to respond to you prior to the vote on the Opposition motion. As I hope you can appreciate, I have received a lot of correspondence on the issue, and I wanted to ensure that details of the motion were clear before responding to anyone. I am happy to clarify why I ultimately voted against the motion.

In addition, I am sure you will be aware that there has been considerable public debate on this issue throughout the week and I wanted to listen to people and reflect on that debate before responding. I have raised the issue personally with the Chancellor and his team on Wednesday 28th October to rely the strength of feeling of constituents and the need to help people. I believe that some additional measures to help people during the transitional effects is the best way forward.  

The changes to tax credits are part of a series of packages offered by the Government at the Summer Budget. I firmly believe that we need to move from a high-welfare, high-tax and low-wage economy to a lower-welfare, lower-tax and higher-wage one. Steps already taken include cutting people’s taxes, with the typical income tax payer now paying £800 less income tax than in 2010. The new National Living Wage will see someone working full time on the Minimum Wage nearly £1,000 better off next year and £5,000 better off by 2020.

However, the Government was also elected to fix the public finances, and to continue to close the huge debt gap left by the last Labour Government. We were elected with a clear mandate to deliver £12 billion in welfare savings, as set out in our manifesto which 3.9million people voted for less than six months ago. By 2010, welfare spending had spiralled out of control and difficult decisions do need to be taken to control that budget and ensure Britain lives within its means. If we don’t take these decisions to secure the economy then it’s the poorest that will suffer as jobs are lost and incomes fall. The reforms to tax credits form an important part of these savings. 

In 2010 nine in ten families with children were eligible for tax credits, and spending in this area more than trebled in the space of 11 years. It had relatively no effect on families though, with the number of people in in-work poverty rising by 20 percent. The reforms that the Government are making will reduce the number of people receiving tax credits to five in ten, and take spending back to where it was in 2008. Coupled with that are a series of proposals such as the National Living Wage, which will be worth over £9 an hour by 2020. This will mean that someone working full-time on the current National Minimum Wage will see a pay rise of nearly £1,000 gross next year and around £5,000 by 2020. We are also committed to doubling free childcare for working parents of 3 and 4 year olds, providing £5,000 of support to working parents.

I would say that there has been only limited analysis which takes into account all of these factors. I have spoken to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to relay the concerns of constituents on this matter, and they have provided me with the following examples of how families will benefit over this Parliament, when the combination of welfare and tax changes are considered overall 

  • A couple with two children where only one parent is in work on the current National Minimum Wage will see their income increase by £2,480 by 2020

  • A lone parent with one child working 35 hours at the current National Minimum Wage will see their income increase by £1,550 by 2020

  • A family with two children where both parents are working 35 hours a week on the National Minimum Wage will see their income increase by £5,570 by 2020

  • A single person with no children working 35 hours on the current National Minimum Wage will see their income increase by £2,110 by 2020

It is also important to bear in mind what these savings in public finances from tax credits changes mean. The Treasury commissioned analysis on the level of public spending on tax credits that would have occurred without the Government's changes. The figures show that without the Chancellor’s reforms since 2010, spending on tax credits would have risen from £28.9 billion in 2010-11 to £40 billion a year in 2016-17. It is now forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be just over £25 billion in 2016-17 - around £15 billion lower. This £15bn is the equivalent cost of 200,000 nurses and 70,000 doctors; OR 325,000 teachers; OR more than the entire Home Office budget. 

That’s why there is need to reform tax credits and save money to secure our economy, while at the same time supporting people as the country moves towards lower welfare and higher pay. On Tuesday 27th October the Chancellor announced that he would be reviewing the transitional period and would update everyone in the November’s Autumn Statement and I look forward to seeing them because building a lower welfare, lower tax and higher wage society is the right way to support working people.

Thank you again for contacting me on this issue.



Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent vote on the tax that covers sanitary products.

I do feel that media reports have misrepresented the motion that was put forward by Labour earlier this week. I fully agree with you that sanitary products are an essential item, and should be treated as such. However, the tax is required under EU law, and is at its lowest possible level. To change this, an agreement between all 27 EU nations would be required.

Labour’s motion merely asked the Government to commit to outlining how it would begin negotiations with the EU on lowering the tax. However, the Minister responsible for this area assured us that she would be raising the issue with the EU anyway. Therefore, I felt that the motion would have resulted in very little regardless of whether it had passed.

Again, I would like to assure you that the motion would not have resulted in removing the tax. However, if such a vote was to occur, I would vote in favour of the removal, as I view sanitary products as an essential item.



I appreciate the strong feelings many people have on this issue and I share your concern for ensuring the welfare of animals.
As part of the Hunting Act's pest control exemptions, farmers and gamekeepers can use up to two dogs to flush foxes from cover to be shot. This makes an important contribution to land managers' ability to control foxes. However, upland farmers have said that the two-dog limit is impractical on this terrain, which can be vast, difficult and often covered by woodland. They have asked for more flexibility, bringing the law closer to the position in Scotland.
The Government had intended to give the House of Commons an opportunity on 15 July to amend the provisions for exempt hunting so that farmers and gamekeepers could decide, based on the terrain and other circumstances, if it is appropriate to use more than two dogs to flush out foxes. Conservative Members would have received a free vote.
However, the Scottish National Party announced, contrary to its long-held position and the fact that the amendments would have no impact on Scotland, that its MPs would vote on this measure. While the debate on the Statutory Instrument did not take place on 15 July, the Government's wider position remains unchanged: Parliament will have an opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time. 
In the event of such a vote, I would vote to retain the legislation as I view it as necessary to protect animal welfare.
I am sorry if this is not the response you were seeking but I do appreciate that many people have strongly held views about hunting. I respect this and that is why the issue has been voted on on a free vote for many years.