Blake Stephenson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2025 · Housing Targets: New Towns Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  Communities in Mid Bedfordshire have always done their bit to take new housing, but continued pressure to build is chipping away at our beautiful countryside and the historical character of our towns and villages. Will the Minister assure communities such as mine that the new towns taskforce cannot hit us with a double whammy of house building?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am enjoying the hon. Member’s speech, and to give him a few moments to gather his thoughts, I remind him that new clause 1 would require a review of how many people receiving the new state pension at the full rate are liable to pay income tax this year and in the next four tax years, and specifically what the tax liability of state pension income will be. Would he care to provide the House with his thoughts on new clause 1?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  2. What discussions the Church has had with the Government on the extension of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The extension of the scheme will be welcome news to those involved with churches such as St Botolph’s in Aspley Guise in Mid Bedfordshire. People there have told me of their concern about the lack of certainty for longer-term projects that may need support beyond 12 months. Will the Church Commissioner join me and other colleagues in pressing the Chancellor to provide longer-term funding certainty?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Later, I will talk about the need for step-free access to Harlington and Flitwick stations, but that is necessary right across the country for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has set out. In this debate, I will focus on the Thameslink services on the Bedford line and east coast main line, which my constituents use regularly. Since I first moved to Mid Bedfordshire more than a decade ago, I have been a regular user of Thameslink, but it feels to me and many of the constituents I speak to about it that something has gone wrong. Overcrowded, standing-room-only carriages have become the norm. Too often, the timetable is merely a guideline, not a rulebook for when trains will arrive. We pay more and more each year for services that deliver less and less: a season ticket from Flitwick into Farrington costs about £5,500 per year. When this debate was selected, I launched a survey of local residents to hear about their experiences of travel on Thameslink. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents told me that they thought the service is poor, 80% told me that they had been impacted by a cancellation in the past month, and 88% told me that they had experienced a delay of more than 10 minutes. Those are not healthy statistics. I want to share some of the things that people in Mid Bedfordshire told me about the impact that the poor service is having on them. Callum from Flitwick told me: “Trains are subject to delays or cancellations at very short notice. On one occasion I was on the platform and the train was cancelled with only one or two minutes’ notice before it was due to arrive, even though Thameslink must have known it hadn’t left the previous station (Bedford) at least 10 minutes before it was due to arrive at Flitwick.” Tracey from Haynes would happily use the train from Flitwick to Gatwick, but it is too unreliable; they have to use the car instead. Kate told me that despite travelling just once or twice a week, she has had to make five delay repay claims in the past month. Stephanie from Flitwick told me: “This train service is appalling. We very nearly missed our eurostar despite leaving hours to spare. It’s got the stage that we dread using the service and are always worried about being stranded in London.” Ginette from Maulden noted: “Flitwick is often cancelled as a return stop from London where there have been delays. This is usually only advised once we are on the train leading to frustrated passengers disembarking at Luton.” I hope that these examples of the hundreds of comments that I have received from residents make the problem clear. Too often, Thameslink services are unreliable, late or cancelled, and too often my constituents are stranded when their stop is cancelled while they are sat on a Thameslink train. Too often, taking the train is simply not an option for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It should not be this way. For commuters in Flitwick and Harlington, the frustration of unreliable services is compounded by the frustration caused by Network Rail’s failure to deliver step-free access programmes at pace. If we want people to use the train, we must make it easier for them to do so. For too long, things have not been getting better. In 2008, a commuter getting the 7.41 am train from Flitwick could expect to arrive at London St Pancras at 8.32 am. Nearly 20 years later, the timetable has no more stations, but commuters on the 7.41 am from Flitwick can expect to arrive at St Pancras two minutes later, at 8.34 am—and that is when the trains arrive on time. Too often, they do not arrive at all. In the past 100 days, 11% of the 7.41 am services from Flitwick have been cancelled, and 25% have arrived at St Pancras more than five minutes late. That compares reasonably favourably with the 7.43 am service, which has been cancelled 28% of the time and has arrived late 42% of the time. That is simply not good enough. That is just the morning commute. The best performing return journey from St Pancras to Flitwick between 5 pm and 6.30 pm has been more than five minutes late 23% of the time in the past 100 days. For commuters in Harlington, the evening peak period sees three services that are more than five minutes late 50% or more of the time—three evening services more than five minutes late every other time a commuter uses them—and one service that is cancelled more than a quarter of the time. We must do better than this, and we can. Investment through the Thameslink programme under the previous Government has seen the travel times from Arlesey to St Pancras drop from 47 minutes in 2008 to 40 minutes now. Here, at least, services have become much more convenient, with trains now running beyond St Pancras and into south London—and beyond. Of course, even here there have been problems with delays and cancellations, as the hon. Member for Hitchin knows too well, and the east coast main line section of Thameslink will face its own pressures, which I will address later. The picture I have painted is of an underperforming service that is letting my constituents down, and I could cite plenty of other statistics to back that up. This matters to my constituents, who suffer the inconvenience of the service in their daily lives, but it should matter to the Government, in the big picture sense, too. Quick, reliable trains into London help us to improve UK productivity, with fewer working hours lost on station platforms and more workers at their desks, growing the economy. They also allow for better economic ties between places such as Mid Bedfordshire and our capital, and make it easier for local people to set up and run growing businesses. That helps to deliver on the Government’s mission for economic growth. A well-performing Thameslink service is also vital to supporting the economic growth of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is one of this Government’s central missions. Thameslink services already link London to Cambridge, but they will one day also link London with East West Rail at Cambridge, Tempsford and Bedford. If we want to maximise the return on investment of that infrastructure project, its connections into the wider train network need to be fast and reliable. That takes me nicely to the next section of my speech. As an outcome from this debate, I would like to see not just a strategy to improve the Thameslink services we have today, but one that starts thinking about the Thameslink services we will need for tomorrow. On the Thameslink line, we have already seen the booming success that new onward connections can bring. Farringdon station, which is on the Elizabeth line, served just over 4.6 million passengers in 2010; today it serves 10 times that number. We know that Thameslink faces significant future pressures. If those pressures have even a fifth of the impact that the Elizabeth line has had on Farringdon, we will need to see serious forward planning to ensure that commuters travelling to and from Mid Bedfordshire can benefit from sufficient capacity to enjoy comfortable commutes. Take the Bedford line specifically. In relatively short order, it could see additional pressure from Luton airport expansion, a Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, an interchange with East West Rail, a rail freight interchange in Sundon, and more than 10,000 more houses in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire alone. I hope that within the next decade, we might see the Ryder cup come to Luton Hoo, bringing with it huge opportunities but also considerable pressures on the local transport network. If we are to ensure that comfortable travel on the Bedford line is the norm and not the exception—I do not think that is too much to aspire to—then we must start doing the long-term legwork now to put the capacity in place, because at the moment the capacity is simply not there. Overcrowded trains at peak times are now the norm, not the exception. The timetable shows that. Anyone who goes on the Thameslink website will see that the vast majority of morning and evening commuter services are filled with the red of standing-room-only trains. We need more capacity now so that my constituents do not have to resign themselves to a cramped, standing commute every day. However, we particularly need more capacity on the Bedford line to cope with the challenges of tomorrow. Do not misunderstand me; I know that work is already being done on that. I met with people from Thameslink recently and I set out some of the challenges that my constituents and I foresee arising over the coming years. I know from my discussions with the Mayor of Bedford that significant progress is being made on the construction of Wixams station, which will serve the new town of Wixams in my constituency. However, with the Government pressing ahead with their nationalisation agenda, it will be Ministers who will oversee much of the future planning in that area, so it is incumbent on Ministers to understand the challenges and opportunities facing our communities. It is so important that we get it right. It is important for commuters using the stations at Flitwick, Harlington and, hopefully soon, Wixams to get into work in the morning. It is important for all the growing businesses in Mid Bedfordshire, which rely on a good rail connection to do business in London and across our region. It is also vital for the Government’s growth agenda. If we want to take advantage of the potential expansion of Luton airport, and use it to grow the economy, we must get people there comfortably and quickly. If we want to get the best bang for the taxpayer’s buck on East West Rail, we need a Thameslink service that is reliable enough for people to be able to count on making their connection train at Bedford. If we want to take advantage of the economic game changer that is the planned Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, we must provide sufficient transport capacity to get people there. More generally, if we would like to grow the tourism economy in Bedfordshire, as I would, a Thameslink service that works is a vital part of the jigsaw. People will not visit our towns and villages, spend money in our shops or enjoy a pint in our pubs if we make the process of getting there difficult and uncomfortable. Of course, as I said earlier, it is not just the Bedford line that my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on; for many commuters in the eastern part of my constituency, the Thameslink services at Arlesey and Hitchin play a crucial role in their daily commutes. That line is not immune from pressures of its own. Planned housing growth, all the way down the line, will have a significant impact on capacity pressures over the coming years, as will the line’s own interchange with East West Rail at Tempsford and the potential housing growth that the Government might like to put forward there. Significant development at Tempsford would require concentrated efforts to increase capacity, in particular to avoid services into London becoming standing room only further down the line. Any increase in capacity on that line is made much more challenging by the limitations placed on the services by the Digswell viaduct and Welwyn North station, where the line bottlenecks and drops from four tracks to two. When Ministers take full control over the services on that line, they will need to have a plan for how the network will cope with the future development plans being pushed forward elsewhere in Government. As I conclude, I will touch on the Government’s plan for rail nationalisation. I say “plan”, but at the moment I am unclear whether that is the right word. If I have understood correctly the various announcements made so far on rail, the Government will be nationalising Govia Thameslink, but they cannot say when they will do that. There will be a central, unified rail system under Great British Railways, except in areas where mayors have requested rail powers under English devolution plans. Great British Railways will be directly accountable to Ministers and mayors, but there will also be a new quango, the rail watchdog, presumably to make sure that Ministers and mayors are doing their job and improving passenger experience. The watchdog will refer poor performance to a regulator, not Ministers. The Labour party’s manifesto set out that one focus of nationalisation was affordability, but Ministers are now briefing that the savings are minimal and fares are likely to keep going up. My constituents need a clear plan to improve our rail network. So far, it is far from clear how, if at all, the Government’s renationalisation plans will do that. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out exactly how they plan to make services more reliable, to expand capacity and to keep fares down, now and in the future. That is what our constituents deserve from the Government.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  Very briefly—it is only a half-hour debate.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for joining this important debate for the communities across Bedfordshire that rely heavily on rail services for leisure and work. The disruption is also having a huge impact on our economy; I will come to that later in my speech.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the performance of Thameslink train services. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Many of my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on Thameslink services on the Bedford line to get to work or get into London for leisure. About 1.5 million passengers use Harlington and Flitwick stations in my constituency each year to meet friends, go shopping and take advantage of everything our capital has to offer. Commuters from the Flitwick and Harlington stations might also take advantage of the convenient connection that Thameslink offers to our local airport in Luton, or perhaps use the Thameslink direct connections to Gatwick airport, slightly further afield. I have spent much of my career commuting to work on Thameslink services, so I know that many constituents in the eastern part of Mid Bedfordshire also rely on services from the Arlesey and Hitchin stations on the east coast main line, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and many others use Thameslink services from stations including Bedford, Leagrave and Luton.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister recently said he was: “hardwiring growth into all the decisions of the Cabinet”. How did he react when the Home Secretary told him that her policy on electronic travel authorisations would cost the economy nearly £735 million over five years?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately for people living with dementia and their families, and he makes a very important point. It is another shameful decision by this Government not to support the most vulnerable in our society, and people should be shocked by it. Another constituent told me that they have stopped using their cooker and that they now find it difficult even to dry their washing. This Government promised that they would be on the side of pensioners. However, as a constituent recently summed it up for me, they feel “terribly let down by the Government”. They are right to feel like that. This Government have let my constituents—indeed, all our pensioners—down. They have balanced the books on the backs of people earning less than £1,000 per month. Even if someone is still eligible for winter fuel payments, they will get them only if they have signed up for pension credit. The arbitrary barrier of the pension credit threshold will mean that many of our poorest pensioners—Age UK estimates that around 1 million people have weekly incomes of less than £50 above the poverty line—will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. Potentially hundreds of thousands of even poorer pensioners will miss out on vital support, because the Government expect them to answer over 200 questions—two hundred questions—to access the help they need. Perhaps I am being unfair.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. My original speech had an element of social care in it, but I took it out, so I am pleased that he brought that up. This Government have kicked social care reform down the road, and we can kick it down the road no longer. We have to face up to these difficult and tough decisions. There are no simple answers to these things, but my right hon. Friend makes a good point and I agree with him. I have used the example of winter fuel payments to demonstrate a simple truth. This Government told pensioners that they were on their side. They campaigned for their votes. The Pensions Minister—again, I have been watching his X or Twitter—was even at the pensioners club in Swansea just days before the general election, no doubt reassuring them that he was on their side. Perhaps when he comes to respond he will tell us what he was doing. They have let our pensioners down, without apology, without owning their decision, and without any care for what it might mean for millions of the most vulnerable people in our society. Now the 9.2 million pensioners—13.5% of the UK population—who are losing their winter fuel payment see the Government talking about sending money that could pay for it many times over to Mauritius. If they care about helping pensioners, they are out of their depth. They did not think about the impact of their decisions and have not bothered to monitor it. If they do not care, they gave pensioners false hope and took it away as soon as the votes were counted. What a sad state of affairs. On too many issues, the Labour party was happy to talk the talk in opposition, but is unwilling to, or perhaps incapable of, walking the walk in government. In June, the now Work and Pensions Secretary decried the number of pensioners paying tax going up under the Conservatives. In November 2023, the now Chancellor said that the Government were picking people’s pockets by not increasing tax thresholds. Now that the Labour Government are in charge, an estimated 2 million more pensioners will be paying tax by 2032. Time and again we see the same old Labour party, which will say anything to get votes and nothing to help when in government.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. Yes, the third sector has come forward to support, but what have the Government done to the third sector? They have applied national insurance increases and reduced the threshold, causing pain and suffering for the sector that our constituents now rely on because the Government have stepped away from their responsibilities. The support that the Government have given pensioners to cover off the impacts of their decision to cut winter fuel payments is merely the thinnest of political spin. The most prominent such cover is the extension of the household support fund, which itself is an attempt to outsource the protection of vulnerable residents to already under-pressure local authorities that should be focused on delivering high-quality public services. But it is worse than just outsourcing the problem, because a bit of examination showed that up to be the most disappointing example of the empty words our constituents hate. Despite the spin, the truth is that the household support fund simply has not been designed with pensioners in mind. The east of England receives £32.90 per pensioner. London receives double that: £66.73. When I first saw those numbers and the Government’s description of the household support fund as mitigation for pensioners, I wondered why London’s pensioners had been deemed so much more deserving of support, so I wrote to the Secretary of State. I got the simple answer that the fund is not intended to be targeted at pensioners. The Government have even admitted to me that they do not know how much of the household support fund went to pensioners this winter. Age UK estimates that typically, £1 in every £10 the household support fund pays out goes to pensioners. What does all that mean for our pensioners? It means more pensioners in hospital—nearly 20,000 more in November and December 2024 than in the same months in 2023, a 6.6% increase. That is 6.6% more stress on our already overstretched health services, and it is nearly 20,000 more pensioners suffering in hospital and potentially suffering lasting ill health, because this Government, which some of them voted for in the belief that they would look after them, forced them to make a choice between heating and eating. It means tens of thousands more pensioners in poverty. Those are the Government’s own statistics.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I had noted the same, but I was going to wait until the end of the debate to see if any sneaked in. Perhaps the Whips are calling them now—who knows? We will see whether any turn up to defend the current Government’s record. The simple reality is that hope for more support was misplaced. Instead, energy bills are up and support for vulnerable pensioners has been cut. The Prime Minister said in April that Britain’s pensioners want politicians who will be straight with them, and I agree. Here is the truth: whatever the failings of the previous Government, and whatever difficulties they had grappling with the impacts of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and their own missteps at times, they always tried to support pensioners. As recently as March last year, the now Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), admitted on social media that “pensioners are an average of £1,000 better off” as a result of policies since 2010. He may want to reflect on that when he sums up this debate. Last winter, Gary might well have received £600 from his winter fuel payment and his pensioner cost of living payment; this winter, he might well have received nothing. Like an estimated 9.2 million pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment this winter, Gary may have found himself without the vital support he received last winter to make that choice between heating and eating a little less difficult.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think they are listening either, but let’s try. The Minister for Employment has told me previously about the Government’s desire to help pensioners reduce their energy bills, and I agree. There was a flagship policy in Labour’s manifesto, but good intentions alone are not enough to reduce energy bills. The Government’s Great British Energy pet project will not produce any energy. It will not employ anything near the number of people they said it would, and its boss cannot say when it will reduce energy bills. For many pensioners, that simply will not be soon enough. It is not just the Government’s GB Energy plans that are a mirage. They want to improve energy efficiency, but they cannot say where their warm home grants will be spent. They cannot say how many of the worst impacted properties off the energy grid are listed buildings that would need more specialist support. All the energy wasted on plans that will not bring down energy bills could have been better spent taking real steps to reduce them. While the Government have been talking about reducing energy bills, they have gone up by £170. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve real, focused action to drive up energy efficiency and drive down energy bills. From the private sector I know that the old axiom “what gets measured gets done” is more than a cliché. The Government need to start taking seriously getting every single person eligible for pension credit signed up for it. To do that, they need to set out a credible, measurable plan with targets that we can all hold them to account on. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve a real focus to make sure that the most vulnerable pensioners get the help they need. Getting them that help will also help the Government in their mission to grow the economy. Independent Age found that spending an additional £2.1 billion on pension credit for all eligible pensioners would save the NHS and social care around £4 billion. That is extra money to spend on the Government’s priorities—growing the economy and delivering better public services while protecting the most vulnerable pensioners. We must also go further to ensure that the Government are able to support both the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. People need confidence and certainty in pensions to plan. That is a lesson we must learn from the winter fuel fiasco, and indeed from the legacy of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Politicians cannot continue to promise things that cannot be delivered. We have a duty in this place to deliver the things we promise. That means ensuring that we put the state pension on a long-term sustainable footing with a plan that looks to the future. During this Parliament we must clearly communicate to the young people starting work now the support that they can expect to receive from the state when they retire, so that from their first days in work young people can start to plan for a comfortable retirement. We must get pensions reform right—I think the Minister will agree with that—so that young people have good choices available to them as they build financially secure futures. In doing so, we can build greater financial resilience so that the next generation of pensioners, and those that come after, will never have to worry about choosing between heating and eating again. To do anything else would be a dereliction of the duty we have been entrusted with by our constituents. The Government promised pensioners that they would deliver for them. Instead, they have chosen to balance the books on the backs of people who cannot simply turn around and go back to work, and who cannot find an extra £50 behind the sofa to turn on the heating this week. Although the Government can hide behind shameful, politically driven characterisations of some of the poorest in our society as millionaire pensioners to justify snatching away vital support, pensioners know the truth. Labour were elected on a promise to make pensioners’ lives easier; they have done the opposite. Over the next four years we all have a duty to do better for the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. I hope that the Government will get a grip quickly and rise to that challenge.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend says no, but I was making a rhetorical statement. Perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps the Government care deeply about supporting pensioners and have been working tirelessly to help them. Well, there is another problem there, because a Government working tirelessly to support the most vulnerable pensioners would know exactly how many needed support and how many were missing. They would have a tracker counting down towards zero, and a working culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that meant it did not rest until everyone who needed support received it. Do they have that culture? No, they do not. The Government have already admitted that they have set no targets for pension credit sign-ups, and last month they could not even give me an estimate of how many pensioners below the pension credit threshold will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. It is utterly shameful.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I am absolutely shocked, and I will come on to mention a few stories from my own constituents. They are very similar, and I think we are hearing these stories up and down the country.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for pensioners. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I have secured this debate because not only do pensioners represent an enormous portion of our population—over 10 million people—but the way we support them impacts every single person in this country. From the start to the end of our careers, we should all aspire to a comfortable retirement for ourselves and our loved ones. I know the Government understand that, because before the election they made big pitches to pensioners. The now Work and Pensions Secretary said: “Labour are determined to once again be the Pensioners Party.” The now Prime Minister said: “My Labour Party will always be on the side of pensioners”. Members may recall that Labour’s manifesto featured the heartbreaking story of Gary, a pensioner who was struggling to heat his house on his pension. I feel immensely for people like Gary, who have struggled when times were really tough, and who voted with hope for a Government that they believed would reduce their energy bills and look after vulnerable pensioners.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, the winter fuel allowance is one example of many broken promises. I know that my constituents feel let down by this Labour Government, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising some pertinent examples from his constituency. Where do we go from here? Well, I am here to help the Government with some simple ways in which they can help our pensioners.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to the importance of certainty and stability when it comes to pensions, so that people can plan for their futures, regardless of their age. For the Government to pull the rug out from under the feet of vulnerable pensioners with little or no notice at all is absolutely shameful. Gary has seen the Government that he voted for with hope and optimism for a better life snatch away the lifeline he relied on. If he is on the old basic state pension, he will have seen 86.5% of his triple lock-backed increase snatched back. Indeed, he could well find that it will take until 2027-28 for his income to reach the level that he might have expected to see this winter. Gary is not alone, because although this Government talk about millionaire pensioners being able to cope, for many of the 9.2 million pensioners losing their winter fuel payment, that really was vital support. The average pensioner, far from being the millionaire fat cat that the Government would like us all to imagine, earns just over £22,000 per year—similar to the income of a worker on the living wage. The level at which the threshold to keep winter fuel payments was set for a single pensioner means that someone could be bringing in less than £1,000 per month and now be one of the “millionaire pensioners” on whose shoulders the Government have chosen to balance the books. Age UK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty or just above the poverty line, including 1.1 million pensioners with a disability, will lose their winter fuel payment. I have heard so many stories from constituents in Mid Bedfordshire about the impact that that will have on them—stories of people who have had to make the stark choice between heating and eating this winter. I heard from a constituent who now cannot shower, who cooks a hot meal just once a week, and who can turn on their heating only when it is “unbearably freezing”. One constituent told me of the struggles to keep their 92-year-old father warm. Their father has dementia, and he keeps worrying about the bills.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Armed Forces: Death-in-service Payments · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give an assurance that the proposed changes to the application of inheritance tax to certain armed forces death-in-service payments are compatible with the commitment in the armed forces covenant to ensuring that our brave and loyal armed forces personnel “face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services”— yes or no?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Armed Forces: Death-in-service Payments · Hansard source

  More

  10. If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of removing taxation from death-in-service payments.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s ambition to welcome 50 million visitors per year to the UK by 2030, but does the Secretary of State share my concern that a visitor levy, combined with ever more expensive electronic travel authorisations, will make it much more expensive for people to visit Wales, and indeed my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, starving hard-working people of income at a time when they have to pay Labour’s jobs tax?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  10. Whether she has had discussions with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the proposed visitor levy on the economy in Wales.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for campaigning so tirelessly to bring Universal Studios to my constituency. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country will be surprised not to hear the Government back Universal Studios. Will the Minister confirm when he intends to conclude negotiations with Universal Studios and come back to the House with an update?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think Opposition Members are somewhat confused. The Chancellor committed to bringing an amendment forward. I know that the Minister says it will be tabled at a later stage, but why is it so complex that it cannot be considered today, so that it can be scrutinised by the Opposition?