James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. When we brought in the new duty system, we focused on the strength of alcohol in terms of the tax. We want to encourage more people into the hospitality sector, but the Government seem to have a policy of driving people away from going into pubs—and not just Labour MPs. In government, we recognised the importance of those sectors to jobs, to our communities and to growth, and the simplified duty system, including the two new reliefs—draught relief and small producer relief—were warmly welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made the point that the Government are choosing not to implement similar measures on draught relief. At the 2023 autumn statement we froze alcohol duty rates, and we extended that freeze in the spring Budget of 2024. I am proud to support that record: we had a Government working with the sector, not against it. It gives me no pleasure to say that this Government have chosen a very different path.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They absolutely are. I would be happy to come to my right hon. Friend’s constituency to discuss this over a pint in one of those small rural pubs, which are the hub of our villages and hamlets. Once they are gone, it is very difficult to replace them. The Government clearly have the hospitality sector in their crosshairs, and clause 86 is just the latest salvo. This is no small corner of the economy. Some 3.5 million people are employed directly in the sector, which invests £7 billion a year, yet the industry is being punished by the Chancellor’s decisions and this clause. UKHospitality’s “#TaxedOut” campaign has highlighted the nearly 90,000 jobs lost in this sector. With unemployment now above 5%, young people in particular are paying the price. That is a consequence of the Chancellor’s damaging tax rises, which were supported by Labour Members. Higher alcohol duties, the jobs tax, energy bills and soaring business rates are layering cost on cost. It is little wonder that UKHospitality has called the Government’s approach a “hammer blow”.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I wish to speak to new clauses 22 to 24, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. As the Minister set out, clauses 63 to 68 introduce measures to apply inheritance tax to unspent pension assets and other death benefits for deaths occurring after 6 April 2027. This Labour Government have taken taxes to record levels, with £26 billion in additional taxes in this Budget and £66 billion since the election. These tax increases were not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. Labour is increasing taxes on family businesses, farms, jobs, dividends, savings, motorists and now death. Removing the inheritance tax exemption for pensions could undermine efforts to encourage people to save at a time when people are not saving enough. And what do the Government do? They limit the salary sacrifice pension contributions scheme and introduce a new raid on people’s pensions pots. The Minister did not refer to the impact assessment, but it is worth pointing out that it estimates that 10,500 estates will now become liable for inheritance tax, raising £1.5 billion by 2029, and 38,500 estates will pay more inheritance tax than was previously the case. That is why we oppose this extension of inheritance tax and the underlying principle, to which the Minister seemed to allude, that people’s money belongs not to them but to the state. New clause 22 is straightforward. It would require the Chancellor to set out the impact of these measures on pension saving, household saving decisions and personal representatives. There is real concern—I am surprised the Minister did not address this—about the administrative burden being placed on personal representatives and the effect on the industry. Personal representatives will be required to identify every pension asset, calculate the inheritance tax due and ensure payment within six months, and they will be personally liable if they fail to settle all the liabilities due. In many cases, that deadline would be impossible to meet and must be extended. Furthermore, if a pension fund has to quickly sell illiquid assets, such as commercial property, it may not get the full market value, but the Bill does not introduce a relief where the underlying assets must be sold and the proceeds are less than the value of the assets at the time of death. Late payments will attract interest at 8%. By contrast, someone in self-assessment has 10 months to pay tax on the income they already understand. Both the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation have offered some practical solutions, the first of which is to extend the withholding periods. Personal representatives can ask pension administrators to withhold 50% of funds for up to 15 months, but that is simply not long enough for the complex cases I have referred to, particularly where business property valuations have to be agreed with HMRC. Will the Minister consider allowing HMRC to extend withholding in such complex cases? Secondly, the Government should allow instalment payments for illiquid pension assets. Billions of pounds of pensions wealth are in illiquid assets. The Government allow inheritance tax to be paid over 10 years for illiquid estate assets. Why deny the same practical relief for pensions? When this policy was announced, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave it a “very high” uncertainty rating and estimated that behavioural effects will cut the static yield by about 43%; the Government’s own forecasters accept that the changes may well significantly alter saving behaviour. The new clause would simply require the Chancellor to assess that impact and come to the House to make it clear. New clause 23 would require the Chancellor to consult on the impact of clauses 63 to 67, and whether they deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners. The truth is that the Government rushed the consultation out after the 2024 Budget and followed it with a very narrow technical consultation, which did not consider the principled question of whether this approach to pensions being brought within the inheritance tax framework was appropriate. As the Investing and Saving Alliance told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in its inquiry to which the Exchequer Secretary also gave evidence: “If we were consulted and listened to, we probably would not be having this discussion today, because I do not think pensions would be going into IHT.” Both the chartered institute and the ATT have criticised the Government for consulting on pensions in isolation, rather than in the context of individuals’ wider inheritance tax position. Our new clause is explicit. Consultation must take place to assess whether these changes “deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners” —wording that reflects the commitment the Labour party made in its manifesto. New clause 24 is essential. It would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the new rules for pensions and to set up a dedicated helpline. Why does that matter? Because this measure will be incredibly complex in practice. The chartered institute has said that professional executors are already questioning whether they can continue to operate in the market at all. Some firms, we are told, are already leaving the market. If professionals step back, the burden falls on lay personal representatives: often grieving family members or friends, with more errors, delay and potentially a wider tax gap ensuing. Professional indemnity insurers also need clarity, yet when is HMRC due to deliver detailed guidance? Not until spring 2027, just weeks before the changes take effect. That is completely outrageous and far too late. That is why the new clause requires guidance to be published within six months of the Bill being passed. I want to touch on a broader concern that has been raised with me on the potential serious unintended consequences for unmarried couples. Today, couples can anticipate making financial provision for each other via pensions, but if this measure comes into force they will have to look at other options. If one member of an unmarried couple in their 50s or 60s dies with a pension at peak value, the survivor could lose up to 40% of that fund. Are Ministers talking to pension scheme administrators to mitigate the risks for such couples and to provide clear guidance? These clauses increase taxes, add complexity, penalise saving and add stress for grieving families. Despite clause 67, we are also advised that there is still a risk of double taxation of inheritance tax and income tax, which could see beneficiaries paying an effective tax rate of 67%. Our amendments seek to mitigate their worst impacts. The Chancellor should assess the real impact on saving behaviour and personal representatives. She should consult properly on these provisions and she must provide clear guidance, backed by dedicated support. We should be incentivising saving and encouraging people to do the right thing. Extending inheritance tax does the opposite, and we will oppose the Government’s measures.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the hon. Member is welcome, but let us be clear that some are not. If I go into a pub, I do not think I will find many publicans who think that this Government are pro-pub. We have a Chancellor who said that she did not understand the impact that her Budget, the revaluation and the removal of the discount on business rates would have. That is staggering. Frankly, it shows once again that she does not understand business and was not listening when the sector and many others warned that that was precisely the impact that her policy would have. The Chancellor is reportedly about to do a U-turn on her business rates raid. She has not come to the House yet to inform us or the sector, but what is being briefed is likely to be wholly inadequate. On the radio this morning we heard Ministers saying that the impact will be limited to pubs, but the hospitality sector, leisure businesses and retail all face huge increases in business rates.

• 8 Jan 2026 · E-scooters · Hansard source

  More

  There are 1 million privately owned scooters, which are illegal to use on public roads. I declare an interest, having bought one a few years ago in the expectation that I would be able to ride it legally by now, but that is permitted only under state-licensed schemes. Why have the Government extended trials that began six years ago by a further two years, rather than getting on with allowing people to use their e-scooters with proportionate regulation to deliver the benefits of micromobility, particularly in areas such as North West Norfolk that have limited public transport?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for the contributions that we have heard. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the rural fuel duty relief scheme in 2011, and that was in recognition of the fact that remote communities face higher pump prices due to the high cost of transporting and distributing fuel. The scheme was subsequently extended again in 2015 to include more areas across England and Scotland, providing a welcome 5p per litre reduction in prices to help families and businesses in those areas, particularly where they might have only one filling station to choose from. The scheme recognised that rural communities, especially isolated ones, face challenges that justify targeted support. As we have heard from hon. Members, it has proved effective and needed. In the main Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Environment Secretary, has been setting out the support that the Conservatives have consistently provided for people in rural Britain; many of my colleagues are speaking in that debate. In government, we demonstrated our commitment to those who live and work in the countryside, including my North West Norfolk constituents. Our fuel duty record underlined that. As well as the rural fuel duty relief, we froze fuel duty every year from 2011. In March 2022, we went further and introduced a 5p cut to fuel duty across the board. That was not merely about tax policy; it was about recognising that, for rural communities, a car or a van is a lifeline, not a luxury. It connects farmers to markets, helps children get to school, helps people get to work or health appointments and keeps rural enterprises in business. Every penny added to the cost of fuel has a multiplied effect in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer. Our support for rural communities extended far beyond fuel duty to infrastructure and supporting agricultural businesses, recognising their vital contribution to our country and to the social fabric—what a contrast to what we have seen under this Government. The Government say that the cost of living is their priority, but they are adding to the costs for families and businesses. Inflation was at 2% when the Government came in, and they have nearly doubled it. The much-vaunted promise of £300 off energy bills is nowhere to be seen. In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that Labour would end the 5p fuel duty cut that we introduced. That measure will take effect from September this year, and will see the average family pay £100 a year more. The Road Haulage Association estimates that it will add more than £2,000 a year to the operating costs of a heavy goods vehicle. From April next year, the Government will scrap the 16-year fuel duty freeze that we introduced, and inflation-linked rises will follow. That marks the end of the support offered to motorists through the freeze since 2010, which has saved them £120 billion. That puts in context the modest £5 million or so cost of the rural fuel duty relief. In November, the Chancellor also announced her pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles, which is set to cost drivers an extra £255 a year. It is little wonder that the RAC has said that simply keeping vehicles on the road has become a significant financial challenge. The Prime Minister has been boasting about the £3 bus cap—a cap that he increased by 50%. Whether it is fuel duty or public transport, the Government are making things harder and more expensive for rural communities. Rural communities are not only being punished at the pump. In the debate, we have heard reference to the family farm tax, which breaks up the farms that form the backbone of our rural communities. The modest change that the Minister has announced is welcome as far as it goes, but given the damage that the tax will do, the Conservatives are committed to reversing it entirely. As well as the increases to fuel duty, business rates will increase, hitting rural pubs and businesses. UKHospitality estimates that an average pub will pay an extra £12,900 over the next three years. The Minister was sent out to defend the farm tax, and he said there would not be changes, but then there were. At Treasury questions, I called on the Chancellor to look again at business rates increases, and the Minister ruled that out then, but we read today that there may be changes. Apparently the Business Secretary has even noticed the damage that the increases will do—presumably not after discussing them in a pub, given that many Labour MPs have been barred. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government are considering making those changes, as the sector and many across the House have called for? The rural fuel duty relief scheme reflects an approach to governing that recognises the distinct challenges and vital importance of our rural communities. We introduced the scheme and extended it, and throughout our time in government we demonstrated that we understand and support those who live and work in the countryside. Given that it is now more than a decade since the scheme was last expanded, and given its modest cost, I fully support a review of the relief. The Treasury often says that it keeps taxes under review, but this measure deserves a proactive review, and I hope that the Minister will commit to one. By contrast, this Government’s tax rise after tax rise make life harder for rural businesses and rural people. Against a backdrop of weak growth and rising unemployment, Labour’s approach sadly threatens the fabric of our rural communities. Those rural communities deserve much better.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?

• 11 Dec 2025 · National Plan to End Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the ambition to end homelessness and pay tribute to the Purfleet Trust, King’s Lynn Night Shelter, the borough council and other groups that are working hard and collaborating to end rough sleeping and homelessness. How will this strategy and the resources help to support their efforts and focus on intervention and prevention and providing more local accommodation?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  To bring the Minister back to the debate, it is about honesty and the real-world consequences of the briefing that happened around the Budget. Does the Treasury accept that hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions, which is an irrevocable decision—yes or no?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  This is a rare and serious conduct motion that calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, breaking promises on tax and breaching the OBR confidentiality process—in short, for not being straight with the British people. I was expecting to refer to more contributions this afternoon, but it has been a slightly curtailed debate. [Interruption.] We had the comprehensive introduction from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) were surprised and disappointed that the Chancellor is being held to account not for her personality, but for her conduct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, this debate is about honesty, trust and confidence and what happens as a result, and about the “shenanigans”, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) put it. On Times Radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor was asked why this debate matters. It matters because the deliberate briefing and misrepresentation of the Budget has damaged workers, savers, pensioners and investors. Let us start with the simple truth: this Government and the Chancellor spun false narratives about the public finances to justify their political choices to increase welfare spending.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate, he would have had the opportunity of the opening 45-minute speech to put that to my right hon. Friend. What happened as a result of all the policy kites that were flown? Pensions were drawn down, fewer mortgages were approved and investment was paused. That is not my verdict; the Bank of England warned that the economy was heading for slowdown as a result of the uncertainty, the British Chambers of Commerce said that that uncertainty affected investment and recruitment, and hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions. Those are the real impacts of that activity—the shenanigans—and there is genuine anger across the country at the damage such uncertainty caused. The Chancellor must take responsibility because she is responsible for that uncertainty. People are already cynical about politics, but what could do more to undermine trust than abusing the OBR process to cook up a story to make a case for higher taxes that were not needed? It is the Chancellor who is at the centre of misleading the country. On 4 November, she staged that unprecedented press conference to roll the pitch for tax rises.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker is not questioning anyone. I am pointing out that the Chancellor said that there was a big £16 billion downgrade from the productivity—that was all offset—but she did not mention that— [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to say that she did mention that on 4 November, I will give way. She did not. She did not at all. Yesterday, when the Chancellor was asked in the House if she had authorised or allowed confidential details of the Budget or forecasts to be briefed to the press, she gave a categorical no. If the Chancellor did not license briefings, can the Minister give a cast-iron commitment that no other Ministers, special advisers or officials in the Treasury or No. 10 briefed or authorised briefings about potential measures or the forecasts? Frankly, if you believe that all of those were unauthorised briefings, the Treasury is utterly out of control and I have a bridge to sell you. There is a leak inquiry, but the permanent secretary said today that it centres on 13 November, not on the tsunami of tall tales on potential Budget measures. Why might that be, I wonder. Nothing less than a full inquiry, with the findings made public, will do. That brings us to the broken promises referred to in the motion. A year ago, the Chancellor delivered the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history, hitting the British people with £40 billion of tax rises. Then in this Budget, taxes were increased yet again, by £26 billion, despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Life comes at you fast. A year ago, the Chancellor also said that extending the freeze on income tax thresholds “would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Do Labour Members remember her saying that? I certainly do. She said that she would not freeze the thresholds. Then what did she do? Oh, she froze the thresholds. She imposed a three-year extension, with £23 billion coming out of the pockets of 1.7 million people who will pay higher taxes for her failures. As the motion says, the Chancellor should apologise for breaking her promise not to raise taxes again. What Chancellors say matters. The public and the markets need to believe them, and to trust that they are not being misled. That is not the case around the events of this Budget. That is why this motion calls on the Chancellor to apologise for the misleading picture she presented of the public finances, for the Treasury briefings that did so much damage to businesses and to people, and for breaking her promise not to increase taxes. Frankly, in the face of such a charge sheet, an apology is the very least that the British public deserve. I commend this motion to the House.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. In breach of the confidentiality rules, the Chancellor warned that the OBR productivity downgrade meant lower tax receipts. Indeed it did, but the OBR report makes it clear that that downgrade was more than addressed by higher tax receipts. In other words, there was no black hole. The Chancellor had the numbers and she knew the position. Now we know what she said was simply not true. Instead, she crafted a narrative to justify decisions to increase taxes to fund higher welfare spending. On 13 November, the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor had decided against the much-briefed income tax increases. The next day, after the gilt market had responded badly, journalists were briefed that the tax rises would not happen thanks to an improved fiscal forecast. Yet that is not what the OBR pre-financial measures said. Little wonder the OBR took that extraordinary step of publishing the forecasts, exposing the truth that there was no giant deficit, as briefed to the press. The OBR said it took that action to address misconceptions about the forecasts. Where might such misconceptions come from? We do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to identify the Treasury as the culprit.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Hospitality Sector and SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor promised a new golden era of hospitality, but the reality of her business rates raid, as the British Beer and Pub Association has said, is “sleepless nights, pay cuts and staff layoffs” for publicans, who will be paying an extra £13,000 on average. Why did the Chancellor tell businesses last week that their taxes were going down when they are going up, and will she think again and change the multipliers?

• 8 Dec 2025 · The Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument clears up a couple of errors, one of which happened on our watch, as he pointed out—fair cop; we plead guilty to that one. The other part of the instrument corrects a previous error by reinstating the 14% import duty for fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes. There is no impact assessment for the instrument because, as the explanatory memorandum says, the impact on the private and public sector is expected to be minimal, but I did get the House of Commons Library to do a bit of research for me. According to HMRC’s trade tariff tool, the incorrectly applied 0% tariff on jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes appeared on July 2025, and the UK imported roughly £3.2 million of such products in 2024. I am keen to understand from the Minister how the error occurred. Was it simply human error? What measures are in place to prevent slightly more important tariff codes being incorrectly entered, with the impact that that could have? Tariffs are taxes, of course, with higher prices passed on to consumers. We have just had a Budget that increased taxes on incomes, savings and employment, and that introduced a new tourist tax and a taxi tax. We now have another one: the marmalade tax. Marmalade makers in Peru will be giving the Minister a Paddington stare after this. On basmati rice, as the Minister said, this was an error made by the previous Conservative Government. The Library was unable to find any data on the volume imported, so how much does he expect the new £25 a tonne rate—the rate that should have been in place—to raise in the years to come? If he does not have those figures at his fingertips, perhaps he will write to me. To conclude, higher import tariffs mean higher prices for consumers. There can be good reasons for them, such as ensuring a level playing field for our domestic producers, but it does seem that this Government have yet to come across a tax they do not like—even on marmalade.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Restriction of Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  There is capacity for almost 2,000 more court sitting days that are not being used for rape or other trials at the moment. Why is the Justice Secretary not prioritising funding those days to help reduce the backlog, rather than trying to scrap jury trials?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  This is an utter dog’s breakfast that is entirely of the Government’s making. Will the Minister apologise to Tim Passmore and other mayoral candidates for cancelling the elections next year? When will Norfolk and Suffolk get the £37.4 million investment fund that we were promised if we had a mayor, and not the £3 million—the crumbs—that she has promised today?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Cabinet Office has an important role to play in publishing data to enable the public to track the Government’s performance. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful to have data on the number of prisoners wrongly released every day by the Justice Secretary?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before speaking to new clauses 24 and 25 and amendments 14, 15 and 16, I shall begin by reiterating the position adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury—he is not here today, as the Minister acknowledged—which is that we support many of the planned changes in the Bill because, fundamentally, we all want a pensions system that is more accessible to the average person and gives all our constituents dignity in retirement. We want to see a Bill that helps make the system work better, and some of its measures will undoubtedly do that. Equally, the higher-tax Budget, of which the Minister was a controlling mind, is relevant. We know from media reports that he feels passionately about the Budget—he used industrial language that is perhaps more expected from industry than from a think-tanker, and it is certainly not for the Chamber. We also know that, because of the briefings that appeared in the press, hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions prematurely, damaging their savings income as a result. The Budget also increases taxes on pension contributions. Taxing people’s incomes, savings and pensions more is the wrong political choice. There is much in the Bill that we agree with, but some fundamental issues remain. Arguably the most pressing issue is the fact that the Bill does not address pensions adequacy. Research from Pensions UK shows that over 50% of savers will fail to meet the retirement incomes set by the Pensions Commission. The simple, uncomfortable truth is that this will affect millions of people, and that is despite the introduction of auto-enrolment and the triple lock introduced under the last Conservative Government. The Bill was an opportunity to do more, but it does not currently do so. We are therefore giving the Government another chance through new clause 25, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review within five years and to recommend further measures. We recognise that the second phase of the pension review is ongoing, and we have faith in Baroness Drake to lead that review, but we have concerns that it will not report until 2027. We maintain that this part of the pensions review should be fast-tracked, so could the Minister at least clarify in which quarter of 2027 we can expect that report to be published? Amendment 14 would change the wording on the eligibility conditions for new entrant pathway relief back to the form it was in when the Bill was first introduced. This means that schemes would qualify for relief if they simply demonstrated strong growth potential and an ability to innovate. All of us on these Benches understand the economies of scale and agree on the need for them, but we have concerns about the changes to the eligibility requirements. The benefit of the existing market is that its diversity provides choice, creates competition and incentivises innovation. As it stands, though, the Bill will disadvantage niche or boutique funds. Specifically, if the amendment made in Committee is enacted, existing companies that previously qualified for the pathway will now be excluded. An example is Penfold, whose workplace pension was launched in 2022 and has grown quickly to over £1 billion of assets under management, tripling the rate since the start of 2024. Even with this trajectory, the timing of the scale test gives insufficient time to reach the £10 billion threshold for the transition pathway. We therefore agree with the chief executive officer of Penfold when he said: “The original drafting created the scale that everyone agrees is vital, while still leaving room for challengers to innovate without the threat of a hard scale deadline that deters private investment”. He is right. These are exactly the type of businesses that the Government should be supporting. I shall turn now to the issue of indexation to pre-1997 pensionable service. We all want pensioners to have dignity in retirement, but when people have done the right thing by putting money in their pension and it is not followed through, that does not give pensioners the dignity they deserve. The issue around the pre-1997 indexation is also time-sensitive, like the infected blood scandal, and the longer the can is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, sadly. We therefore broadly welcome the Minister’s commitment to taking primary powers through Government new clauses 31, 32 and 33. Our new clause 24 was seeking to achieve a similar outcome. We pay tribute to the lobbying from groups including the Pensions Action Group and the Deprived Pensioners Association. Also, my hon. Friend the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury wanted to acknowledge our right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for his continued representations on this issue. The Minister has already been pressed by a number of Members about the concerns of organisations, such as the Esso Pensioners Working Group, that want to understand further how the Government will ensure that these groups are not forgotten. Finally, I want to turn to the part of the Bill with which we have our most fundamental disagreement: namely, the part that deals with mandation. Amendment 15 would prevent the use of the reserve mandation powers until the Government produced a report on the reasons why the powers were needed and the effects of the use of such powers, and resolved any issues raised in that report. It simply asks the Government to undertake an analysis of the barriers that pension funds are facing, rather than rushing to use mandation as perfectly reasonable. Amendment 16 would remove the power altogether.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Official Secrets Act and Espionage · Hansard source

  More

  The report says that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, apparently had very “limited” engagement about the case. In contrast, one of his predecessors, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, with whom I worked in the Ministry of Defence, said he “would have expected to be involved intimately in the provision of the Government evidence”. Why was Jonathan Powell—and Lord Hermer, for that matter, who is described in the report as being “not proactive”—so passive on a matter of national security and alleged spying on Members of this House?

• 25 Nov 2025 · NHS Dental Services: Norfolk · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister told the Health and Social Care Committee that the spending envelope for dentistry would be confirmed by the end of the summer at the latest. Is the Office for Students still waiting for a ministerial direction to launch that competition for new places, so that UEA can bid along with others and so that we can get training places in Norfolk for the first time?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister agreed with the independent adviser on ministerial interests to recuse himself from the appointment of the football regulator in autumn 2024. Then, in April, as the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear, he confirmed Mr Kogan’s appointment, breaking that undertaking. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from Mr Kogan, and when did he declare them?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Russian Ship Yantar · Hansard source

  More

  In January, the Defence Secretary came to this House to make a statement when the Yantar passed through British waters, but he did not see fit to do so when that ship directed lasers at our pilots, which I think reflects poorly on him. Has the Russian ambassador been summoned over this highly dangerous action, and if not, why not?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  This terrorist was moved to a separation centre over concerns that he would use his extremist Islamist ideology to radicalise others, and yet the ruling says that this move was a breach of his right to a private life under the European convention. Should national security and prison officers’ safety not come first, and will she rule out paying any money to this terrorist?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I referred to my time in the Ministry of Defence, and during that time we created the Op Shader medal for British service personnel who were involved in operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The original proposal was that that medal should only go to the pilots in the planes conducting the strikes, but the Secretary of State and the Ministers in the Department ensured the case was made for it to go to the ground crews who got those planes in the air, so Ministers can make a difference. We have the system that the Minister has described, but Ministers are there to drive this through.