Peter Bedford MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Many aspects of the Bill command cross-party support, but I want your view on where the Bill does not quite go far enough, and where it perhaps goes too far. Zoe Alexander: I would probably lean towards talking about the local government pension scheme in that context. There are some parts of the Bill where we feel powers are being taken that may not be required; one is around requiring funds to choose a particular pool, and one is requiring particular pools to merge. We think that the LGPS is moving in a very positive direction. Obviously two pools have been closed, and funds are merging with other pools already. We are not sure that those powers are actually required. We think that the direction of travel is set and that the LGPS understands that, so we feel that those powers might be overstepping the mark. Rob Yuille: I have no view on local government. I think what I am about to say should have cross-party support, or at least cross-party interest. It is a macro Bill about how the market and the system work, but it is also about people and the decisions that they need to make. We are glad to see the small pots provision in the Bill, but it is on an opt-out basis, similar to the default pension benefits solutions. People have decisions to make, such as whether to stay in or not, and they need to be supported in the decision making. We are proposing a textbook amendment that would enable schemes to communicate electronically in a way they currently cannot and in a more positive way—even where people did not have a chance to opt in to that kind of communication, which is seen and regulated as direct marketing. We know that there is cross-party interest in the ability to communicate more clearly with customers, specifically in relation to those provisions.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think financial education is the key to ensuring pensions adequacy. To build on Damien’s question about ensuring that members are fully informed about their pension assets and what the returns are going to be, what they will provide, what are your thoughts on what support the Bill offers, or does not offer, to ensure members are fully informed on the key decisions they have to make? Christopher Brooks: Providing information takes you so far, and it is really important to do that: there are some really big gaps, as we see with Pension Wise UK, which is a really good and well-liked service, but has a really low take-up. That is just an example, but we need to get more people into a position to access the information. However, they will then still need a lot of support, because pension decisions are really challenging for the vast majority of people.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Going back to the consolidation of small pots, have you any thoughts or comments on the timeframes involved in how that would be implemented, particularly in the context of the roll-out of the pensions dashboard, which has taken quite some time to be rolled out in the industry? Patrick Heath-Lay: The Government have put forward a default consolidator model. We are completely supportive of that; we think it is the right solution to tidy up the 13 million small deferred pots that are out there and those that are being created on a daily basis. That model has been done with extensive consultation with the industry. To go back to the first question, which was about all the different options that have been considered before, we do think that this is the right approach. A couple of things around it are critical. First, we need to make sure that the technical solutions—the IT capability or infrastructure—should be as efficient as possible. We are contributing to the various pieces of research being done at the moment to evaluate which models are in existence and ready to be utilised. There is no doubt that the dashboard will contain some elements that will be helpful, such as a pension finder, that will be helpful, and I suspect that they will utilise pieces of that technology. But I do think—and I suspect the conclusion will be—that we need something new. Some of the expertise in the industry can be leveraged. I suspect that that is expertise that our organisations can provide. Given that we have already addressed the big pension savings gap for savers, we can help to develop that model. On whether the solution is doable within the timeframe, 2030 is a big ask, but we should have that target to go after. We should try to be in a position where default consolidators exist in the market, we are developing the solution and we are able to solve the problem, because the number of small pots being created almost daily by the industry is a big problem for savers. Ian Cornelius: I agree with Patrick. It is a problem that needs fixing. We also support the default consolidator approach. The sequencing is sensible: we want scheme consolidation first and then small pots, because there is no point in going through the complexity of consolidating small pots before consolidating at the scheme level. Dashboards will help, but they will not solve the problem. A solution is required, because this is driving a lot of cost and a lot of complexity. It would be nice if it were sooner than 2030. Given the ambition of the Bill as a whole, I think that that is probably realistic, but it does need to come after scheme consolidation, as I say. Patrick Heath-Lay: The requirements on those organisations that choose to apply to be default consolidators need to be of a good standard. Our organisations operate a single-pot model. Whenever anyone rejoins from a different employer, their money goes into exactly the same pension pot. That is not a common model across the industry. Things like that should be thought through when defining the requirements for being a consolidator. Those that wish to apply need to hit a good regulatory standard to ensure that value is delivered through those models.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am just interested in examples of recent shocks that have happened, where you had to pay out significant sums and what those sums were. Michelle Ostermann: The biggest example is a macroeconomic shock that would affect the solvency of corporations. The failure of the corporation itself is more likely to have an impact than just a change in interest rates or equity markets. The change in interest rates can affect the fundedness of a scheme, but many of those schemes, over 75% of them now, are actually really well funded. And they have pretty well locked down their interest rate risk because they have put a good chunk of assets against their liabilities in a fairly tight hedge. Although we saw, as a result of the liquidity crisis a few years ago now, that things can change. The degree of risk, specifically leverage risk inside some of those strategies, does make them fallible. I would say the biggest shocks would be massive interest rate movements that are unforeseen, a very significant macroeconomic environment causing failure in many corporations, and technically, even a significant move in equity markets, but we would usually just ride that out. Markets can go down 20% or 30%. We would only go down 10% or 15% and we would be able to recover that in under five years, historically speaking.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have just a couple of general questions. You have articulated this in your points already, but where do you think the Bill goes too far and may have an adverse impact, and where does it not go far enough to make progress in this space? Helen Forrest Hall: I will take this opportunity to reiterate that we strongly support the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill: the consolidation, value for money and retirement provisions; finally legislating for DB superfunds, which we warmly welcome; and striking the balance on DB surplus—there was a better balance to be struck. To a certain extent we have already talked about our key issue where the Bill potentially goes too far, which is around the mandation requirement and the reserve power. On value for money, I think that the Bill is doing the right thing. Value for money is going to be an everchanging set of circumstances, particularly if we build scale in the market. What might be required on day one for value for money—we probably want a core set of metrics that can be easily comparable across schemes—might really mature as the market consolidates into a small number of fairly significant defined contribution funds. You might quite rightly expect regulators and the regulations to ask an awful lot more of those schemes in terms of what they are doing under value for money. We think it is only right and proper that they sit in secondary. There have occasionally been issues with putting too much in a pensions Bill, and creating problems with the market being able to adapt as we go. So I think that this is actually the right thing to do, albeit that we would welcome further clarity from regulators around the fact that they would like to start small and grow—at the moment there is very little detail on the value for money measurements. We are talking actively with them, but it is useful to get the reassurance that we will start from a principle small basis and move out, rather than potentially creating additional burdens for schemes during what will be, on a number of fronts, quite a busy pensions reform road map. Sophia Singleton: We very much support almost all the provisions in the Bill; mandation, as we have already talked about, is the exception. Where would we go further? There are two things that we would ask for. The first is in relation to DB surplus. We have talked about how we were pleased to see that the safeguards were in place—we feel that they are very robust. We would like some clarity in the Bill, though, that that provision overrides any existing restrictions in scheme rules, because as it is currently drafted there are some schemes that might not be able to utilise that provision. We have provided some more details about making it open to all in our submission—making it clear that the provision overrides any existing restrictions, subject to the safeguards being properly used and so on. The second one is an addition that we would love to see to the Bill: the removal of the admin levy, which pays towards the Pension Protection Fund admin costs. The DWP did a review in 2022 that concluded that it was no longer needed—it is a cost to schemes and therefore to employers. We have prepared a simple draft for the legislation that we have shared with you and the DWP that would remove it, and it is a very easy way to remove a cost on employers. Helen Forrest Hall: If I could just add one point on the DB surplus, because Sophia’s points reminded me of it, I think there are a couple of areas where there could be further easements. They are not necessarily for a pensions Bill—some of them are more Finance Bill-related—but in giving trustees full flexibility to consider all the beneficiaries of a scheme, it would be useful if there were further easements that enabled them to make, for example, one-off payments to members without being subject to extraneous tax charges and, similarly, that would allow employers to pay some of that surplus as DC contributions into another trust. At the moment, the legislation does not provide for that, and obviously that would be a way to help trustees, and actually employers, who might be looking to enhance their pension provision overall—not just being able to move money around within one legal structure.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Building on Steve’s question on the levy, some hon. Members have asked about surplus extraction feeding into the overall risk profile in the markets. Clearly, if that was to happen and there was perceived to be an increased risk, it could result in an increase in the levy. The Bill allows for the levy to be reduced to zero. What are your thoughts about that? Michelle Ostermann: We have thought a fair bit about that. We do not see very many scenarios in which we would need to turn it on, although it is always difficult to predict. As you know, the industry evolves in many ways and over the 20 years we have seen quite an evolution, including the creation of new alternative covenant schemes and commercial consolidators. We will backstop those as well, and we will need to charge a levy for them. There could be an unforeseen market event, similar to that just described, so we need the ability to turn the levy back on—simply to keep it as a lever. Today, the legislation reads that if we were to lower it to 0%, we can only increase it year on year by 25%. However, 25% of zero is zero, so we are a bit cornered. We have asked for a measure that would allow us to increase it by as much as a few hundred million a year. The most we have ever charged in one year was just over £500 million. As I said, we have collected £10 billion gradually over many years. The new measure allows us to increase it by no more than 25% of the ceiling number every year, which is currently £1.4 billion. That means we could go up as much as £350 million in a single year, if needs be. However, we are a very patient long-term investor. Even though we are taking on closed corporate DB schemes, we run it as if we were an open scheme, because we are open to new members all the time. As such, our investment strategy does most of the heavy lifting for our organisation now. On our £14 billion reserves, we make over £1 billion a year in gains from that investment strategy, which funds the £1 billion we pay out in the pension scheme to members. We are now a mature organisation that should be able to maintain a steady state. The most we would be able to increase the levy by in one year is £350 million, but we would expect to be patient, wait a few years, and try to ride out the situation not needing it, only turning it back on should we need it. We consult before we turn it on and we take a lot of feedback on this. We are quite thoughtful, as we have always been, and I hope people agree.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  The best way to reduce poverty is for people to be in work, but as a result of this Government’s damaging economic policies, we have seen youth unemployment rise by 6% since the general election. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to ensure that more damage is not done?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  It is not populist to want safe and secure communities, but we are going round in circles. The only way we are going to solve this crisis is by withdrawing from outdated refugee conventions, rescinding the insidious ECHR from our laws, and using British military assets to prevent incursion into British waters. Will the Home Secretary commit to doing that today?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent Nick, who works hard for the money he earns and pays into system, walks through his town centre, he asks himself, “What is the point? Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often don’t?” These amendments matter. They are not unfair; they are principled. They would ensure that the welfare system remained strong for those who truly need it, and fair for those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act, and unfortunately, if the Government do not support our amendments today, they will be letting the public down.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am not going to withdraw the comment I made, because there are people in that situation—

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues. New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point. That goes back to financial education and ensuring that people truly understand their pensions and savings. Increasing savings is important, but we need to ensure that it is driven by individuals who understand and can shape their own financial futures. Other countries have looked at increasing incentives for saving. South Africa and the US have schemes that enable people to draw from their pension pots in tightly defined circumstances, such as for emergencies or investment opportunities. Such flexibility would increase confidence in pension savings and help address the other concerning fact that 21% of UK adults have less than £1,000 set aside for emergencies, leaving them susceptible to economic shocks outside of their control and, in turn, less likely to prioritise savings in their pensions. Poor pensions adequacy does not just harm retirees; it has serious implications for the state. As our life expectancy continues to rise, the state’s pension bill will continue to increase. Benefits like pension credit will increase exponentially as the lack of adequate private provision leaves more and more relying on the state. As we saw just last week, it is often incredibly hard to reform welfare. As a Conservative, I believe that the answer lies in personal responsibility and in encouraging and helping people to build up their own private pension provision for the benefit of themselves, their family and, ultimately, the rest of society.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a compelling case. As I said in my speech, this goes back to financial education and ensuring that we all understand the implications of pensions adequacy. My concern about adequacy does not mean that the Bill does not have its merits. The continuation of Conservative policy, the small pots consolidation and the creation of megafunds are sensible reforms that will increase individuals’ pension pots by reducing dormant pots and increasing economies of scale. However, this is a missed opportunity for a Government with a large majority. They could have acted more boldly, moved faster and improved pension adequacy throughout the United Kingdom. I would like a clear commitment from the Government that they are actively looking at improving pensions adequacy. The Labour party has long professed to be the party of workers, yet some who look at the Bill will sense that it does not go far enough in preventing the UK from declining into being a society funded by welfare in retirement. Let us encourage people to strive, work hard and save more for a better future. I very much hope that the Government will work collegiately and cross party with His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee to ensure that our constituents do not sleepwalk into a retirement crisis.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Cross-party working is essential to ensuring that there is public confidence in a system we will all need to use in our twilight years. That is why Conservative Members are ready to work constructively to improve this legislation and, where necessary, to provide a “critical friend” approach and challenge the Government’s thinking. When it comes to pensions and the long-term financial security of our constituents, we should not play party politics. It is in this spirit that I raise my own concerns with the Bill. The Bill does not focus enough on increasing the amount of money flowing into people’s pension pots—something we literally cannot afford to ignore. I am proud that it was the last Conservative Government that led the introduction of auto-enrolment—a significant pensions reform that dramatically improved individuals’ financial wellbeing in later life. The 8% contribution was a game changer. Yes, the system relies on inertia, but for the first time, millions of workers began saving for their retirement. We must now confront an uncomfortable truth: the contribution rate looks less adequate by the day. Too many of our constituents are heading towards retirement without the income they will need. For example, the Pensions Policy Institute has highlighted that 9 million UK adults are currently under-pensioned. Inaction is not an option. We are allowing people to sleepwalk into a retirement crisis. The level of auto-enrolment contribution was never intended to be a silver bullet. Instead, it was conceived as a foundation or starting point for pension savings. Importantly, that foundation was once supported by two key pillars: defined-benefit schemes, which offered guaranteed incomes to many, and higher levels of home ownership, which provided an asset to fall back on in later life. Both have eroded significantly over the last two decades. The 8% auto-enrolment rate on its own is woefully inadequate, and many workers will not realise that in respect of their own financial circumstances until it is too late. It would be all too easy to simply raise the auto-enrolment rate to some arbitrary level, but we would find ourselves back here in 15 years’ time having the same conversation about a system where inertia and disengagement continue. If we truly want lasting change, we cannot focus solely on the percentage; we need to dramatically improve how people engage with their savings. That starts with improving financial education. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill on this precise topic and as a chartered accountant by background, this is a cause on which I place great importance. Shockingly, though perhaps unsurprisingly, Standard Life has highlighted that three in four people do not know how much they have in pension savings. That needs to change through increased engagement, but also by allowing savers increased control over their own savings. People should be able to easily view all their pots in one place, which is why it is frustrating to have seen delays to the roll-out of the pensions dashboard, which many hon. Members have mentioned. The pensions dashboard will encourage individuals to make active choices, to understand their options and to assess whether their current savings are enough for their desired lifestyle in retirement.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. On Friday I had the privilege of visiting LOROS, Leicestershire’s much-respected palliative care charity. At full capacity it could offer 31 beds to local residents, but sadly, because of the measures that the Chancellor has introduced, such as the national insurance hike, it now operates only 18 beds. May I ask the Chancellor to look again at softening the impact of her measures, particularly on charities such as LOROS?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving away; I am going to make progress. The hon. Member can repay the favour sometime. Thirdly, we needed a guarantee that taxes would not rise again in the upcoming Budget. But let us be honest: the Chancellor has only one move left—she will raid the pockets of hard-working families, which is something Labour promised not to do. Even today, we have heard rumours in the media that she is coming after people’s ISAs. It is painfully clear that the Government have lost their fiscal credibility. I say to my constituents: I will always be there to support you and I will fight your corner when the Government come back again for more of your hard-earned income to cover their incompetence. This embarrassing failure of leadership from a Government who should be at the height of their power has led Conservative Members to conclude that we cannot and will not support the Bill.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  So there we have it: a Prime Minister not in control, a Work and Pensions Secretary with her hands tied behind her back, and a Chancellor now scrambling to find ways to balance the books after months of reckless spending. This shoddy attempt at welfare reform has revealed something that the nation has learned over the last year: Labour did not plan for government. We all know that the welfare bill is enormous, with more than £150 billion being spent on benefits for working-age adults. A staggering one in four claim to have some form of disability; that is simply unsustainable. The Government had a prime opportunity in their first year in office—their honeymoon period—to bring about long-term reforms, yet this half-baked Bill, which has already been hastily rewritten to appease hard-left Government Members, does not even achieve the £5 billion of savings originally intended. Worse, it leaves us with a two-tier system from a two-tier Prime Minister. We all know why the Chancellor needs these savings: she will go down as the Klarna Chancellor—spend now, pay later. After all, she has blown taxpayers’ money on 25 more pointless quangos.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving away. The Chancellor has also blown billions of pounds on GB Energy—a project so vague that no one seems to know what it does—while handing out inflation-busting pay rises to appease the unions. Now she cannot even claw back £5 billion of savings to keep market confidence as the country’s debt spirals out of control. When the Work and Pensions Secretary tabled the Bill, Conservative Members gave her three reasonable asks. First, we needed the Government to commit to reducing welfare spending, yet as their screeching U-turn shows, they are incapable of tackling that problem. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts an increase of £60 billion in annual welfare costs by the end of the Parliament. Secondly, we asked for a clear commitment that the Government would get people back to work. However, as was highlighted by the Secretary of State yesterday, the pathways to work programme will not be fully funded until the end of the Parliament, so it will arguably be inconsequential, weak and woefully underfunded.

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his speech. I ask him to take back to the Treasury the various arguments that have been put forward today, particularly about the benefits for the broader economy and for our local communities that could be achieved by reviewing the VAT registration threshold. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), who spoke about the benefits of doing so. She said that local businesses foster community pride, but that the tax system is very complicated for them. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who said he is frustrated that the current system does not have a taper mechanism. I ask the Minister to look at that and consider my hon. Friend’s arguments about how that would benefit small businesses—particularly those that wish to grow. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), particularly for his arguments about the fish and chip shop industry and similar small businesses that are holding back their growth because they are on the cusp of the registration threshold. If they surpass it, additional costs and burdens will be placed on them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about his frustrations, which I share, about how the Windsor framework constricts businesses in Northern Ireland and prevents them from being more competitive and on a par with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I appreciate the intervention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on the same point. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who has particular expertise with VAT. As someone who holds apprenticeships and skills training in high regard, I appreciate his point that reviewing the threshold could enable smaller businesses to take on additional employees and train them in the trades that we need. Plumbers, electricians and other trades would really benefit from apprenticeships and similar types of training. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke about the need for small businesses to be better supported, particularly by the Treasury, in dealing with the bureaucracy. She said that small businesses do not have the advantage of large HR functions or support networks to get them through the bureaucracy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) for his points. He said that three fifths of employment in this country is in a small business, and that, particularly over the last year, businesses have had to contend with significant challenges posed by the new Government’s economic plan, including the national insurance hike, the business rates increase and the additional burdens placed on businesses by the Employment Rights Bill. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs.

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who once said that “England is a nation of shopkeepers”. As is often the case with Napoleon, he was wrong. England, and indeed the UK, is a nation of entrepreneurs. Across the UK, early risers and late-night grafters—the men and women who channel their entrepreneurial spirits into businesses and serving their communities—form the backbone of our economy. However, we in this place sometimes let them down. That is certainly the case with the current nonsensical VAT registration threshold. Right now, businesses in the UK have to be VAT registered when their turnover reaches just £90,000—an arbitrary figure. Once a small business has crossed that cliff edge, it is hit with added regulatory compliance costs and the need to charge their customers 20% more for their services. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister’s response, but I am well aware of the fact that the UK has one of the highest thresholds in Europe—that is not the point. I am arguing for the boldness to unleash the Great British entrepreneurial spirit once again. Increasing the threshold to £90,000 was a positive move by the previous Conservative Government. I recognise the complexities surrounding the Windsor framework, but when we voted to leave the European Union in 2016, we wanted to take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. We should look at this again, and seek to also include Northern Ireland businesses with an increased VAT registration threshold. As a chartered accountant by profession, I have seen first hand the implications that the UK’s tax regime can have for businesses. I enjoy conversations about the economy and business growth, and one recent example from my constituency surgery stands out. I met with Chris and Annie Ensell, talented entrepreneurs running a thriving wedding photography business called Bloom Weddings. Joined by their daughter, they told me of their success and their frustration. They had both become increasingly concerned about approaching and potentially surpassing the VAT registration threshold cliff edge. They now face the agonising decision between limiting the number of weddings they agree to service or passing on increased costs to their customers, which would limit their competitiveness. I ask the Minister—who is part of a Government that say they are going for growth—is that fair? How will this encourage more people like Chris and Annie to build up their businesses? In the Government’s manifesto, they claimed they understand that small firms, entrepreneurs and the self-employed face unique challenges, but we have seen them eat into small to medium-sized enterprise profit margins by increasing national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage. We have also seen them add more regulatory burdens with the Employment Rights Bill, which is set to add £5 billion to the costs of UK businesses. However, today is an opportunity to for the Minister to show real support for small businesses, such as those in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, by committing to review the VAT registration threshold. I regret to say that I am not overly optimistic. When the previous Government rightly increased the threshold, Sir Edward Troup, a Labour tax adviser, ridiculed the idea, claiming that halving the threshold would somehow encourage growth. Perhaps even more shockingly, the current Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), has proposed slashing the threshold to a derisory £30,000.

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I absolutely agree. As a Unionist myself, I want to see all parts of the UK thrive and grow, and that obviously includes Northern Ireland. This debate equally applies to Northern Ireland as it does to everywhere else in the Union. I was talking about UKHospitality, which says it would like to see the VAT rate cut to 12.5% for the industry. I think that proposal has merits and I encourage the Minister to consider it. Finally, I recently met the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and it was clear that confidence among small businesses is in decline. The ICAEW would like to see the whole VAT system simplified and the registration threshold reviewed. That would reduce compliance costs, but it would also enable small businesses to grow beyond the restrictive cliff edge that is currently in place. The Minister may not be a fan of Margaret Thatcher, our first female Prime Minister, but she believed that if people work hard, they should have the opportunity to succeed, and that the Government’s role is to create the conditions for that success. That was why she launched the enterprise allowance scheme, which helped to create now-famous brands such as Superdry and Creation Records. However, if the Minister wants a more contemporary example of a state supporting businesses to grow, he should look at our good friends in Singapore. First, as is well-documented, corporation tax in Singapore is low, but in addition small businesses in Singapore have the pioneer certificate incentive, which encourages start-ups in undersubscribed industries. I am not asking the Minister for such a scheme here—I know that that would perhaps be too bold—but what I am asking for is a modest and sensible change that would make a real difference to entrepreneurs across the country. Raise the VAT registration threshold; push it beyond £90,000. Do it for the small businesses that want to grow, to diversify and to serve their communities, but also do it for the economy and for consumers, who will benefit from lower prices and greater choice. Above all, do it for the spirit of enterprise that has always defined the United Kingdom.

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Over the last year, particularly in the Budget and recent announcements, we have seen measures that stifle the growth of SMEs and small businesses. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that today because I am passionate about supporting them, not only so that the economy can grow, but so that we can create jobs and opportunities for all. I will always support small family businesses, and I will never support proposals to slash the VAT threshold to such low levels. What is even more frustrating is the fact that the voice of industry has not been heard; its calls have fallen on deaf ears. The Federation of Small Businesses has previously highlighted that the extra bureaucracy of being VAT-registered adds £4,100 on average to the running costs of a business. UKHospitality also notes that there have been missed opportunities to be bolder and to alleviate regulatory burdens on the hospitality sector.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Welfare Fraud: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving way. As a supporter of the Bill, I have listened to the debate closely and I agree that we need better palliative care across the UK. My own grandparents were both superbly supported by amazing Macmillan nurses in their final weeks battling incurable cancers. But I recognise that this support is not universal across the country, and that more needs to be done to improve this important service. The blunt truth of the matter is this: if someone is dying from an incurable condition, they could have the best palliative care possible, but ultimately they are still dying. In her final weeks, my nan told me that it was her time to go, that she had made peace with her God, and that she did not want to endure the next few weeks of decline in her physical and mental health. Days before her death, she was hallucinating from the high dose of medication to treat her pain, telling me vividly how she was flying a spaceship. That was not how she wanted to spend her final weeks, and I know that because she told me so. She, like so many others, had been denied her final wish. The legislation has received far more scrutiny than much of what we vote on in this place—and rightly so. The 28 Public Bill Committee meetings interviewed 40 witnesses, and divided 110 times on proposed amendments. As a country we have been debating this subject for over 20 years. I can recall as a 16-year-old law student discussing the case of Diane Pretty, and her campaign back then to change the law. I believe the Bill as presented is narrowly defined, with the necessary safeguards to ensure that those with a terminal condition can freely choose the time of their own passing. There are those in this House, often through religious beliefs or otherwise, who could never support a Bill of this kind. That is their right and I respect that. But that right should not extend to denying the choice to other people. There are those who argue for what they see as even greater safeguards, but we should remember that legislation must be balanced and workable in the real world beyond this Chamber. The Bill is not about shortening life; it is about shortening death. I ask all hon. Members across the House to support it.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On Second Reading I spoke in support of the principle of the Bill, because I believe that freedom of choice, especially at the end of life, should always rest with the individual; that it is the individual with a terminal diagnosis who is best placed to decide when it is their time to slip away. As a society, we do not talk about death enough—it is one of those subjects that we shy away from—but thousands of our fellow citizens each year must come to terms with terminal diagnoses, their medical treatment and their final days. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the way that she has conducted the debate. I know that it has been difficult at times, particularly with the criticism coming from outside this place. Voting for the status quo—voting against the Bill—will not solve the problem. Indeed, with the advance of medical techniques that prolong life but not necessarily the quality of life, the case for the compassionate ending to one’s life will continue to grow. At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and too often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death at the cost of £12,000. To decide the time of one’s own death is an option only available to those who have the wealth.