Mr Peter Bedford
MP for Mid Leicestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It did not sound as though the Minister could commit to improving outcomes for pensioners. That is no surprise given this Government’s record: they cut the winter fuel payments, undermined incentives to save into pensions through the salary sacrifice scheme, and dragged pensions into the scope of inheritance tax.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform?”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence. Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants. The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
386 held · 379 searchable for Mr Peter Bedford. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Before I begin, I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for introducing the ten-minute rule Bill today. While we may not agree on the Bill, I believe that this House is at its best when Members argue for what they believe in, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so today. My Conservative colleagues and I cannot support this Bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally believe in two core principles: fairness and personal responsibility. I believe that this Bill undermines both. Let us be clear: this debate is not about the principle of child benefit.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As a proud Englishman, it is not often that I admit the Australians are better than us at something. I am talking not about cricket, but about the immensely important issue of pensions adequacy. The Australians do it better, and what underpins their success is the super stapling model, a system that fundamentally changes how savers interact with their pensions. That is why our new clause 36 seeks to follow in Australian footsteps by establishing a model that would automatically amalgamate pension pots through an individual’s working life. Although I recognise and commend the Government’s work on small pot consolidation, I believe that real engagement and adequacy benefit lies in moving towards a lifetime pension pot model.”
House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, the Government believe it is acceptable to tear up that duty through a ministerial power grab. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Ministers will have the power to override the judgment of trustees, which I do not believe is appropriate. That is not to guide or support, but to mandate them—to potentially force them to act against what are arguably the best interests and returns for their members. That leads me to the potential impact on pensions adequacy in the UK. We are facing a pensions adequacy crisis, as I and other members of this Committee have said before. The majority of people are not saving anywhere near enough for retirement, and the cost to the state pension will only continue to rise, yet we have seen that the Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees.”
House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having worked in the water sector before being elected to Parliament. I will be speaking predominantly to amendment 248. The Committee heard evidence from industry experts who expressed concerns about the Bill’s mandation power. They were consistent and clear in raising concerns about the reserve powers in the Bill. I would like to reiterate some of those concerns raised by the industry, which I believe hon. Members should support today. At the heart of clause 38 is its impact on the fiduciary duty of trustees—not just a mere technicality, but a duty that has been at the heart of trust-based governance for centuries. Trustees have a legal duty to act solely in the best interests of their members.”
House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, brought in active commitment from the pension fund trustees who want to invest. We did not need to mandate that, and the Government should learn from that approach. Amendment 248 will preserve the fiduciary duty, but continue the trajectory to increase pension fund investment in the UK.”
House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope to address some of those points. The Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees to force investments into projects that may be politically convenient for them, but may potentially lead to financial loss for members. They are directing investment on the backs of ordinary UK savers. When people save into a pension scheme, they are entrusting their future security to a system that is working supposedly for them and not for political gain. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, rather than coercing trustees to follow conditions set by Ministers, would it not be better to create the right economic conditions to make trustees want to invest in the UK? The last Conservative Government, through their Mansion House reforms and the work of my right hon.”
House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I trust the pensions industry to make those judgments because they are the experts in this area, not Government Ministers, who often have short-term views. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends raised the example of HS2 and how Government priorities and policies can change over time. Would the hon. Member be happy for his constituents to have their money invested in a Government project or a large infrastructure scheme that is then scrapped, and to see huge losses to their pension scheme? I have huge concerns about the mandation point. Clause 38, in its current form, undermines the trust that I mentioned earlier. I therefore urge hon. Members to back our amendment to ensure that the fiduciary duty remains and that we protect the security of millions of savers.”
House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“5. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the use of military assets to help prevent crossings by illegal migrants of the English channel.”
House of Commons8 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The safety and security of my constituents is my No. 1 priority. Given the national security risk posed by some of those who cross the English channel illegally, I ask the Minister to look again at using military assets to physically stop those small boats from landing in the first place. Will he do that today?”
House of Commons8 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unfortunately, the Bill appears to suggest that the other areas included in the consolidated LGPS schemes could benefit disproportionately. My constituents may ask me, “Why aren’t these funds being used locally by investing in local opportunities, rather than being gifted to councils in other areas of the country, assisting in the same way?” I believe the amendment will add clarity on that to the Bill, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At present, the Bill arguably lacks a clear definition of how the priorities of the asset pools must follow, particularly on what qualifies as local investments. Our amendment seeks to address that gap by simplifying this. Put simply, we believe that local should mean local. These asset pools should prioritise investment in large-scale projects, actively promote local growth or make tangible improvements in local infrastructure—improvements that directly benefit the people in that local area. Where no such opportunities exist, other investment options should be considered, but we cannot allow a situation where, for example, an LGPS fund raised in the midlands is continuously redirected elsewhere in the country.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to amendment 260. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for outlining our rationale for the amendments. My comments regard informing members. I support the right to pay surplus to employers—I think that is the right thing to do, so long as the correct safeguards are in place—but it is right to inform members of that decision. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will improve member engagement in the whole pensions process. I made a point in Tuesday’s evidence session on the importance of financial education, and a number of witnesses supported that position. By more actively engaging with members, we will ensure that they take part in their own pension provision and ensure that the right decisions are made in their own interests.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sympathetic to new clause 1, which amendment 3 is connected to, because it is essential that as we get older and plan for retirement, we are fully informed on those decisions. I will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member’s point on DB schemes funding those seeking advice for DC schemes, but it is often the case that members have pensions in both DB and DC schemes: people move quite fluidly from a job in the public sector to one in the private sector, and will inevitably have membership in both DB and DC schemes. The Bill would benefit from the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I also take the hon. Member’s point on the need for better engagement by employers. I know some large companies offer employees mid-life MOTs on financial education and management. Certainly, FTSE 100 companies that I have worked for offer employees that kind of support as they approach retirement.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to reiterate a lot of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Financial education is key to unlocking many of the challenges that we face in adulthood, whether budgeting, debt management, saving or planning for retirement. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Financial Education Bill, earlier this year; I know we already have an element of it in secondary schools, but we need to go further as a country and ensure that everyone, from the very young upwards, has that education to inform the key decisions in our lives. I take the hon.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“10, with supporters of high taxes and high spending being promoted, there is a worry among businesses in Mid Leicestershire that the worst is yet to come. It does not have to be this way. If the Government would only listen to industry experts such as UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, or to brewers such as Punch Pubs and Everards, we could actually help the industry rather than hinder it. I urge the Government to act boldly and continue to cut business rate reliefs for the hospitality sector, reduce duty on draught beer and lower VAT on products sold in hospitality settings, just as many of our European neighbours do. It is time that the Government stopped punishing the sector and listened to the rational arguments of those who work in and care so much about the industry they love.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my own constituency, I have spoken to countless publicans and small business owners who are feeling the strain—none more so than the Royal Oak in Kirby Muxloe, which recently won my Mid Leicestershire best pub competition. Local hospitality businesses in Mid Leicestershire pose the same questions to me time after time. Should they raise their prices and risk losing customers, or should they cut staff and reduce their opening hours just to stay afloat? Neither choice is fair and neither is sustainable. Across the country, we have seen the consequences: 83,000 hospitality jobs lost as a direct result of this Government’s actions. And what for the future? We know the Chancellor is facing a self-inflicted £40 billion black hole as a result of her Budget, and with the recent reshuffle at No.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With Starmer the pub harmer at the helm, it seems they are determined to call last orders on our fantastic hospitality sector. Since the general election, we have witnessed a series of reckless decisions that have shattered business confidence. Take the Chancellor’s disastrous autumn Budget, which slashed the rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and imposed damaging rises in employer’s national insurance contributions; or look at the Secretary of State for Business and Trade attempting to push one of the most damaging employment Bills in a generation through Parliament—and I know so, because I sat on the Bill Committee. The legislation will do more to hinder job creation than to help workers.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As Members of Parliament, we receive campaign email after campaign email every week on dozens of issues, from environmental matters to recent calls for a general election. Amid all that, there is one concern that continues to cut through: support for our pubs and the wider hospitality sector. Why? Because the UK’s hospitality sector is more than just about business. It is a vital part of the social fabric of our communities. Whether it is the Nook café in Anstey, the Ex-Servicemen’s Club in Groby or the Coach and Horses in Markfield, these are not simply places to eat and drink; they are places of refuge from everyday life, places where people come together and places that sustain the spirit of our towns and villages. Yet what do we see from this Government?”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons1 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons1 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“UKHospitality also notes that there have been missed opportunities to be bolder and to alleviate regulatory burdens on the hospitality sector.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗