Mr Peter Bedford
MP for Mid Leicestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution? Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value.”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Mr Peter Bedford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“UKHospitality also notes that there have been missed opportunities to be bolder and to alleviate regulatory burdens on the hospitality sector.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“As MPs, we receive a wide range of correspondence from constituents during some of the most difficult times in their lives, but the email that I received from Emma Johnson was perhaps one of the most harrowing that I have ever received. It is because of Emma’s story that I have tabled new clause 51, and I will speak to it today.”
“I recently met a load of entrepreneurs and small businesses in Mid Leicestershire who all have the same concern about the low VAT registration threshold of just £90,000. That is stifling their growth, because it adds a lot of bureaucracy and cost. What representations will the Minister make to the Chancellor to ensure that those small businesses can flourish?”
“One way of ensuring that new unitary authorities such as those for Leicestershire have adequate funding is to base that funding on robust business cases. Given that the Department was five weeks late in providing feedback to the local authorities, will the Minister commit to extending the deadline to ensure that those local authorities have the time that they need to build up those plans?”
“Does the Minister agree that those pensioners who missed out on their payment in the winter of 2024 and will qualify under these rules should be reimbursed for the money they lost?”
“While we might not agree with their methods, peaceful protests can take many forms, including the burning of religious texts. Does the Minister agree that freedom of expression must be protected and that any move by Parliament or the courts to introduce a blasphemy law would undermine it?”
“Can the Minister give assurances to football fans in my constituency that with the burdens of the Employment Rights Bill, the hike in national insurance contributions and the introduction of yet another regulator, there will not be a hike in ticket prices?”
“Given that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to take back control of their borders in the 2016 referendum, what safeguards is the Prime Minister putting in place to ensure that his youth experience scheme is not open borders by the back door, which would be seen by my constituents as yet another Brexit betrayal?”
“Employers in my constituency tell me that they are less likely to employ young people as a result of the Employment Rights Bill because of the increased risk of employing someone at the start of their career. What representations has the Minister made to her colleagues to ensure that the most damaging parts of that legislation are softened?”
“T10. The Government have committed to providing 700,000 extra emergency dental appointments, but in the midlands the units of dental activity rate is just 83% and there is no additional funding for the integrated care boards. Will the Minister therefore give assurance to my constituents that he will fully deliver on that promise?”
“This House has an opportunity today to work across party lines to further strengthen the Bill and reaffirm our commitment to protecting the social contract between the Government and those governed. Let us act with unity and resolve to reduce fraud, restore public trust and ensure that our systems work for those who truly need them and not for those who seek to abuse them.”
“If the public believe that we are turning a blind eye to fraud or failing to act decisively, that trust begins to erode and the social contract will be put at risk. Illegal actions must have legal consequences. In supporting new clause 8, the Government could send a clear and unequivocal message: fraud and deceit have no place in our society. Turning to new clause 21, it has recently been highlighted that individuals are using social media to promote ways of defrauding the system, including through the Motability scheme. That is deeply troubling. Although Ministers have previously responded positively to my questions on that, the current version of the Bill does not go far enough. Unless the Government support our amendments, they will fail to take the concrete steps needed to address that evolving form of deceit.”
“New clause 8 is a measured and necessary proposal that would simply bring the Department for Work and Pensions in line with other Government bodies, such as HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which already have the power to issue arrest warrants for cases of serious fraud against the state. Why should it lack those enforcement capabilities when the crimes that it deals with are just as serious? The taxpayer enters into a social contract with the state—a contract based on trust, responsibility and accountability. My constituents pay their taxes and quite rightly expect that those who cheat, lie or exploit the system will face the consequences. We in this House are the guardians of that social contract.”
“The Bill addresses the serious issue of fraud and error in our public services. I welcome the Government’s continuation of the work of the previous Government to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the integrity of our welfare system. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would not undermine the Bill; they would enhance it. Our amendments would preserve the fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality while strengthening the tools at our disposal to tackle wrongdoing. In that spirit, I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 21.”