5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I want to briefly speak to the proposed new subsection added by amendment 23, which would offer anybody given conditions by GBR the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Office of Rail and Road. The issue of accountability and the unequal playing field faced by those on the outside compared with those on the inside came up in the Transport Committee’s evidence sessions and last week. Having heard a lot of that evidence, the amendment appeals to what I think is the right way to do things. We must ensure that organisations engaging with the railway, or offering services to the railway—even if they are being paid separately for them—have the opportunity to appeal a decision that affects or impacts them. I feel that not having such an opportunity is particularly onerous. I support amendment 23 and concur with everything that the shadow Minister has said.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Topical Questions

   At the weekend, Storm Ingrid caused the sea wall at Dawlish to collapse in two new places, and we wait to see the damage caused by Storm Chandra today. Both storms are once again exposing the vulnerability of the main rail line to Devon and Cornwall, which is vital for the local economy. Given the reported lack of a Treasury emergency reserve, can the Chancellor guarantee contingency funding for any urgent and unplanned resilience work required and not covered by a fiscal event?

   Hansard source
3. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

   I thank the Minister for his statement, and for all his support with the issues we have had at Park25 in Redhill; I very much appreciate that he has taken residents’ concerns seriously. Which of the changes will be most beneficial for my Park25 residents, and has the Minister given any more thought to my suggestion of mandatory adoption of communal land by local authorities?

   Hansard source
4. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

   Topical Questions

   More than 80% of households in Bromley and Biggin Hill have at least one car or van—a figure significantly higher than the average in Greater London—so the decision to remove the 5p fuel duty reduction hits them particularly hard. This is the latest in a slew of measures against motorists, including increased congestion charges and the ultra low emission zone charge, which is really hitting them in the pocket. Why does the Labour party continue to use motorists as a cash cow?

   Hansard source
5. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

   UK Bus Manufacturing

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The debate comes at an apposite time. I was particularly glad to have heard from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who both made excellent speeches. Whether someone is in Ballymena, Aldershot, Falkirk, Scarborough or indeed anywhere that bus manufacturing is based in Britain, we want to see a thriving and successful UK bus manufacturing sector, because it is critical to local communities. I was glad to have visited Alexander Dennis when I was the buses Minister. However, at the very top level across the country, we are seeing real damage being caused by the Government’s complete mismanagement of the economy, with rising national insurance, increases in business rates and self-created economic uncertainty. Those problems have been doubled down on when it comes to our bus manufacturing sector, but it is important to set out the fundamental issues affecting businesses right across the country. As hon. Members have mentioned, the UK bus manufacturing sector directly employs about 4,200 people, with about 13,000 more in the supply chain. It is vital that we retain and grow that workforce. My fear is that the bus sector, and what is happening to it, is the canary in the mineshaft for manufacturing generally, and particularly vehicle manufacturing, in the UK. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) noted, in the past year, just 17% of buses with new registrations were made in the UK. There has been a significant and rapid reduction over the past couple of years. Buses are the most popular form of public transport, so we know that we will continue to need new buses in the UK well into the future, but many companies in the sector are facing huge challenges from increased overseas competition alongside technological change, so we must take the opportunity to ensure that we have companies that are able to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. It is not always a competitive marketplace—that point was made clearly by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Falkirk—but it is a challenging one for many bus manufacturers. We also need to ensure that UK companies continue to innovate, so that they are at the forefront of technological change. We must examine the hard work of many companies, but especially Wrightbus and Alexander Dennis, the two companies mentioned by the proposers of today’s debate. Those companies have been through challenging times, but they have taken enormous steps to become technological leaders in the sector. Wrightbus in particular has announced enormous growth over the past few years. In 2019, it had fewer than 50 employees and went into administration, with 1,200 jobs being lost. It now provides more than 2,000 jobs in County Antrim, which shows the opportunities for UK manufacturing when there is growth. At the same time, I recognise the issues noted by the hon. Member for Falkirk, which AD and Wrightbus both referred to in their respective financial announcements. The UK bus industry is facing huge financial challenges. It is vital that we understand the challenges those companies face and ensure that the business environment for them and other companies in the sector is as friendly, financially viable, pro-British business and pro-British worker as it can feasibly be. That means creating a sector that has the opportunity to grow, with technology that can rival that of any company around the world. During my time as buses Minister, there was exceptionally strong growth in the bus sector, with a 44.6% increase in new registrations. That was driven most strongly by British-built double-decker buses, registrations of which increased by 173.6% during that time. We also became the largest market in Europe for electric and hydrogen-powered buses, under a scheme that was Government supported but local-authority led. None the less, councils have sometimes chosen foreign manufacturers over UK ones. Councils in Leicester, Nottingham, West Yorkshire, the north-east of England and Newport, and now, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned, the Mayor of London have chosen to buy foreign-made buses. That issue was raised today by Members on all sides, and it is one that I battled with when I was Minister. We want to ensure that existing companies in the UK can prosper. Creating the conditions for that is vital. We must consider not only the work of UK companies but the challenges they face in the international context. Bus manufacturing is a global industry with manufacturers around the world, which is why the Minister is probably facing some of the issues that I faced when I was Minister. Clearly, one of those is social value, which we must do much more about. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the figure of 10%, and I am sure that he is right. We must reflect on that, especially in the international context, and consider how to increase it. That is in the context of something that has only emerged in the past few years: increasing and broader concerns about cyber-security, technology and kill switches. When we put those two things side by side—social value and the security of our bus network, which provides the most popular form of public transport—we see that we have to ensure that we end up in the right place. I ask the Government to commit to reviewing their policies so that matters such as the regulation of equipment, the evaluation of security risk, and trade policy do not enhance the prospects of manufacturers from other countries to the detriment of British manufacturers, especially when taxpayers’ money is being used. Chinese manufacturers are becoming a dominant force in multiple forms of transport. In 2025, BYD overtook Tesla to become the largest seller of electric vehicles, and Chinese electric bus manufacturing has been significant for some time. The International Energy Agency noted that in 2024, just under 50,000 of the 72,000 electric buses sold globally were sold in China, and that Chinese manufacturers have increasingly looked at exports to exploit the available overcapacity in domestic manufacturing. In 2024, more than 15,000 electric buses were exported from China—a 25% increase on 2023 alone. Yutong, a Chinese company that is the largest bus manufacturer in the world, grew to take an 8.4% UK market share by the third quarter of 2025. It is clear that, while Chinese providers are present, we must ensure that all relevant trade practices are fair and that the technology being used does not create security risks. I am aware of the worrying reports before Christmas that, following an investigation in Norway, the Department for Transport was working with the National Cyber Security Centre to assess whether Yutong’s remote access to vehicle control systems, for software updates and diagnostics, was a security concern. I would be grateful if the Minister provided details on whether that issue has been looked into and, if so, what the results were. We need to confront such difficult questions as we do not want to be in the position of enabling bus manufacturers from abroad to take advantage of our policies while making our own manufacturers uncompetitive. There is a risk of the situation worsening, given the Government’s enthusiasm for raising taxes on domestic businesses and particularly on domestic employment. Will the Minister also consider other Government schemes that send money for manufacturing abroad? I am thinking particularly of the electric car grant: 90% of the vehicles covered by that scheme, and 100% of motorcycles, are built in other countries. This is British taxpayers’ money going abroad to subsidise manufacturing in other countries. We are talking about billions of pounds, so it is really important that we look at the issue. Earlier, it was good to hear Labour Back Benchers make strong points about British taxpayers’ money being sent abroad. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that “where things are made, and who makes them, matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.] The Government as a whole need to consider that; they would certainly have Opposition support if they wanted to address the matter more forcefully. Overall, we know that the British public want comfortable buses that serve the public well. I am not going to dwell on the 50% bus fare increase, from £2 to £3, under this Government, as this debate is about UK bus manufacturing, but that manufacturing is driven by consistent growth and by what the people want: comfortable, clean buses, with people feeling safe on public transport that has a reliable and affordable model. I am confident that British manufacturers on both sides of the Irish sea can rise to the challenge of delivering what people want in our bus sectors. As technology improves, we want to ensure that our manufacturers are not just protected as the best in the world but encouraged to compete right across the board, offering the jobs critical to local economies up and down the country. To do so, we must support businesses and their workers and ensure that our regulations and taxes do not place a burden that drags businesses down. I believe that that is the best way to ensure that British bus manufacturing remains competitive in the modern world. I really hope that the Minister reflects on some of the issues raised today, particularly the security concerns that have emerged forcefully over the last year, so that he sees what more can be done to support British bus manufacturing.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Energy Bills

   A new report by the Prosperity Institute is highly critical of the Government’s net zero policies and their adverse impact on the broader economy, and my constituents’ fuel bills continue to soar because of the Government’s reluctance to use more traditional sources of fuel. Will the Minister commit to raising that with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, because such ideologically driven polices are having an adverse impact on the bills of my constituents?

   Hansard source
7. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Topical Questions

   T5. While the Chancellor was enjoying her trip to Davos last week, inflation went up, as did unemployment, reversing the progress of the previous Conservative Government. Did the Chancellor or her Cabinet colleagues pick up any ideas in Davos that could reverse those trends, support our businesses and high streets and end the hiring recession that her Budget has caused?

   Hansard source
8. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

   Unlike the Chair of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have not read the full draft legislation published at 7 o’clock this morning. I can confirm that she did indeed feel a bit unloved whenever she saw the Minister running away from her. On the statement, I think the Minister referred, in a previous answer, to ground rents and the transition from £250 to a peppercorn being effective in 2028. At the point that it becomes effective, will he look to backdate it or will tenants have to continue to pay their bills up until the legislation becomes effective?

   Hansard source
9. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Business Rates

   This U-turn delivers some much-needed temporary relief for a lot of pubs, but it does not deliver the permanently lower bills that the Prime Minister promised. It also does nothing at all for the other hospitality firms in our constituencies—the cafés, restaurants, clubs and guest houses that are facing crippling rate rises because of this Government’s choices. Mr Speaker, is it not a sign of the incompetence of this Government that they cannot even get their U-turns right?

   Hansard source
10. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Business Rates

    If the Minister were to visit my constituency and come with me to the George Inn in Barton-upon-Humber, we would go inside and he would immediately recognise it as a typical English pub, yet it is also a hotel—the last hotel in the town. Could the Minister reassure the proprietor at the George? Will he receive early relief, or will he have to wait for yet another review?

    Hansard source
11. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Business Rates

    I am not sure whether the Minister has volunteered yet for “Strictly Come Dancing”. Today, from the Government of U-turns, we have seen a half turn or a reverse turn or a pivot, as it is known in ballroom dancing circles. The Minister will recall that I invited him to join me on a pub crawl in Shropshire. So far he has not responded, and perhaps he should not respond, because for many pubs in Shropshire his statement was too little, too late, and they have already decided to close their doors. The independent pub chains have to make investment decisions, and they have put those off. As for the wider business review, may I appeal to the Minister—on behalf of the leisure sector, the retail sector and the hospitality sector—for the timetable to be brought forward from 2029 so that people can plan for their business futures?

    Hansard source
12. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

    Clause 35 introduces a 50% chargeable gain on shares sold by a company to an EOT. That will have a direct effect on trustees’ ability to benefit company employees. The 2014 Conservative Government introduced 100% capital gains tax relief to incentivise companies to transition to EOT models. EOTs have benefited employees by rewarding and motivating them—for example, by distributing annual tax-free bonuses of up to £3,600 a year to each employee. These tax changes would hurt employees most of all. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” from November 2025 forecasted that this will raise just £900 million a year on average from 2027 to 2028. However, the OBR also gave this measure a “very high” uncertainty ranking. The OBR highlighted the fact that these tax changes could have a behavioural effect: company owners would instead hold on to their shares for longer before realising gains. That means that company owners will slow the flow of shares they sell to trustees, so trustees will receive far fewer shares and, as a result, less value will be passed on to employees. It is worth mentioning the commentary from other organisations. The Financial Times reported that tax advisers have warned against this measure and are concerned that entrepreneurs would have to cover the tax bill before they receive the proceeds of the sale. Chris Etherington of RSM UK is concerned that these changes will slow the pace of change to EOTs. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation stated that this was a “good reform” and supports withdrawing relief entirely. This is not very popular, and there is a high uncertainty of it even raising any revenue.

    Hansard source
13. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

    On clause 36, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance and close the tax gap. Under the previous Government, the tax gap of the total theoretical tax liabilities fell from 7.5% in 2005-06 to 5.3% in 2023-24. But it is crucial that legislation is not so broad to the extent that people entering into arrangements for legitimate commercial reasons face the brunt of HMRC’s enforcement powers. The scale of genuine tax avoidance as a proportion of the total tax gap is important to note. According to HMRC, in 2023-24, avoidance behaviour as a share of the tax gap was just 1%. It was also 1% in the 2022-23 tax year and was 2% in 2021-22, 2020-21 and in 2019-20. Avoidance ranked lowest among the behaviours that contributed to the tax gap. Contrast that with 31% due to failure to take reasonable care, 15% due to error and 12% due to legal interpretation. What those behaviours have in common is they involve genuine mistakes being made, so pursuing the route set out in clauses 36 and 37 risks hurting those who enter arrangements for solely commercial purposes who may have simply made honest mistakes. With regard to clause 37, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance to close the tax gap. The methods of deferring tax for general company reconstructions and share exchanges are identical to each other’s and to that for collective investment schemes. The key difference between clauses 36 and 37 is the business practice to which the anti-avoidance measures apply when arrangements are made to avoid tax liability. Clause 36 applies to CISs, and clause 37 applies to share exchanges and company reconstructions, so the argument pertaining to the general principle and practicality of the Government’s new anti-avoidance measures also applies to those clauses. With regard to clause 38, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance to close the tax gap. The clause seeks to change the no gain/no loss rules if HMRC suspects that a transfer of business has taken place to secure a tax advantage. Those rules have been instrumental in the process of transferring a business. They are especially useful for arrangements between complex structures. No gain/no loss rules can ensure fluidity throughout the transfer process, and they stave off cash-flow issues during the process itself. While we support tackling tax avoidance, we must also recognise the role that no gain/no loss rules play during delicate business practice. We understand that there are already safeguards in place from HMRC, such as the general anti-abuse rule. Nevertheless, we must also ensure that no business that utilises no gain/no loss for legitimate commercial purposes is penalised or hung out to dry through denied relief claims.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

    Clause 39 requires taxpayers to claim incorporation relief or pay CGT up front. It is key that sole traders and other eligible people understand the changes the clause makes. What concerns us is whether enough awareness has been made to affected people, and that is crucial as claiming incorporation relief has always been a passive process because it happens automatically. Soon, people who have been accustomed to this passiveness must acutely manage their relief claims. We do not want anybody who has been conducting legitimate business to suddenly be hit with an unexpected tax bill. Landlords, for example, are a common entity who claim incorporation relief. They do so by transferring their rental property portfolio into a limited company. Should a landlord undertake that process and then find themselves receiving an unexpected tax bill, that could add significant pressure on their investments, which in this case involve houses occupied by tenants. It is not clear how awareness will be raised so that those eligible for relief do not pay such a tax bill. While I know HMRC has outlined the proposal and will provide guidance, there is no mass communication or awareness campaign. That means that any information campaign that does eventually happen may be too late.

    Hansard source
15. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

    Clause 40 tackles the use by UK non-residents of protected cell companies to avoid paying non-resident capital gains tax. We agree that corporate structures should not be exploited to shelter people from paying their fair share of tax. However, we must consider the practicalities of how an audit of one cell may affect other cells and the PCC itself. PCCs have their benefits. For example, the ringfencing of assets and liabilities can ensure that any issue with one cell does not spread to others. In that sense, PCCs can be more robust and durable. Audits, of course, are absolutely necessary to ensure compliance and legality. However, they can also prove costly and stressful for a company owner who is simultaneously running a business. Cells do not have full autonomy; much of that resides in the core of the PCC. Different cells may behave differently from each other or have differing risk appetites—therein lies the risk. A situation where one cell is investigated by HMRC, and the audit process proves frustrating because that cell’s conduct is aggressive or inappropriate, risks tarnishing the entire PCC in the assumption that the other cells behave similarly. Subsequent audits could then become more aggressive and difficult. As I said, we support measures that tackle any exploitation of the corporate structure to avoid paying tax. The Government must ensure that the implementation of clause 40 protects innocent parties that may be affected. Clause 41 focuses on non-UK residents, individuals and companies in collective investment vehicles who sell UK land or property connected to CIVs under double taxation treaties. Under the clause, non-UK residents in CIVs will no longer be required to register for corporation tax or claim capital gains tax relief if the double taxation treaties fully cover the gains they have made. The Government’s rationale for that is to streamline paperwork and reduce redundant filing—hurrah! I cannot begin to explain my happiness about trying to reduce red tape. It is fantastic to get rid of it where we can. Our tax code is 22,000 pages long and has 10 million words. Anything that makes that easier is hugely welcome.

    Hansard source
16. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

    Thank you for your guidance, Sir Roger. I am very grateful that you are in the Chair, because although I have been doing this for 15 years, as you know, and this is about my fifth Finance Bill, I do not have a clue how any of it works.

    Hansard source
17. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

    It is of course standard practice—as with income tax—for the Government to legislate the charge for corporation tax every year. These rate levels have remained unchanged since Labour came into office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) pointed out last year, Labour promised to cap the corporation tax rate at 25% for the whole of this Parliament. That has not been done in legislation, although we have had an indication from the Minister that that is still the Government’s intention. I will make just one small political point. The Government did promise that they would not increase taxes on working people, but we have seen national insurance contributions increase—that was obviously in a different Bill. None the less, the more the Minister can say about capping corporation tax at 25%, the more confident businesses and our economy will be that something will not be slipped in during the next three and a half years before the general election. We have no other objection to this measure.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her comments, but we are concerned about the unintended consequences of the three clauses. We are concerned about how clause 17 will affect automotive industry jobs and vehicle sales. Approximately 76,000 workers use ECOS, across 1,900 medium-sized and large businesses. Those workers have utilised ECOS for essential, affordable and reliable personal transport. We believe that the clause risks making ECOS vehicles unaffordable for the workers who currently use them. In fact, using the scheme arrangements and paying tax from 2030 to 2032 onwards means that such workers face, in effect, a pay cut. That is especially unfair because those people who most use the schemes rely on a vehicle for their job much more than those in most other industries. There is a risk of further knock-on effects on the automotive industry if workers abandon ECOS completely. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Mike Hawes, who is one of the leading voices in the automotive industry, has expressed strong disapproval of the Government proposal to change ECOS. That is because 100,000 cars are provided through the schemes each and every year, which alone amounts to 5% of the new-car market in the UK. The SMMT predicts that changing the schemes will endanger 5,000 manufacturing jobs in the UK; it claims that that will bring about a loss of half a billion pounds a year due to fewer sales, lost VAT and lost vehicle excise duty receipts. That more than outweighs the £275 million in revenue that the Treasury predicts it will take within the first year of the tax changes taking effect. We do not feel that clause 18 adequately protects the automotive industry and its workers. Under current ECOS arrangements, employers can sell a vehicle to an employee below market value, at a discounted price. For many employers, that has acted as an additional benefit to form a competitive employee recruitment package and has helped to improve staff retention. These criteria effectively stipulate that vehicles must be sold on the same terms as in the open market. Although exempt employers will not pay benefit-in-kind tax, they will inevitably have to pay a higher price for the vehicle itself. The SMMT estimates that that could become unaffordable for its members’ staff and automotive workers. The knock-on effects outlined in the discussion of clause 17 will remain. Fewer employees will be attracted to purchasing a vehicle. That will lead to fewer employers purchasing vehicles from car manufacturers, and the risk to manufacturing jobs and lost revenue will therefore still apply. Clause 19 aims temporarily to ease the benefit-in-kind tax treatment for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. We understand the intention behind this legislative change. We want people to take up low-emission electric vehicles, and the taxation system is an effective tool to encourage that. We are also conscious that stricter emission tests will be implemented over time. That could push plug-in hybrid emission vehicles into higher emission bands, and more tax will therefore be paid on them in the future. The knock-on effects on electric car manufacturers and the environment could be stark. Clause 19 is part of the same package that endangers jobs in the automotive manufacturing industry, which will lead to a loss of about £500 million in VAT and vehicle excise duty receipts. Automotive News has reported on the progress of electrified vehicle registrations: it says that in October 2025 PHEV registrations rose by 27.2%, and that electrified vehicles represented the majority of new car registrations, at 50.8%. The SMMT says that in 2025 the new car market reached 2 million units for the first time since 2019. It predicts that the removal of ECOS could undo the progress that electrified vehicles, including PHEVs, have achieved by denying workers affordable access to new and increasingly zero emission vehicles. CBVC Vehicle Management has said that these measures continue to make PHEVs look attractive in the short term, but the chief executive, Mike Manners, has advised people considering a PHEV to look at the benefit-in-kind tax implications and avoid their lease running into the tax year 2028-29. The benefit-in-kind easement is temporary until 6 April 2028. Anthony Cox of RSM UK says that manufacturers do not expect that the reforms will push people into using electric cars. He states that employees of manufacturers and retailers could instead seek out older or less clean cars to purchase, outside any employer or employee management arrangements. The point is that there are unintended consequences to the clauses. Although we will not oppose them, we want the Minister to take into account the fact that the Government may not get what they want out of them.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

    Clause 20 will introduce specific exemptions for minor expenses incurred by an employee on behalf of their employer. The Opposition particularly welcome subsections (3) to (6). As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales says, it is a positive step that focuses on prevention rather than cures. It is also about the trade-off between tax relief and reduced future healthcare spending. As the Association of Taxation Technicians has asked, will the Minister consider whether the covid-19 vaccination could be included in this provision? The Government’s explanatory notes state that corresponding changes to NICs for influenza vaccines and homeworking equipment will be made through separate regulations. Will the Minister provide more detail on when we can expect those regulations to be introduced? On clause 21, the Government’s policy paper suggests that there will be no direct impact on business. However, there may be an indirect impact, as employers feel pressured to change their policies on reimbursement. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out: “This creates an uneven situation in which two employees with identical working arrangements and costs are treated differently for tax purposes solely on the basis of their employer’s reimbursement policy.” It also seems to follow our party’s scepticism about solely remote working. During the passage of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Government said repeatedly that the right to work from home boosts productivity. Clause 21 seems to go against that by making it more difficult to work from home. It also seems to be a further attack on private sector employees, despite the fact that in 2024 HMRC spent £82 million on remote working devices for its workers, while the Home Office spent £53 million. Is this another example of the Government hitting the private sector while protecting the public sector? Clauses 22 and 23 confirm that payments received in Great Britain for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts are subject to income tax. In the explanatory notes, the Government state that this would also allow for “the introduction of regulations to ensure that payments are also subject to National Insurance contributions”. We think it would help to provide fairness in the tax system to support the clarity that the clause provides, so can the Minister confirm when the Government will seek to introduce those specific changes? More generally, I want to make a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) made on the Employment Rights Bill Committee. While the clause provides fairness in the system between employees, the Government are still providing little support for businesses if they have to cancel, move or curtail shifts in circumstances that are unexpected or out of their control. Will the Minister commit to working with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to assess how they can better support businesses when such situations arise?

    Hansard source
20. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

    Back in 2023, the Conservative Government opened a consultation on how to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market, because there was evidence of widespread non-compliance that deprived workers of their employment rights, distorted competition in the labour market and led to a significant tax loss to the Exchequer. In the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that she would follow up the consultation, hence this clause. The Government state in their explanatory notes that the clause seeks “to drive behavioural change among businesses that use umbrella companies in the supply of workers by giving them a financial stake in the compliance of the umbrella companies that they use.” I think there is broad agreement about the need for this measure in tackling tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market. However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised two particular issues, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on them. First, there seems to be an absence of safeguards. Currently, HMRC can transfer liability to the agency regardless of its circumstances. When an agency has done all it can to ensure the integrity of the supply chain, but has been the victim of fraud by the umbrella company, we think there should be safeguards in place to prevent the transfer of debts. Secondly, there is some concern that the definition of “purported umbrella company” is too wide. The clause defines such a company so as to include any entity supplying an individual with services where that individual has a material interest in the entity. That means that, for instance, personal service company arrangements could fall within the definition. Is it the Government’s intention to include personal service company arrangements within the definition of a purported umbrella company? I should declare an interest: I have a personal service company. Can the Minister expand on what discussions on the clause have taken place with industry organisations such as the Freelancer and Contractor Services Association, which provides accreditation for many umbrella companies?

    Hansard source
21. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

    The Conservatives welcome the independent review and the thrust of clause 25. If we were to have a criticism, it would be to do with fairness, on which we had concerns shared with us by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. A key objective of the McCann review, which the Minister referred to and which was set up by the Government, was to ensure fairness for all taxpayers. However, by not extending the more generous settlement opportunity to those who have already fully settled and/or paid the loan charge, the provision arguably does not achieve fairness for all taxpayers. It will effectively put those who chose not to comply with their tax obligations in a better position than those who did. That could create perverse incentives, harm future tax compliance and damage trust in the tax system. Could the Minister provide a little more detail as to why the Government have excluded those who have already settled their claims?

    Hansard source
22. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Energy Bills

    We have already heard this morning that businesses are suffering harm from business rates and national insurance contributions going up, but on top of that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the energy bills of non-energy intensive industries such as hospitality and retail have increased under this Government by up to 10% in the last year. The Conservative are proposing our cheap power plan, which would save small businesses up to £5,000 a year on their energy bills. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses with their energy bills?

    Hansard source
23. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    FTSE 100 Index

    The Chancellor has been very proud that the FTSE 100 has passed through the 10,000-point barrier, citing that as an endorsement of her policies. Does she not realise that that still leaves FTSE 100 on lower valuations than comparable markets and that, in any event, over 80% of the earnings of the FTSE 100 are generated outside the UK? Is it not clear that the FTSE 100 performance is despite this Government’s policies, not because of them?

    Hansard source
24. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Inflation

    18. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of her policies on inflation.

    Hansard source
25. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Inflation

    On Friday, I visited Primark in Staines, in my Spelthorne constituency, where the team, led by Luke, is doing a fantastic job in creating a vibrant retail experience. However, the British Retail Consortium has said that the Chancellor’s jobs tax is pushing up prices and raising the cost of living, and that the Employment Rights Bill will also be inflationary. When did the Chancellor stop listening to business?

    Hansard source
26. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

    As a leaseholder, I understand the issues that leaseholders face, and I look forward to carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on the HCLG Committee. The conveyancing process also needs to be looked at, as I am not sure that solicitors and managing agents point out considerations such as historical service charges, whether the property has a sinking fund and how much service charges have gone up. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that that part of the process of buying a leasehold property will also be looked at within this legislation?

    Hansard source
27. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

    The NHS has a deeply unusual set-up when it comes to its workforce. The Government set the rules for who can qualify as a medical professional, decide how many medical training places to offer and control the flow of medical graduates into the NHS. They decide how much to charge medical students and under what conditions and since the NHS is by far the country’s primary employer of medical professionals, the Government also have effective control over the pay and conditions of those who qualify, and are responsible for deciding where medical trainees go and when. As a result, the health service workforce is not subject to the same labour market conditions as other organisations. The Government control both the supply of and the demand for its own workforce. It is welcome to see this legislation before us, which rightly gives priority to British-trained doctors for NHS training posts, particularly at the early stages of their career. Those who decide to practise medicine in this country should have reasonable confidence that, if they wish to do so, they can build a career here. The Bill goes some way towards addressing the current situation in which British-trained doctors are being squeezed out of the system in favour of overseas recruits, despite the Government’s control of both the supply of new British graduates and the number of training places. In 2025, 15,723 British-trained doctors were set to compete for 12,833 NHS training posts. This is already a competitive environment. However, the NHS’s focus on overseas recruitment meant that those British-trained doctors were also forced to compete with another 25,257 overseas trainees. It is clearly absurd that the British Government should restrict the number of training places offered, while also increasing demand for those places through a policy of overseas recruitment, having spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to train each medical student in this country. That is particularly true when we know that doctors trained overseas are two-and-a-half times more likely to be referred to the GMC by their employer than doctors trained here. Many overseas recruits are hard-working and well-meaning, and many are excellent at the work that they do. Yet we must be honest about the fact that relying on overseas recruits instead of training more medical professionals in this country is not always a like-for-like swap. Both medical trainees and patients would benefit from a system that trains more doctors here and ensures that those British-trained doctors are given a reasonable chance at moving quickly into an NHS training post. The system should also reward ability and allocate training posts based on merit. The current system of random allocation not only fails to reward our most talented medical graduates but creates profound uncertainty for those at the start of their careers. Last summer, one of my constituents qualified as a doctor. He graduated with one of the very highest marks in the year—he was in the top three—from one of the most competitive medical schools in the country. He is clearly an outstanding student and will make an incredible doctor. In any sane system, he would have been placed immediately and been able to choose his location and specialism to keep him incentivised and happy within the NHS and to make the most of his obviously considerable talents. Instead, because of the mismanagement of places and the lottery system, he was not placed at all in the first round of allocations. He was not placed in the second, the third or even the fourth round. With fewer than four weeks to go, he still had no placement and no sense of where he would spend the next few years of his life, including whether he might be able to live close to his partner, who was also a doctor and graduating with him. That is an insane way to treat our most brilliant graduates. I hope the Government will change their mind and amid their other good changes accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), to which I have added my name, to ensure that training places are, in future, allocated on the basis of merit. If the Bill aims to provide certainty to British-trained doctors that they will be able to build a career in this country, which is a noble aim, it should also recognise that the current system of randomly allocating training places is one of the biggest causes of uncertainty in our system. It would be far better for doctors and patients to have a system that instead prized excellence, providing a clear basis on which medical trainees could be allocated and creating a system that rewarded the most talented graduate doctors. It is right that the health service prioritises British-trained doctors. It is also right that, across every area of the public sector, we reward talent, effort and merit.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Rail Infrastructure

    Last week I met Lawrence Bowman, the chief executive of South Western Railway. I am keen to make sure that all the Government’s changes take positive effect in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, so that tracks, signal and stock can be improved. Will the Minister make sure that there is a suitable reference board along the commuting line into Waterloo, so that when Lawrence Bowman’s business plan is delivered, there will not be any delays when he has to interact with local authorities—a concern that he raised with me last week?

    Hansard source
29. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

    I welcome the news of the capping of ground rents for existing contracts, and I thank the Minister for the time he gave me last year, but he will recognise that many city centre developments require ongoing investment from pension funds, so could he say a little more about how his announcement will not spook the City and how he will ensure that there continues to be a flow of investment into our high streets?

    Hansard source
30. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Business Rates

    Can I respectfully remind the Minister that when Jonathan Russell from the Valuation Office Agency came before the Select Committee, he was very clear that the impact of the rate rises was made known to the Treasury before the Budget? The VOA provided data drops over 12 months, which did not detail the rates for individual properties, but provided a clear overview at a central level and revealed that 5,000 pubs would see their rates double. It is just not credible for the Minister to say that the Treasury did not know what was going to happen, is it? It had a very clear view of the impact of the changes that it was imposing.

    Hansard source
31. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    As my hon. Friend describes the growing size of the Department for Transport and Great British Railways, I am slightly reminded of the Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England. The Government talk of doubling up and so are winding back by abolishing NHS England, but here they are doubling up in the Department for Transport over Great British Railways. I wonder whether he has any reflections on that analogy.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already spoken at length and I agree with them, but I will add just a couple of short points to place my disappointment on the record that not even a draft of the licence has been presented. It is good that the Minister has clarified that it will be coming forward sooner than he suggested previously, but the reality is that it is already too late, as we heard from stakeholders last week during evidence. I urge him not to delay any further. Even an outline draft of the licence as soon as possible, rather than a more detailed one, would be clearly better than nothing. He should also bring forward the other 19 documents identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon—again, in draft form as appropriate—as soon as possible. As I say, it is already too late for this Committee today, as we debate this very clause and schedule. I wish to place that on the record.

    Hansard source
33. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I understand, although I do not agree with, the argument the Minister is making on amending “may” to “must”—he says it would be unenforceable—but he seems, unless I have misunderstood, to have conflated that argument with his point about amendment 122, which seeks not to make a discretionary provision a mandatory one but to expand the considerations. The explanatory statement says: “This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set the objective for…increasing passenger and freight journeys.” Perhaps I have misunderstood.

    Hansard source
34. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, after “functions” insert— “where the Office for Rail and Road, in carrying out its functions under section 69A of the Railways Act 1993 (as inserted by section 74 of this Act), has deemed Great British Railways to be in breach of its statutory functions.” This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions to Great British Railways to circumstances where the Office for Rail and Road has deemed Great British Railways in breach of its statutory functions.

    Hansard source
35. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is just as pleasurable to have you in the Chair today as it was last week, Sir Alec. I remind hon. Members that clause 7 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue and publish directions to Great British Railways relating to its railway activities. It also outlines how the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Welsh and Scottish Ministers before giving directions relating to their devolved services, except where powers are used in relation to the access regime. The clause further outlines how GBR will be required to comply with directions, which are mandatory and binding, and intended to be used as a so-called “responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR,” or, as further clarified in the explanatory notes, as “a last resort”. Interestingly, although the explanatory notes state that a direction by the Secretary of State is a mechanism of last resort, the clause itself gives no indication to substantiate that. Instead, it suggests that the Secretary of State can act independently of their Welsh and Scottish counterparts’ views, especially as there is a reliance on non-legislative measures. My first question to the Minister is, therefore: why is this supposed last-resort requirement not on the face of the Bill? When dealing with matters relating in particular to the interpretation of devolution, the risk is that any decision taken by the Secretary of State may be disputed by the devolved nations and end up as a political football, which only increases lawyers’ profits. Would it not therefore be prudent to set out in the legislation exactly what is meant? Without a clear breakdown of the procedures and directions, surely we run the risk of granting the Secretary of State a large degree of power with very limited oversight. The clause gives the Secretary of State unrestricted power, other than for operations in Scotland and Wales, to intervene in the running of GBR. That is a step too far. While it is justifiable for the democratically elected Government of the day to set and agree GBR’s strategic objectives, key performance indicators and business plans, after those are set out, the Government’s role should be to hold GBR to account for the delivery of the targets, objectives and strategies, and not to tell it how to do so on a day-to-day basis. A question arises on clause 8(4), and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on the oversight system outlined in clauses 7 and 8. Subsection (4) states: “Before giving, varying or revoking a direction under this section the Scottish Ministers must consult the Secretary of State.” Presently, GBR must decide whether a decision directly affects devolved services, but the Bill provides no statutory test, which leaves a delivery body making politically sensitive judgments, further increasing the risk of challenge by devolved nations. Clarity for Members, especially those from the devolved nations, will be extremely helpful, so I would be grateful if the Minister would address that directly. Under subsection (5) of both clauses 7 and 8, directions must be published, but there is no requirement for them to be laid before and scrutinised by Parliament—the old trap of creating transparency without consequence. A reporting or laying requirement, perhaps through the Select Committee, would turn publication into genuine accountability. However, I am interested to hear what rationale the Minister has not to allow greater scrutiny of GBR in Parliament. Again, perhaps he will address that directly in his response. That is the rationale behind our suggested amendments to require the Secretary of State to lay directions before Parliament, in order to allow us to scrutinise the decisions in greater detail. There is a fundamental question about leadership and who is the key decision maker. We are told repeatedly by the Minister and others that GBR is the directing mind, but will that really be the case if the clause goes through unamended? If GBR really is the directing mind, what is the necessity for the clause? It is a recipe for decision paralysis, with GBR, given the decision-making structures, undermined by guidance—we will come on to that when we discuss clause 9—and by directions from the Department for Transport in the name of the Secretary of State. Clause 7 really does risk creating the worst of both worlds. We will have the cost of GBR and its oversight structures—we are told in the recently published job application for the part-time chair that GBR will have more than 100,000 employees; it will be an enormous organisation, with its own senior management team—and then we will have the same again, with an overactive Department for Transport second-guessing GBR’s day-to-day working and being able to give guidance and directions as a result of clauses 7 and 8.

    Hansard source
36. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is not a perfect analogy, because GBR is at least intended to be more akin to a business—a nationalised business—but my hon. Friend is entirely right that where we have two organisations in competition, each one thinking that it runs the railways, that is a recipe for confusion at the least, and disaster at the worst. This is not an idle concern, because it has happened before. We all remember the Virgin West Coast franchise debacle in 2012, when the slightly arm’s length process of franchising did not go well, causing a communal panic in the Department for Transport. The phrase, “Something must be done to prevent this from ever happening again,” was no doubt repeated many times. The result was that more and more micromanaging took place by the Department for Transport in the setting of franchises. The Department no longer talked only about outcomes that needed to be achieved, leaving how companies went about that entirely up to them, which is the appropriate way to draft a franchise agreement. Instead, that devolved into mechanisms of how a franchise should be operated. We had that mission creep, and I fear that under the Bill we might get exactly the same approach with GBR. It will be set up with the best of intentions, and perhaps in the first two or three years all will run smoothly and the directing mind in practice might well be GBR, but then something will happen, because something always does happen in the real world, with lots of people doing their best but sometimes making mistakes, and there will be a collective gasp from the Department of Transport, because it will feel like it is on the hook, so “Something must be done to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.” We have designed into this mechanism a structure that allows the removal of GBR’s operational independence, and it does so without any reference to actions of last resort by the Government—the Bill is silent on that. We talk about the Secretary of State, but we all know that officials in the Department for Transport will be advising the Secretary of State on what he or she should be doing in a particular circumstance, and there will be a power grab. Without amendment, the clause will absolutely allow for that. We should be alive to the real-world experience that we all have and take this opportunity to strengthen its wording in order to design out that issue and ensure that there is proper accountability—with GBR accountable to the Secretary of State and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament—and that operational independence stays with what will be a nationalised business, rather than creating a railway version of NHS England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East mentioned a moment ago. I have tabled two amendments to address this issue. Amendment 12 would limit directions to circumstances in which the Office of Rail and Road assesses GBR to be in breach of its statutory functions. It could be argued that the Secretary of State should have an emergency lever; that is fair enough, because bad things happen. One of our great complaints before the election, although I am beginning to hear it from Labour Ministers as well, was, “We pull the levers but they’re not attached to anything—we have no power.” When we form the Government after the next election, we will want to have levers that are attached to something, and I accept that it is necessary to have an emergency lever to pull should a significant unforeseen event occur—another pandemic, perhaps—and an intervention be required. However, amendment 12 would still allow the Secretary of State to intervene in emergency scenarios, as the ORR would deem that such events make it impossible for GBR to conform to its business plan targets. Clause 74 sets out the ORR’s power to monitor GBR’s performance. Elsewhere in the Bill, we shall argue that the ORR needs more teeth to hold GBR to account, and this provision limiting the potential for the Secretary of State to intervene until such time that an independent regulatory body has recognised that GBR has not been able to fulfil its functions will be an important safeguard. Amendment 11 would put the words “last resort” on the face of the Bill, and would provide that a direction may be made only after the removal of GBR’s chief executive officer. The intention behind the amendment is to treat GBR as a business, which I think we all agree is what it is intended to be—albeit a nationalised one. Where there is a board of non-executive directors, they can question the executive team, and they can challenge decisions and require the chief executive to explain and defend the direction of the company. However, when push comes to shove, and the decision is made that the organisation is moving in the wrong direction, the weapon available to the chairman is the removal of the chief executive officer. If GBR is operating on a day-to-day basis with oversight from the Department for Transport—the Secretary of State—and concerns arise as to its direction or performance, the sequence of severity of the response should not start with guidance from the Secretary of State and then mandatory directions. They might be the final requirement, because we all need those levers, but surely they should come only after the chief executive has been challenged and then removed, just as in the private sector with an arm’s length majority investment.

    Hansard source
37. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    That is a perfectly fair challenge, but amendment 11 would not require the CEO’s removal by the Secretary of State if those KPIs are not met; it would be a necessary first step to demonstrate that the KPIs are not being met, and then there would be a discretion. I suppose the hon. Member is really arguing that my safeguard is not quite as strong as it could be. Nevertheless, it would be a step in the right direction, and it would not require the removal of the chief executive. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to dismiss the CEO of GBR on the grounds that a KPI has not been met and—this is an important bit, which the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage might recognise gives the new clause some weight—GBR has failed to act on guidance that has been issued by the Secretary of State under clause 9. It is sequential. First, the chief executive is given guidance from the Secretary of State. Most chief executives worth their salt would take notice of official guidance given by their 100% shareholder, but if for some reason they fail to act on the guidance and they are still missing their KPI, then the power to dismiss would be exercisable. In my submission, that is a good approach. Clause 7(2)—the “interference clause”—anticipates minor direction changes, which is exactly the kind of direction that should not be issued and is contrary to the explanatory notes. We are told that the powers in the clause will be used only as a last resort, but subsection (2) states: “A direction under this section may provide, in particular, that a function is only to be exercised— (a) after consulting the Secretary of State, or (b) with the Secretary of State’s consent.” The clause is not an emergency lever. It is quite clear from the drafting that the circumstances in subsection (2) cannot apply to a last-resort emergency lever. It is saying, “You can carry on doing things, but we need to have oversight in the nitty-gritty.” It is truly an interference clause. Is it the Government’s intention that directions issued under clause 7 will be, as described in the explanatory notes, used as a “last resort” emergency brake, or do they intend—this is the case as the Bill is drafted—that the Secretary of State will give himself or herself the power to intervene in day-to-day management, even down to the level that individual decisions will not be taken until there has been consultation with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State has consented to them? Clause 7(5) needs improvement. It requires publication by the Secretary of State, but anticipates no role for Parliament in that oversight. The organisation Rail Forum said: “We agree that this is desirable to ensure GBR remains arm’s length and is allowed to manage its own affairs.” That is important. The industry itself is saying that GBR needs to be operationally independent and to manage its own affairs. Amendment 14 would correct that issue. It would require the Secretary of State to lay any decision before Parliament—the right place for primary scrutiny. Rail Forum supports the amendment. It says: “This is essential to ensure that normal Parliamentary process is not bypassed.” Amendment 16 would mean that decisions on fares imposed on GBR by the Secretary of State can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. Such a direction would have a huge impact on the financial position of GBR, because decisions on fares and passenger growth and affordability are central to revenue. It is crucial that decisions are made on proper evidence and in line with the objects of GBR.

    Hansard source
38. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is entirely right. That will be a theme of our comments on and challenges to the Bill throughout the progress of our scrutiny: accountability without responsibility is no accountability at all. Time and again, we see an unwillingness from those who drafted the Bill to trust the role of parliamentarians as scrutineers. As a former businessman, I know—I have not made this one up; it is not unique thinking—that, in any organisation, you get what you measure. That will have been the case in any organisation that hon. and right hon. Members may have worked in in the private or public sector: the NHS has targets because it gets what it measures. At the moment, the Bill measures very little on GBR’s performance, and where it does, that disappears off to the Department for Transport and is reported to other civil servants. As parliamentarians, we know our value in holding not only GBR to account but the Government of the day, which will not always be a Labour one. That is our important role, which is done through the Select Committee process and more widely. As parliamentarians, we should seek to improve the Bill. I recognise that we will have a number of Divisions during this process and I am unlikely to win a single one, but I urge the Government to listen—perhaps to the private comments of its own Committee members; they do not have to tell me about it—because these are genuine areas of improvement that we as parliamentarians should be encouraging the Government to add to the Bill. On that note, I will stop.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Where is the reference to persistent, urgent and unforeseen incidents in the Bill?

    Hansard source
40. 27 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

    As I have set out in my series of amendments, the appropriate oversight and control is to remove the chief executive. The Minister must accept that, if the Secretary of State thinks that the organisation is going in the wrong direction, is not listening to guidance or has gone rogue in some way, they have the unfettered power to remove the chief executive officer at any stage. If he does not think that is the case, he should say so now, because if the Secretary of State has the power to remove the chief executive officer and put in place someone who will do his bidding, then none of this is needed, is it?

    Hansard source