Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   I definitely will not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about relative poverty figures. The fact is that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work—something we did again and again and again. The Bill is more incoherent now than it was at the beginning. It does not do the job at all. Reforms that were not enough in the first place will now cut only £2 billion from a ballooning budget, instead of £5 billion. They will create a new welfare trap and a two-tier welfare system. Right up until the last moment, the Government kept pushing and pushing, ruling out changes and sending their poor, weary Ministers and ambitious Back-Bench bootlickers out on to the airwaves. At the last moment, as we have seen before, the Government abandon them after all of that—they have been hung out to dry. The Government do not care how they have made their Back Benchers look, and it is not for the first time. Week after week, the Chancellor was sent here to say with a straight face that she was right to cut the winter fuel payment, that there would be no turning back and that the country’s finances would simply collapse if she did not take pensioners’ fuel money and give it to the trade unions, and her Back Benchers sucked that one up. They muttered and they grumbled, but each of them went back and told their constituents that the winter fuel payments were being confiscated to fix the foundations. Only once pensioners had sat in the cold all winter, the Chancellor had tanked the economy and Labour MPs had had the door slammed in their face up and down the country did they finally accept that it was a mistake. This time, when asked to line up behind a Bill that takes money from older, disabled people with physical disabilities—a Bill that, according to the Government’s own modelling, gets no one into work—funnily enough, lots of Labour MPs did not fancy another go. Perhaps they will think twice next time the Chancellor comes to them with a bad idea.

   Hansard source
2. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   The fact that the Government have refused to commit to not raising taxes means it is probably inevitable that they will. However, it is quite clear that Labour MPs will feel emboldened to push for more unaffordable changes to our welfare system, including the two-child benefit cap. Let us be clear: part of the reason why these plans have been so rushed and badly thought through is the mess the Chancellor has made. This Bill is an attempt to find the quickest and crudest savings possible—to plug the hole in the public finances that she has created—but the Chancellor is not the only one to blame. It beggars belief that the Labour party came into office after 14 years in opposition with no serious plan for reforming welfare. What was Labour doing all that time? The welfare bill is already totally unsustainable, and it is only getting worse.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   We would cut unemployment. As I was saying, health and disability benefits are forecast to rise to £100 billion, meaning that one in every four pounds raised in income tax will pay for those benefits. That is not sustainable. Until the pandemic, we in the Conservative party had spent years bringing down the benefits bill and getting people back into work, including millions of disabled people. Talent, energy and ingenuity are not confined to those in perfect health. If we want to afford public services, improve people’s lives and compete globally, we cannot consign so many people to a life out of work—we have to get them into work. I believe that the whole House agrees that the system needs change. We may disagree on what exactly that change looks like, but what we have in front of us today is just a big mess.

   Hansard source
4. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have nothing further to add—he said it as well as it could possibly be said. The whole House agrees that the system needs to change in one way or another, but what we have in front of us today is a big mess; it is neither fish nor fowl. Because of the Government’s hasty concessions, we now have a two-tier benefits system under which people who are already on benefits will be incentivised to keep them. There are other issues. Why, for instance, should someone diagnosed with Parkinson’s after November 2026 receive a lower payment than someone diagnosed a month prior? We need to fix a whole load of problems. For instance, we need to filter out people who are gaming the system, we need to redesign the system so that genuinely disabled people do not find it so Kafkaesque, and we need a fundamental rethink of who we can afford to support and why. One in four people in this country now self-report as disabled—that is an extraordinary state of affairs. We clearly cannot afford to support all of them; rather, we should focus that support on those with the greatest need. Many people with disabilities live full and independent lives, contributing to society. Research published by the Centre for Social Justice last week shows that we could save up to £9 billion by restricting benefits for lower-level mental health challenges such as anxiety. Labour Members ask what we would change—that is one of the things we would change. Findings published by the TaxPayers’ Alliance today show that people with conditions including acne and food intolerance are getting benefits and entitlements such as Motability. The impact assessments for the Bill—not my impact assessments, but the Government’s—show that it will get no one into work, so the Government should think again. We will support them to do so. We support replacing remote or online assessments for claimants with face-to-face assessments—that simple change alone could dramatically reduce the number of new claimants. Before the last election, we outlined reforms that the new Government rejected out of hand, so will the Secretary of State return to them? The changes we are discussing today are rushed and confused. Rather than the fundamental reforms we so badly need, we have been presented with a botched package of changes that have been watered down and carved apart in the face of Back-Bench pressure. There is no way we can back this, so instead of allowing her Back Benchers to dictate her policy, the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board. She should cut the overall welfare bill, get people into work, and eliminate the need for new tax rises. That is a programme that we would support in the national interest.

   Hansard source
5. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Topical Questions

   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?

   Hansard source
6. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

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

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

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

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment 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. 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.

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

   Parental Leave Review

   My constituent Christina Harris sadly lost her job when she had to take time off to care for her seriously ill daughter Skye, who I am pleased to report is now in remission. Christina started a parliamentary petition calling for employers to hold open the jobs of those parents who, through no fault of their own, have to take time off to care for a seriously ill child—a bit like maternity leave in principle. She achieved a debate in Westminster Hall in February, which the Minister replied to. He then kindly met her some weeks later and, if I may say so—I was there—he dealt with her incredibly empathetically and listened carefully to what she said. As the Minister said, the review will have a “broad scope”. Can he offer any hope to my constituent Christina Harris with regards to her idea and to the approximately 4,000 parents each year who through no fault of their own find themselves in similar circumstances?

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Employer National Insurance Contributions

    11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on businesses.

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Employer National Insurance Contributions

    Given the recent trio of U-turns, this Government have demonstrated that they are keen to change their minds as well as to create new multibillion-pound black holes. Will the Chancellor do the right thing and U-turn on the increase in national insurance contributions, to provide businesses with a much-needed boost in the sluggish economy that she has created?

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Hospitality Sector

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I have also received hospitality from UKHospitality and from the British Beer and Pub Association that falls below the registrable threshold. I am pleased to open this debate on a subject of national and local importance: the future of our hospitality sector. From pubs and restaurants to hotels and leisure centres, hospitality is more than just a convenience; it is the beating heart of our communities. It provides first jobs, second chances, career ladders and gathering places. It employs 3.5 million people and contributes £140 billion in economic activity and £54 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer each year. Yet the sector faces an existential threat—not from a lack of demand, but from deliberate political choices made in last autumn’s Budget and the spring statement. Those choices have hit hospitality harder than any other part of the economy. The Government’s 2024 Budget, far from being fair or progressive, has dealt a brutal blow to our high streets and local economies. The cumulative effect of increased employer national insurance contributions and cuts to business rate relief, alongside the increases in the national living wage, has added £3.4 billion to the sector’s annual cost base. Let us be clear: those numbers are not abstract. They represent shifts that businesses feel every single week and to which they are taking action in response. Early Government figures show that 100,000 jobs were lost in just one month. That is not a warning sign —that is a siren. Part-time and entry-level workers have been the hardest hit; not highly paid City graduates, but bar staff, kitchen porters and hotel receptionists in every village, town and city across our country. The problem is even more damaging because it flies in the face of the Government’s own stated missions. The Government claim to want regional growth and better living standards across the UK, but the Budget has cancelled investment, reduced hours and led to closures in exactly the communities that need regeneration the most. The hospitality sector has outgrown the wider economy in recent years, yet it barely even features in the Government’s new industrial strategy. There are just three mentions of hospitality in the whole strategy, and one of those was because the Government had mis-spelled “hospitals”. Hospitality is a proven route to social mobility and opportunity, accessible to everyone, not just a privileged few. Yet the Government’s actions directly contradict their levelling-up agenda. They talk about growth, but strangle the sectors that deliver it. They talk about fairness, but penalise the poorest workers. They talk about opportunity, but crush the businesses that provide it. They have forgotten that enterprise is not just about spreadsheets—it is about people, purpose and pride. Even before the Budget, hospitality businesses were paying twice as much tax as financial services relative to their profits. That is an astonishing imbalance. Of course, hospitality was particularly hard hit by the pandemic and by lockdowns. Many hospitality businesses are still carrying the burden of covid debts, with repayments that have taken them from being thriving businesses to ones that barely break even.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Hospitality Sector

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The changes to employer national insurance contributions have meant that 774,000 workers, many of them on lower incomes or working part time, are caught in a net that punishes job creation. The cut in business rate relief from 75% to 40% has driven otherwise viable businesses into the red, hitting pubs such as the Green Man in my constituency, which has seen its business rates bills rise from about £140 a month to nearly £350 a month—before a single customer has been served or a single pint pulled. A third of hospitality businesses now operate at a loss. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair. According to UKHospitality, the Government’s measures will cost the sector at least £3.4 billion, including a £1 billion cost from the national insurance contribution increases alone. Of course, those tax rises came in at exactly the same time as the increase in the national living wage, adding even more pressure to small business employers such as the tea room at Ashwood Nurseries, in my constituency, which already operate on tight margins. Let me be clear: no one opposes fair pay. I am proud that the previous Government introduced the national living wage, and increased it to give workers’ incomes a boost. However, if the Government want sustainable wage increases, they cannot also pile on non-wage costs at the same time—and that is before the impact of their employment rights package, which comes into force next year. The data already shows the consequences starkly. The Office for National Statistics confirms that since the October Budget, the hospitality sector has shed 69,000 jobs, even before the latest figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That is 3.2% of all hospitality jobs. To put that in context, the overall economy lost 1.2% of jobs in the same period, so hospitality’s job losses were 266% higher than the national average.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Hospitality Sector

    The right hon. Gentleman is clearly correct. One of the dangers of trying to pick winners is that those that do not make the priority list are, almost by definition, left behind. Major sectors such as hospitality and food and drink employ so many people, in every constituency, right across the age groups and in every demographic possible; leaving them out sends a very unfortunate signal, at the very least, and could be very damaging, if not corrected quickly. A third of hospitality businesses report that they operate at a loss, with jobs lost, hours cut, investment cancelled and, sadly, many businesses closing. The Office for Budget Responsibility warns that 60% of the national insurance contributions burden will be passed on through lower wages, hitting workers despite the Chancellor’s promises. These are not abstract statistics; they are real people’s lives. Overwhelmingly, young, part-time, ethnic minority and lower-income workers are disproportionately represented among those hit, despite those being the very groups that the Government claim they want to support. The Government’s policies are deeply regressive. It does not have to be this way. Hospitality is not asking for handouts, but for a level playing field. The sector is resilient. After the 2008 crash and during covid, it helped to revive communities and restore confidence and, within the right framework, it can do so again. It has the potential to grow six times faster than the wider economy, to create half a million jobs by 2030, and to breathe life into areas across the country, not just in the overheating south-east. In order for the sector to do that, however, the brakes must be taken off, and there are simple, targeted steps that the Government could take now. They could protect the high streets by quickly introducing a proper reform of business rates, with a maximum discount for venues under £500,000 rateable value. They could scrap the proposed additional levy on larger hospitality businesses, which are so important to many of our communities and provide so many jobs. They could create a new lower rate of national insurance contributions for those earning between £5,000 and £9,100, to reverse April’s job losses and make it easier to hire again. The Government could also extend the differential duty rate introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), to help to put pubs, bars and clubs on a level playing field with supermarkets by charging lower duty on draft beer in cask and kegs than is charged on bottles and cans. They could look at ways to reschedule those covid-19 loans, to give firms some breathing space to increase the chance of them actually being able to repay those debts as successful businesses. Each of those measures would stimulate growth, protect jobs, and help every region of the UK to thrive.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Hospitality Sector

    Hospitality, as I have said, is so important in every part of the United Kingdom. We need Governments in every part of the United Kingdom to recognise that and to take the appropriate action, although I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if my focus is primarily on those decisions that can be taken in Westminster and by the Government at a national level. My challenge to the Minister today is simple: will he listen, if not to me, then to representatives from across the hospitality sector who are clear that the Government are getting this wrong? Will he support a sector that contributes £54 billion in tax receipts— far more than it gets back? Will he stand by his Government’s own missions of fairness, opportunity and growth, or will he continue policies that undermine them at every turn? Hospitality is being taxed out of existence, and that is a political choice. We need a change of course not just for the sector, but for every community that depends on it. We need policies that reflect the value that hospitality brings—economically, socially and culturally—and we need action now.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Hospitality Sector

    I thank the Minister for his response, even if there was little in it that will bring much comfort to the hospitality businesses that are struggling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members from across the Chamber who have made such effective contributions, underlining the importance of hospitality in all our constituencies. This is more than an economic issue. Hospitality offers the first rung on the ladder for millions of young people, and second chances to those rebuilding their lives. It brings people together across classes, backgrounds and regions. It is the ultimate vehicle for social mobility. It gives people a chance to run their own million-pound turnover business, even if they do not have the start-up capital or the right connections. For example, the Streets Ahead programme run by McCain, one of the largest employers in my constituency, supports dozens of hospitality start-ups and trains hundreds from disadvantaged backgrounds in the hospitality sector, and the charity Only A Pavement Away helps people who are facing homelessness by offering opportunities in hospitality. That is what real social mobility looks like—not a press release, but a purpose. Hospitality can do so much in return for so little, but it can do so only if it is given the right framework and a tax system that does not hit labour-intensive businesses disproportionately hard. Hospitality can drive the growth that we all want to see. It can create high-quality jobs and offer good opportunities in every one of our constituencies, but it needs and deserves our support. I thank hon. Members for supporting this debate, and for their continuing work to push the Government to increase their support and understanding towards this important sector. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Refugee Citizenship Rights

    It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on bringing forward his interesting debate, although I am sure it will come as no surprise that my view is very different from his. Britain is a compassionate and caring country. We have shown support and welcomed those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong as well as others in desperate need. In fact, our compassion and care are without limits. But the reality is that our resources are limited, as we have seen from the pressure on housing, public services, public finances and, yes, our criminal justice system. The promise of citizenship for those who arrive illegally will only incentivise yet more people to cross by small boat. Uncontrolled migration has real consequences. What would Members proposing such a promise say to the youngster struggling to get on the housing ladder, to the person who has been waiting months for an operation or to the victim of crime who has just seen their attacker released from prison early? What is being discussed today is not those who have been welcomed, but those who have come to this country illegally. Citizenship is a privilege, and we should not grant it to those who have broken our laws to enter the country. I listened to the proposals of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, and I have listened to those of the comrades of the Socialist Campaign Group in this debate, and the idea of disregarding that restriction is simply preposterous. How can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? The problem with the Government is that they fall between two stools: they want to appease the madness within their own party, but they also recognise the public’s desire to secure our borders. The consequences of the Government’s inability to take strong action have been clearly demonstrated. Before the election, progress was being made on reducing the number of crossings, the number staying in hotels was going down and the proportion of those being removed was going up, but everyone understood that much, much more needed to be done. However, since the election, we have seen the number of arrivals increase by more than 38%. Yes, we are only in July, but already we have reached a record level of small boat arrivals this year. The number staying in hotels is up, and the number of those who have arrived illegally and been removed is at a record low. However it is measured, that is a failure on the part of the Government. It has left the Government’s pledge to “smash the gangs” in tatters, exposing it as the façade it always was. We can all see that the problem is greater than the gangs. The heinous criminals who organise the crossings are responding to demand. There is a market for people wanting to cross the channel from a safe third country. A truly compassionate response would be to put in place a system that completely deters crossings by removing those who have come here illegally, yet the Government cancelled that plan before it even began. To deport anyone who comes to this country illegally is the fair option, and it would send a clear message. It is the right thing for those who go on the boats in extreme danger, it is the fair thing for the women and children refugees whom we cannot help while we lack control of our borders, and it is the fair thing for the British people who are picking up the tab, yet the Government baulk at such proposals. Now it appears that the Government’s policy rests on the French Government riding out to the rescue. Relying on the French to save Britain seems about as likely to succeed as relying on them to look out for the interests of our British fishermen—it is technically possible but characteristically implausible. Ultimately, the Government are right to keep the guidance. However, the best approach would be to reverse the failures, implement a proper policy that ensures that those who come here illegally do not remain here and avoid the conversation about citizenship for illegal immigrants altogether.

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Refugee Citizenship Rights

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    High Net Worth Individuals

    In her Budget last year, the Chancellor tucked away about £10 billion over the next couple of years from reform to the non-dom tax regime. It is important to remember that the OBR said in its fiscal outlook that that figure was “highly uncertain”, and a high-level survey by Oxford Economics found that fully two thirds of non-doms are considering leaving the country in the next couple years as a direct result of those policies. That implies not an increase of £10 billion but a decrease of £8 billion. The Chancellor has created a fiscal black hole of £18 billion with just one policy alone. In this week of heroic U-turns from the Government Front Bench, will the Minister confirm whether they will be axing this tax? When will it finally be condemned to the history books?

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Topical Questions

    T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Topical Questions

    The award-winning bookshop and deli Mainstreet Trading Company in St Boswells has been forced to reduce its operating hours because “increases to employer national insurance mean that our operating cost base has increased significantly.” What advice does the Chancellor have for small businesses suffering because of this Labour Government’s reckless decisions?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s proposals are creating the worst of both worlds? On one hand, they are failing to tackle the rising welfare budget, but on the other they are creating anxiety and fear among many disabled and vulnerable people, who do not understand or know the impact of these changes on them?

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Topical Questions

    Further to that answer, will the Minister confirm that one of the regulatory barriers in that area are privacy and electronic communications regulations, which prevent firms from proactively reaching out to customers to offer targeted support? As part of the review, will she ensure that that specific regulatory change is made, so that that can happen?

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I wanted to speak in this debate to try to get behind some of the headlines and challenges that those on the Government Benches face in getting to a settled view today, by looking back over the last years the Conservatives had in government at some of the lessons that we must draw from that experience but which are relevant to consider today. I will not be able to support the proposals, not because I do not think some of them have significant merit, or because I do not have the greatest respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who has spent 31 years in this place and who I believe will do all that is asked of him, but because I do not think that the changes in the Bill are sufficiently ambitious to deal with the scale of the challenges we face. I was in government for seven years and I was in the Treasury for most of that time. During the covid epidemic, we had to make some pretty quick changes while the economy was shut down overnight. They involved changes to benefits, standing up a furlough scheme very quickly, bounce back loans and many interventions to try to keep our public services going, and they were at the core of some of the patterns of behavioural change that we now see in our benefits system. I was looking at the numbers for my constituency, which I recognise is a wonderful place and also quite a wealthy place that does not have some of the embedded challenges in other parts of the country. The number of PIP claims in January 2019 was 2,065 and in April 2025 it was 4,211. The vast majority of my constituents and the vast majority of people in the country cannot understand how those numbers have doubled in such a short amount of time. I fully respect the aspirations of the Secretary of State and her ministerial team in seeking to address that, because we have to come to terms with what we can afford as a country. I also respect sincerely the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), whose constituency is rather different from mine, because I think we are united in this place in wanting to look after the most vulnerable. I want to see those who are suffering, who are disabled and who need support from the state to receive that support in a timely way. What I do not want to see is people written off permanently. About 12 or 14 years ago in this House, we had a debate about mental health. Several Members of Parliament stood up and bravely talked about their own mental health challenges. We then went on a journey to bring parity of esteem to mental health and physical health in our benefits system. I believe that that pathway into assessment for mental health has not worked. It writes people off too easily and it does not serve them well, by leaving them in a place where they are, on an enduring basis, reliant on the state. As a country, we cannot afford it. It is time to legislate for more resilience: resilience in our country and in those who receive benefits such that they can get out of that place of dependency, because I do not think it is a happy place for anyone to be. When I reflect on the changes proposed today, I can see the hand of the Treasury. I can see the fiscal imperative. I can see the public finances and what is now likely to happen in the autumn, which will mean more tax rises. Now, for some on the Government Benches that will be a price worth paying, but we as a country will lack the productive capacity to grow if we tax those who create jobs to a level where they just will not create jobs any further. We have to come to terms with that profound reality; if we do not, we are in a death spiral as a country. I give credit to the Government for some of the steps they are taking today. However, for reasons different from those stated by many on the Government Benches, I will not be able to support the Bill. I do not think it is holistic, goes far enough or deals with the profound tragedy that has happened to our benefits system as a consequence of covid and our public finances.

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I reciprocate the hon. Lady’s warm sentiments. She makes her political points, some of which will be true in some circumstances, and some of which will not. My point today to everyone in this House is this: let us be real, honest and true about the trajectory of growth in welfare spending in this country, and let us be honest about what we can afford. We face a transformed landscape of threats to this country, with calls for more spending on defence. We have to address our priorities, but we must also recognise that the most vulnerable need continued support. However, the system we have brings too many into dependency on the state, and that is not right.

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is customary to congratulate the hon. Member who secured the debate, but I would like to go further: the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) is an outstanding champion not only for her constituents—through the Select Committee on Business and Trade, on which I also serve—but for the public more widely, with her expert nose for unfairness. Many businesses and homes in my rural constituency of Dumfries and Galloway are not on the gas grid and, like so many across the UK that are outwith the urban centres, are reliant on such things as tanker-delivered liquefied petroleum gas or kerosene for heating. But almost without exception, everyone is on the electricity grid and so gets a bill for at least this one utility. Given that ubiquity, people might expect the energy market to be the best regulated, and yet, as we have heard this morning, the regime is less the quiet and precise order that one might expect of an old-fashioned provincial bank and more the rough-house of a wild west saloon. Is there an MP in the House who does not have an example of blundering over bills or of sharp practice? A small business in my constituency struggled with an electricity bill for an astonishing £18,000—that figure again. It was of such magnitude that it would have sunk a much-loved high street fixture and an important employer. Queries—pleas, indeed—went unheeded. I am pleased to say that, following intervention from my team, the bill was waived when it transpired that the issue was a convoluted tale involving a disconnected smart meter and wildly inaccurate estimated bills. There was a happy ending, but that is surely indicative of a wider problem. Energy firms are increasingly a law unto themselves and are judge, jury and executioner over bills, billing and the recovery of debts, both real and imagined. Too often, they hide behind automated “computer says no” responses and infuriating call centres whose hold muzak should be the Cuckoo waltz: you hang on for an eternity, despite your call apparently being “very important” to them, although of course they are experiencing a “very high volume of calls” 24/7, 365. I am a huge fan of the free market. I think it delivers competition, which gives consumers choice, which in turn drives down bills. However, it falls to us in this place to regulate that market: not to put the dead hand of Government on the tiller, to proscribe the private sector or fence it in, but to create an environment that is fair to both sides—industry and public—and is delineated, transparent and responsive. And so the spotlight shifts from the energy firms to the regulator. Ofgem seems to be the victim of an overly wide remit: it has to deal with networks plus retail, and has ended up being criticised by the industry and consumers alike. It is difficult not to agree that it has lost its way when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) raised at the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, it spent taxpayers’ cash on irrelevances such as courses called “Pride in intersectionality” and “Perspectives from Rainbow Regulators”. Regulators rest on three pillars: deterrence, detection and enforcement. The first two are intertwined, because if there is no prospect of getting caught, there is no deterrent. Many regulators fail on the third pillar: they talk a good game and threaten all sorts of dire retribution, yet they deliver little enforcement. Ofgem writing to suppliers demanding to know why they have not ended sharp practice such as back billing does not look like a regulatory crackdown; it looks like regulatory breakdown. The Government have been consulting on Ofgem, and the conclusion must surely be that the regulator is having a shocker when it comes to billing. I hope that the Minister can assure us today that the Government are getting wired right into the fuse box of this vital, but apparently overwhelmed, regulator. Of deterrence, detection and enforcement, the greatest is enforcement. When will the Government apply a bit of that to the regulator itself, so that my constituents can have some faith that the bills piling up on their doormats, and increasingly in their inboxes, are at least accurate?

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

    I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the cost risk for local authorities. He referred to the greater risk for small local authorities, of which my own Isle of Wight council is a very good example. It is dwarfed by other transport authorities, and on cost risk alone would be unable to make use of the so-called freedoms in the Bill.

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

    Does the shadow Minister agree that it is slightly ridiculous to expect cyclists to be able to recognise that somebody disabled is seeking to cross a cycle lane? That seems to assume that people with disabilities are instantly recognisable, which is a very old-fashioned view of disability. It is plainly ridiculous to expect cyclists to make such a recognition. It is bad for them as well as being plainly bad for people with disabilities.

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I have concluded my remarks on this group.

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that, given the entire sector is shouting from the rooftops that it will be an existential crisis for the provision of SEND travel. I simply do not understand what data the Minister or his officials are relying on to support his bold statement that it will not have an impact. If he is going against the reasoned objections of the sector as a whole, he needs to come forward with the data that he is relying on.

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause. Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy. Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them. Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect. I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that: “An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”— and then we get the good phrase— “independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”, including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states: “Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”, and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause. Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there. Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states: “Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.” It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    This clause is sensible. The Minister is right that it will streamline the objection process, so that instead of having to wait for a month to see whether anyone has objected, the affected parties will be able to notify the local transport authority in writing that they have no intention of objecting. The timetable will be shortened as a result. The approach is multi-layered. The measure relates to the preparation, notice and consultation stage, which is section 138F of the Transport Act; the making of plans and schemes, section 138G; the preparation, notice and consultation for variations, section 138L; and the making of variations, section 138M. This is a common-sense approach to preventing unrequired notice periods from delaying the ability of LTAs to take action. Clause 19(6)(a) will have the effect that where an LTA issues a notice of an intention to revoke an enhanced partnership plan or scheme, it is no longer required to state the date on which the revocation takes effect under the notice. That will allow the LTA to proceed with the revocation where the relevant operators have also indicated that they do not intend to object under the new arrangements. Again, that is sensible streamlining. I applaud the Government on a good tidying-up exercise. Question put and agreed to. Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Advance notice of requirement to provide information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    I will be brief. I agree with the explanation given by the Minister. This is a sensible clarification and we have no objections. Question put and agreed to. Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 Bus network accessibility plans Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers. This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere. What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit? New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 22, page 16, line 31, at end insert— “(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly. (4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024. (4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert— ‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’” This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    I will speak to amendment 51 in my name and set it in the context of clause 22. Subsection (1) repeals section 22 of the Bus Services Act 2017, which stated that the relevant authorities listed in that section could not “in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service” in England. Its repeal allows the wide-scale creation of municipal bus companies. That was in the Labour party manifesto, from memory, so I understand why the Government are doing that, and there was also reference in the King’s Speech to encouraging the expansion of the municipal bus company sector. There are currently eight such companies in England and Wales. It is clearly the Labour party’s ideological position—we should be clear about it—that the state is better placed to run the commercial operations of bus companies than the private sector. That is not about provision, routes, capacity or approach to additional needs; it is the nuts and bolts of how to run a commercial operation—purchasing or leasing, maintaining, training and operating a bus company. Why would a local authority be better at the things that I have just mentioned than a specialist business, the main operation of which is exactly that? It is a truism that local authorities are not traditionally renowned for their efficiency, and the same could be said of national Government. It is not impossible for them to do a good job—in previous sittings, I have made positive reference to one or two of the existing municipal bus companies that do—and I will not be ideological in the opposite direction, but running commercial operations of this kind is not a natural strength of local authorities. Cost management, customer relations and maintenance and renewal are all natural strengths of the private sector. From my perspective, therefore, this policy change is a very odd decision. Clause 22 exposes the political approach of Labour, which is more interested in creating the supplier than supporting the passenger. We have seen that theme in clause after clause throughout the Bill. Subsections (2) to (5) create new requirements that mirror existing subsections (1), (2) and (13) of section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, which disqualify directors of existing public transport companies from being members of the local authority that owns the company. The new requirements will ensure that directors of the new local authority-owned bus companies formed after the repeal of section 22 of the 2017 Act, which I have already referred to, are subject to the same governance requirements. If we are going to do this, that is a sensible safeguard. Subsection (2) provides that a director of a local government bus company who is paid to act in that capacity or is an employee of the company or of a subsidiary is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a relevant authority that controls the company, so there is a degree of separation. Subsection (6)(b)(ii) disapplies section 73(3)(b) of the 1985 Act, which relates to money borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with a public transport company’s provision of local services. That removes the restriction on existing LABCos in England accessing private borrowing where the money is borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with providing local bus services. I can see why private businesses that have good control of their costs would do that, but allowing additional public sector borrowing by municipal bus companies as well as the very significant commercial risks associated with franchising is another concerning element of the clause. This is franchising with knobs on. Not only is the local transport authority taking direct commercial responsibility for the provision of services, which has not happened before, it is then, instead of contracting out those services for a fee—which is what franchising is in the majority of cases—going the extra step and being the other side of the charterparty in operating the company to which it is franchising. That is a doubling up of the commercial risk and bets taken by local authorities, and on top of that, they are being allowed to raise debt as part of the operating company. I fear that there may be some trouble ahead as a result of this approach. What control will be applied to that debt? Who is responsible for the debt on the failure of a LABCo? That is an important question. Does the debt fall with the LABCo or revert to the local authority as the only shareholder? Will it come back to the local transport authority as the ultimate owner? What provisions are in place to protect the public purse? My concern is that this bit has not been properly thought through. LABCos have an obvious potential conflict of interest. They are owned by the local transport authority, which is the contracting body for the bus services that they supply. Whether true or not, there is a risk of an impression of impropriety if there is not a proper arm’s length approach, so we have to go the extra mile. If we as a Committee decide to support this clause, it is incumbent on us, where we recognise that people will likely think that there is an overly close relationship, to put the safeguards in place now to prevent any indication that that might be the case. The local authority, as an emanation of the state, should bend over backwards to ensure fair play in the tender process and to ensure that that process is obviously fair—that justice is not just being done, but being seen to be done. It is equally obvious that any contract award process from the local transport authority to a LABCo must be fair. Coming on to amendment 51, the Procurement Act 2023 sets out a fair process to ensure that no underhand tender activities are being undertaken by a local authority—that is its rationale. Yet although clause 22 takes steps to ensure that directors are at arm’s length from local transport authorities, and cannot be elected members either, it currently does not prevent an exclusion under the Procurement Act for the award of contracts to new—as opposed to existing—LABCo operators. That is a clear lacuna and mistake in the drafting of the clause. The clause is trying to take account of the transitional processes where there is an existing LABCo—there are eight that we have discussed previously. As it is currently worded, however, it does not prevent local transport authorities from setting up new municipal bus companies. In fact, Labour is encouraging them to do that—or going further than that, as the King’s Speech expressed the desire that there should be many more. Despite that, the clause allows the exclusion of the provisions in the Procurement Act. That cannot be the Government’s intention, or if it is, the Minister needs to tell the Committee that that is the case. That is my first question: is it the Government’s intention to allow the exclusion of the provisions of the Procurement Act in such circumstances—yes or no? If it is, why should those provisions be excluded? Amendment 51 in my name would fix that oversight. It would ensure that any contract awarded after a franchising scheme by a franchising authority cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a LABCo that meets the specific criteria that it was already providing services on 17 December 2024. In other words, we accept the transitional need for LABCos that have been operating over the last years, or that are currently operating, to be excluded. However, any new LABCo should be properly compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. That protects the ability to roll over a transitional contract where the previous provider was a legacy LABCo, and stops the creation of a new loophole that would allow a local transport authority to misuse roll-over clauses to bypass the proper tender process and award to its own bus company. It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such an abuse of tendering, so if they will not adopt my amendment, what other effective steps will they take? How will they stand up for fair competition, the taxpayer and the passenger—or is their focus, again, on the supplier?

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    I asked the Minister a couple of specific questions about debt management, so I would be grateful if he would answer them before moving on. He will, of course, remember that I asked about the provision of debt, the ability of a LABCo to raise debt, and what happens to that debt if the LABCo should fail. Does it return to the local transport authority, as the ultimate owner? Have the Government thought this through?

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister was looking at his officials. I do not want to put him on the spot—obviously, I do, but not really—if this is a question to which he does not immediately know the answer. If he will write to me, through his officials, with that answer, or clarify it later in the sitting, I would be grateful.

    Hansard source