Sarah Edwards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is absolutely essential that we ensure that investment is getting to our high streets and towns, not just our cities, and that people see that change when they walk around. I urge the Minister to take a supportive approach towards pools that are currently in transition, since they cannot necessarily reallocate assets while they are not members of the new pool that they are going to join. Their investment strategies are therefore effectively on hold until they join the new pool. I also ask him to liaise closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government during the process of local government reorganisation. Whatever the new framework is for local government in Staffordshire, the pension fund will still be there. Local authority workers in my Tamworth constituency are part of the Staffordshire LGPS. It is one of eight authorities that are jointly own LGPS Central, which last year reported £29.9 billion in assets under management. The sheer scale of such funds is what underlines the link between pensions and growth. The British growth partnership, announced in October 2024 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, sits alongside the British Business Bank, and its primary goal is to stimulate investment from UK pension funds into high-growth, innovative companies, thereby supporting the UK economy and creating new jobs. The partnership aims to raise hundreds of millions of pounds from institutional investors, including pension funds, to invest in UK venture capital. That will be supported by a cornerstone investment from the Government. Investments will be made on a long-term, fully commercial basis, independent of Government influence, leveraging the expertise and market access of the British Business Bank to identify potential companies. That will offer pension funds fruitful investment opportunities that deliver for their members as well as for the British economy. By unlocking domestic investment, the partnership seeks to enhance the UK’s competitiveness in future industries, particularly in the technology and innovation sectors. I am fortunate that in my constituency I have an innovative technology company called PI-KEM, which has grown its business and workforce over the past 34 years. By linking pension funds to growth, it will be possible to have more such companies creating opportunities for skilled employment that sees Britain at the forefront of markets. However, there is one area of caution: a trend towards Government finances being pooled into funds of which there is limited parliamentary oversight. While I understand and recognise the power of the larger funding pools, I must raise my concerns over how the funds will be reported on and how we will ensure that both taxpayer and pension member money is stewarded appropriately through the British growth partnership. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pensions and growth, it has been a great pleasure to meet with colleagues and hear from a variety of industry sectors about where they see the strengths and challenges in these proposals. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for agreeing to attend a meeting of the APPG to assist us in gaining a greater understanding of the approach that he is taking in the next stages of the discussion of the Bill. I also take this opportunity to invite colleagues to come along and join us on Wednesday. Chapter 2 in part 1 of the Bill reforms the regime governing trustee payments of surplus to employers and enables surplus to be paid out of more defined-benefit schemes. It is stated that trustee oversight and the regulatory framework will ensure the responsible and secure sharing of surplus funds. The triennial revaluation of a scheme may determine that there is a deficit or a surplus, but despite being calculated by highly skilled actuaries, both are only a snapshot in time. For example, a scheme being evaluated this spring would have reflected the moment at which the US President’s decision to introduce tariffs hit asset prices. An alternative set of circumstances could have created an apparent surplus. I have been through this process as a trustee, and I have put on record—and must put on record again—my scepticism about whether the potential figure is the true one when it comes to the surplus. I ask the Minister to reassure my constituents, and pension scheme members in general, that he recognises that the interests of scheme members must always be the priority. It would also be welcome to understand how “surplus” is to be defined and calculated, as I have received at least four different versions by canvassing the pensions industry. In chapter 4 of part 2, provision is made for providers of automatic enrolment and pension schemes regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to change the way in which a pension pot is invested, to transfer a pot to a different pension scheme with the same provider, or to transfer a pot to another provider without individual member consent where it would be in the best interests of members, taken as a whole. I welcome the fact that the Bill states that a range of safeguards and procedures must be followed before an override or transfer can occur, as sadly, it is often difficult to engage members in the details of their pension. That is particularly true where a number of small pots are accrued early in a working life, which has become the norm in many communities with the rise of insecure work. As such, I also welcome the efforts that this Government are making to create fair and secure work, because when that is coupled with a well-funded pension, working people are protected not just at work but when they sit on their retirement beach, thinking about how their working career contributed to that welcome rest. Will the Minister ensure that the safeguards are clear and given real prominence in discussion? There is a real need for such fallback powers, but there also needs to be a positive narrative about encouraging engagement. Chapter 1 of part 2 confers powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to evaluate and promote the provision of value for money by pension schemes. It will enable defined-contribution occupational schemes to be compared based on the value they provide, rather than just their cost. There is an argument that too high a focus on cost—management fees, for example—has had a detrimental effect on investment by pension funds. This stems from an approach that says that if the employer chooses a fund simply based on cost, the fund may look to minimise that cost, and may achieve that through the tracker funds that have come to characterise much of the market. That is potentially why little investment has occurred in the UK so far. Therefore, by pushing forward on the value for money agenda, the Minister can encourage more investment in the UK, strengthen competition in the sector, and ultimately offer better returns to members. Chapter 3 of part 2 will require multi-employer DC pension schemes to participate in a default fund of at least £25 billion if they are to be used for automatic enrolment purposes. The aim is to encourage smaller funds to merge into larger ones that are more likely to invest in the productive finances of the UK. I suggest to the Minister that there are two issues here, the first of which relates to the market for assets. In any market, the price of a good rises if there is a shortage of that good. In this instance, the Government are being innovative and asking the pensions industry to invest in productive assets, which can include infrastructure and regeneration schemes that are vital to the places where people live. It is therefore vital that we balance the pace and scale of the development of new profitable investment opportunities with the use of any regulations to push investors in a particular direction. To use an analogy, the Tamworth is a rare breed of pig. Unless an appropriate opportunity were available to expand supply first, any ministerial direction to buy stock of the Tamworth pig would just result in a spike in its price and poor returns for investors.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to speak in this debate. In a former life, I was a trustee of a pension scheme and sat on its investment sub-committee. In my new incarnation, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pensions and growth. Pensions sound boring to many, and they sound far away to the young. It might be easier to engage people if we talk about income in retirement. People are not saving enough; it is typically hard to think about, and it is a scenario that could be 30 years away for some. Albert Einstein said: “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn’t, pays it.” Paying into a pension pot from an early age exponentially increases the pension pot. That is one of the reasons why I am passionate about people understanding pensions—or, rather, their retirement income—and what we can do as a Government to boost them. The sooner we start, the wealthier we can all be in retirement. The Pension Schemes Bill aims to strengthen pension investment by supporting around 20 million people who could benefit from the reforms through better outcomes and greater value in private sector pension schemes, increasing the amount available to them. I support the aim of the Bill to enable the reforms of investment management in the local government pension scheme in England and Wales. The aim of these reforms is to ensure that the management of LGPS investments delivers the full benefits of scale, including greater expertise, better value for money and improved resilience. One of the key engines of growth will be unlocking the potential in our local authority pension funds to direct investment towards the UK and, in particular, local regional development. It is vital that investment reaches beyond those areas that fall under mayoral control. I therefore encourage the Minister, in taking the Bill forward, to foster emerging ideas on how local authority pension pools can help to review potential local investment opportunities to achieve the best outcomes.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. There have been some really interesting changes arising from those countries’ reviews of their pensions markets, and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about what he has learned from those changes. Certainly, in the meetings that we have attended, we have learned a lot about some of the various initiatives that are driving real growth and real change in those countries. I urge the Minister to focus on the process of expanding the pipeline of suitable projects, while building on the Chancellor’s success—and, I am sure, his own—in creating a voluntary framework for industry and Government through the Mansion House accord.

• 3 Jul 2025 · NHS 10-Year Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for this welcome news. The Sir Robert Peel centre, part of the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS trust, is now running at full throttle, with a range of diagnostic services and treatment options. I congratulate the trust and the Minister on opening that community diagnostic centre, which, as part of the NHS 10-year plan, will transform lives and access to speedy healthcare. Will he celebrate this hospital’s transformation to unlock more than 1,000 treatments a week in Tamworth and the villages?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Children with Allergies: School Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  Parents want to know that their children can go to school safely, but they might equally have a reaction when they are not at school; 70% of parents of children with allergies report that they have experienced an absence because of an allergy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast number of difficulties faced by children with allergies and their parents merits the creation of a cross-departmental allergy tsar who could advise the Government on all the ways that allergies affect the sufferer?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  One hundred and twenty-one of my constituents in Tamworth are members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and they have been in touch with me. They ask that their investment reserve be released and used to boost their pensions, just as the Government did with the mineworkers’ pension scheme. That would make a massive difference to former mining communities like Tamworth, and improve their living standards in retirement. May I ask the Leader of the House for a Government statement before the summer recess on the timeline for the release of the BCSSS investment reserve?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving us lots of information on challenges and things that companies should be doing. Roasters café had four different smart meters fitted, none of which worked. When my constituent raised the alarm 12 months in and said she did not feel that the final meter was working, she was told, “It’s absolutely fine—it works. There’s no problem.” As we know, there was a problem; it was not making the readings, and it was certainly not smart. Can the Minister speak about the fact that energy companies are imposing these meters, charging for the privilege of going to check them and then claiming that they still work?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for all the additional details and information on where we are hoping to get to. One thing I learned about was the problem of deemed contracts. When a business moves into a premises, they are put on an assumptive contract, but that has caused lots of problems. The ombudsman and Ofgem have decided that they cannot make any rulings on deemed contracts and when a deemed contract becomes an actual contract, and the issues around the money that is then made. Does the Minister have anything to say about deemed contracts, which contribute to a lot of complaints?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I am so pleased to have had the support of hon. Members; I remark on the stories that highlight some of the regulatory differences across the Irish sea. Caps for business energy, or some kind of cap on deemed contracts, could help to bring prices down without costing the Government and would help to get the market into some kind of equilibrium. The attempt to enforce estimated bills is causing absolute havoc. Enforcement must be a priority for the Government, so I welcome what the Minister said about its being front and centre of the reviews and particularly the recognition that more must be done. We must ensure that there are incentives for energy suppliers to businesses to behave appropriately and stop their malpractice. It is so disappointing that no action has been taken yet to tackle the sector, with no punishment for that poor practice or for the dodgy brokers who are making businesses pay. Those costs get passed on to consumers, and they have made our businesses uncompetitive. It is an abuse of a lax system that is failing every day to protect our valued businesses, so I again call on businesses to fill in my survey and share their stories, and say to them: “Don’t answer unsolicited phone calls; question whether the deal is really a good deal, and help me to call on our Government to continue with the commitments they have made to supporting our SMEs.” This is no time for half-measures and empty promises. Small businesses, the backbone of our communities, deserve protection, fairness and transparency in their energy dealings. The Government have known about this issue since 2013, so I call on this Government to urgently strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman and outlaw back billing beyond six months. I highlight the abuse of deemed energy rates and half-hourly settlement meters, which are causing all kinds of issues for SMEs, which cannot get the appropriate rate even when they have switched to smart meters. Brokers and third party intermediaries must be fully regulated and held to a strict code of conduct. Many people are calling for fraudsters and excessive bad brokers to be driven out of the sector. We need more dispute resolution schemes, particularly for brokers. I also urge immediate empowerment to regulate the sector effectively, whether through Ofgem or the Financial Conduct Authority. I call on energy companies to commit to fair and transparent billing and responsible practices. While the industry waits for stronger regulation, I am committed to working with experts, trade bodies and businesses to launch a trusted kitemark, and to publishing fair energy data. Good brokers typically make between 1p and 1.5p per kWh. We need to create a directory of those reputable brokers that give power back to businesses. Let us act now, before more businesses suffer, before more fraud occurs and before more jobs are lost. One example of excessive profits can be read in law. Expert Tooling had its broker take a 35% profit margin. It paid £125,000 for energy, but the law said that was okay. That is not okay; the future of our high streets, towns and communities depends on decisive action today. Question put and agreed to . Resolved, That this House has considered regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because that is exactly what the report found, yet I will go on to argue that not enough progress has been made to make sure that those business customers are treated fairly. In response to this issue, I have launched a campaign inviting businesses across the country to share their experiences on my website, aiming to expose these harmful practices. I am confident that straightforward regulatory reforms could reduce energy costs substantially without imposing any cost on the Government. No one likes a bully; I certainly do not, and when I see injustice, I want to fix it. Today, I share not only my constituent’s story, but many others. Colleagues here will have heard similar accounts of energy companies refusing to engage, forcing MPs to intervene or send cases to the ombudsman, often without any resolution. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have explored this issue through roundtables nationwide. Time and again, we hear that energy costs are the second biggest burden for businesses after staffing, with many driven to bankruptcy by the exploitative practices of energy suppliers. I thank the Committee for supporting today’s debate to shine a light on this problem. This is not just about one café; it is about thousands of businesses that deserve better. From 2022 to 2024, Ofgem reviewed its non-domestic energy supplier sector. It found that 12% of customers had complained and identified four reform priorities: treat customers fairly; support small businesses; billing on tenancy changes and third-party intermediaries. It updated the supplier licence conditions to enforce fair treatment—but is that working? A freedom of information request shows that only two suppliers have ever been fined for licence breaches; many suppliers do not even report them. In my constituent Sam’s case, E.ON Next breached back-billing rules, but likely never reported it. I ask the Minister when the proposed review of those new licence rules will happen, and whether she can guarantee that it will be rigorous and effective. When will the review of Ofgem itself conclude? There is growing concern that Ofgem is not fit for purpose, acting more like a coach than a regulator. We need an enforcement body with teeth, not one that lets suppliers police themselves. Returning to Sam’s case, my office referred it to the Energy Ombudsman. We were proved correct; E.ON Next had mishandled her account, and she was awarded £200 in compensation—but really, what does a firm have to do to get a meaningful penalty? Threatening to close a business after making mistakes in meter readings, back billing, failing to issue proper credit notes and threatening legal action are apparently not worth any more than £200. Compare that with fines for a data breach—up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. That is a real deterrent. Why is it that, when the domestic energy market is regulated far more effectively, a blind eye has been turned to such appalling behaviour in the commercial market? Hon. Members may be interested to know that, until December 2024, the ombudsman could act only for microbusinesses, those with fewer than 10 employees—any bigger, and the business was out of luck. Since December, businesses with up to 50 employees can now be represented; but, again, the fine is only up to £10,000. I met the Energy Ombudsman to ask how its powers were being used to protect businesses from this wild west of exploitation. Since December, it has dealt with 370 small and medium-sized enterprises in its scope, about half within the terms of reference. Of those cases, most complaints were about suppliers, customer service, billing, sales and back billing. It upheld between 40% and 73% of those complaints. I have serious concerns, however. The ombudsman has never been out to tender and cannot explain how it decides on the maximum £10,000 fine. It appears to have a lack of resources and expertise to investigate complex commercial contracts effectively. Ofgem expects the ombudsman to do that work, but the extended remit has not come with extended expertise. Instead, the system seems designed for volume and profit, but not for protecting businesses from serious harm. A Yorkshire packaging manufacturer was scammed by Renewco, which arranged a fraudulent energy deal with Emirati Energy. The business owner paid every invoice on time to his broker, but a year later Pozitive Energy, also known as PE Solutions, demanded tens of thousands in unpaid costs. It turned out that Emirati Energy had signed a fake contract with Pozitive on behalf of the business, pocketing the payments while Pozitive received nothing. Both Pozitive and the manufacturer were victims of fraud. Who is Pozitive Energy? Its turnover rose by 13% to £1.18 billion in 2024, and its net assets were up nearly 500%. With only 30 employees and £139 million of retained earnings, this is a private company with little transparency. We must therefore assume that it is making around £4.6 million profit per employee. Yet Pozitive went after the small business owner and, despite clear evidence of hundreds of customers billed to one address and mismatched paperwork, it did not investigate until the debts piled up. When the business owner turned to the Energy Ombudsman, he was told to pay the debt anyway. The ombudsman said it was his problem to chase the fraudster. Why should a small manufacturer pay for Pozitive’s failure to vet its brokers? Ofgem does not regulate third-party intermediaries, instead requiring suppliers such as Pozitive to work only with third-party intermediaries in approved dispute resolution systems, giving customers a route to redress if dissatisfied. Pozitive failed to do that—it failed its licence condition. That is not an isolated case; the commercial energy market rewards suppliers for ignoring fraud, because it can demand payment from unsuspecting businesses once scams collapse. Meanwhile, the Energy Ombudsman lacks real powers and often fails to protect victims. I have heard multiple stories of these disgraceful tactics destroying livelihoods. One broker firm is tracking more than 1,100 complaints with E.ON Next alone. It is defending 80 of them in court, in what is effectively a group action over dodgy practices on deemed contracts. E.ON sold the debt on when the lawsuits loomed, and 13 cases have already been struck out as unenforceable. Why is business energy so expensive? When a firm moves into new premises, it is put on a deemed contract until it signs a deal. Legally, those contracts should not carry excessive fees or profits, but in practice suppliers have used them to gouge customers. Some firms were charged £1.60 per kWh during the energy crisis, then locked into multi-year deals with no escape clauses. Even now, some are paying £1 per kWh, when a competitive rate should be around 20p to 25p. Suppliers know exactly what they are doing. They profit by giving brokers hidden commissions: “You can add 1.5p and keep it, or maybe add 2p and give us back a kickback of 0.25p.” Those kickbacks incentivise brokers to push overpriced deals that hurt customers. One product currently offered by Engie has 5p added to each kWh, which the supplier knows is an incentive for brokers to sell its supply over others. Some brokers only work with two suppliers—hardly a broker business by most people’s definition. Suppliers know; Ofgem knows; but small businesses—left with unaffordable bills, faulty meters and unfair contracts—often do not. If we want a fair market, we must regulate it properly. That means honest enforcement of billing, fair profiles on deemed meters, transparent broker commissions, and meaningful redress when things go wrong. Until then, small businesses will keep paying the price for a system that is rigged against them. Suppliers such as npower have taken on small customers and used codes on deemed contract meters to extract higher charges because they knew they could get away with it. They should have chosen not to act for those businesses, but instead they have made huge profits. The Energy Consultants Association estimates that misclassification has generated up to £4.5 billion in excessive, unjustified profits since 2017. Small businesses were locked into unfair contracts from day one, paying inflated rates, with no meaningful correction in sight. I am calling for urgent reforms to protect businesses and ensure that fairness in energy bills is supported, with stronger regulatory powers for the Energy Ombudsman, including higher fines and a wider remit; outlawing back billing beyond six months for business energy customers and greater protections for small businesses against inaccurate and punitive billing. Energy companies must commit to fair and transparent billing systems. There must be a thorough review of debt collection practices within the sector. I call for all brokers and third-party intermediaries to be fully regulated, for the adoption of a mandatory code of good practice to raise standards and for all brokers to become members of a dispute resolution mechanism to protect businesses. The Government must empower Ofgem or the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate brokers. That can only be done with regulation—but it must happen fast. What am I going to do? I do not have those powers, but I have met passionate experts and trade bodies who want change. Together, we will launch a kitemark for responsible brokers, because there are many out there doing good work. It will be fair and transparent. We will publish data on energy rates, so that businesses know what a fair price is when reviewing a contract renewal, and create a directory of brokers who have signed up to a voluntary code of practice, giving power back to businesses. I welcome the Government’s recent move to lower industrial energy prices for high-usage businesses. However, many smaller businesses—the heart of our communities and high streets—are excluded. Those steps are in the Government’s gift to bring down prices, stop fraud and obscene profits, and protect our small businesses. Added to my asks are simple, cost-free reforms such as capping deemed contract rates to stop bad deals being sold as good ones, and ensuring that SMEs get the correct rates on their market-wide half-hourly meters from day one. This Government must back our businesses and make those reforms now. Hon. Members will be amused to know that E.ON Next sent me a final bill when I switched office supply. My monthly usage is around £300. The bill it sent me was £18,000—it mixed up the day and night meter readings, and no sense checks were done. It is time to regulate the sector and to protect and empower businesses, the backbone of our economy. I hope the Minister will have some good news and progress to report on this matter.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. My constituent Samantha Panton opened the Roasters café on the high street more than 35 years ago. Recently, she received a demand from E.ON Next for £10,000, payable within seven days, with threats to disconnect her electricity and close her business, putting 10 jobs at risk. That debt arose because E.ON Next confused her day and night meter readings. Although she had agreed to a £500 weekly payment plan, the company abandoned the arrangement and instead chose to pursue the closure of her business. Upon thorough investigation, including a review of her accounts dating back to 2017, I discovered that E.ON Next actually owed her £4,433. When I raised concerns about its mishandling of the credit notes and breaches of back-billing regulations, my communications were ignored. Without enforcement or penalties, there is little incentive for companies to change their behaviour. That situation highlights a wider problem: energy companies impose excessive charges on small businesses while routinely engaging in questionable practices under minimal regulation. Small businesses have limited resources when suppliers act unfairly.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  HS2 has impacted many residents across Tamworth, with businesses and farmers having been forced to sell their land. One resident has been trapped for nearly 10 years with a property that borders HS2. He is unable to sell because 50% of the land occupies what HS2 claims is safeguarding territory. Despite the involvement of three solicitors, HS2 has failed to explain that ruling. May I therefore ask for a statement to the House on when the statutory blight will be lifted on land no longer needed for HS2, so that my constituents, along with those of other hon. Members, can move on with their lives?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Owen Sutton is 26 and living with a rare brain tumour. He has undergone four major surgeries, had proton beam therapy, and suffers frequent seizures, but despite that, he has raised thousands of pounds, as well as awareness, as an incredible young ambassador for the Brain Tumour Charity. Owen and the charity are calling for a review of research funding, so could we have a statement from the Government on plans to better fund this vital, lifesaving research?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In 1993, my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald tragically lost their daughter Claire and 11 other pupils in a school minibus accident. Together, we have been campaigning to make school minibus travel safer. The NASUWT union found that many teachers are still being pressured to drive school minibuses without the appropriate training, because of a licence exemption for schools. That exemption does not exist for private schools. Will the Leader of the House find time for the House to discuss the issue of school minibus safety?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I will go on to give more detail about the challenges that we are facing, and about the easy option that we have for the Government. I hope that, after today, they will take that forward and I look forward to hearing more about that. Thousands of people still have humanist weddings each year, but to do so, they must also undergo a separate civil marriage ceremony to gain legal status. That frequently imposes a significant financial burden, with weekend civil marriage fees often exceeding £600—a cost that religious couples do not face. The alternative statutory low-cost ceremonies can cost just £57, but they are increasingly difficult to access, with many authorities restricting their availability and location, and even limiting attendee numbers. I can attest to those challenges, because my mother, Rosi, got married this year to her partner, Henry, in England. The limitations placed on the choices available for the civil ceremony were stark, and the restrictions meant that only my brother Joe and I were able to attend. There were just a handful of slots available in a six-month period, so the choice of a humanist wedding would have been welcome. Beyond the financial and administrative burdens, the current dual-ceremony requirement creates distressing ambiguity for couples regarding the true date of their marriage. It is inadequate that the ceremony that holds the most personal and emotional significance for a couple is not recognised as the legal date of their union. Why has legal recognition not yet been granted? Parliament gave the Government the power to introduce legal recognition for humanist marriages through a simple order under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, but the Act required a public consultation before any action could be taken. That consultation took place in 2014 and revealed overwhelming support—over 95% of people were in favour of legal recognition—but rather than acting on that clear mandate and drafting the necessary statutory instrument, the then Government referred the issue to the Law Commission for a broader review of marriage law, delaying the process indefinitely. The main reason given at the time was concern about where those marriages could take place. The then Government argued that allowing humanist or other belief-based weddings in unrestricted locations might be unfair. They pointed out that most religious groups are limited to registered places of worship, and they worried it could seem unfair to non-religious, non-humanist couples who might want the same freedom of choice. Although it is clear that flexibility of location holds particular importance in the humanist tradition, using that as a reason to block legal recognition has always felt disproportionate. In fact, Humanists UK recently obtained a briefing from Melanie Field, who has deep expertise in this area. She was the lead civil servant on the 2013 Act, and before that, the Equality Act 2010. More recently, she served as chief strategy and policy officer at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Her view is clear that “The case for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an Order under the existing power in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, even if done as an interim measure pending wider reform, is overwhelming.” She goes on to say that allowing humanist marriages to take place anywhere would not create new inconsistencies and, in fact, would align closely with the existing rules for Quaker and Jewish weddings. She sees no legal barrier, no disadvantage to other groups, and no reason that the Government cannot act. The decision not to proceed in 2014, and the failure to act since, has meant that tens of thousands of couples have missed out on the kind of ceremony that truly reflects who they are. That injustice continues today. The 2014 decision led to a review in 2015, which led to another, broader review from 2018 to 2022. Each time, the scope expanded. What began as a simple consultation about humanist marriages—something that could have been resolved with a single statutory instrument—has now become a full-scale review of the entire marriage system. Even if that wider reform were worthwhile, it cannot be right that humanists have been left waiting all this time when a straightforward solution has been available from the start. No end is in sight. In the 2020 High Court ruling, following a judicial review brought by six couples, the judge was clear that “the present law gives rise to…discrimination”. The court further stated that the Secretary of State could not “simply sit on his hands”. At the time, it accepted that Government inaction was only because the Law Commission review was under way—but that was five years ago. Is that justification still valid? I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some positive news on the position that this new, progressive Labour Government are taking on the issue, because Labour Governments are at the forefront of moving the dial to reduce inequality across society and have always challenged discriminatory practices. I am proud of that legacy and I encourage the extension of our values to humanist marriages. Let us not wait any more. The previous Conservative Government had ample time to resolve the issue, even after the Law Commission published its findings, yet despite the evidence, the public support and the legal clarity, they failed to act. Now, the responsibility and the opportunity rest with this Labour Government. This is not a complex or controversial reform; it is an easy win. The legal recognition of humanist marriages led to a rise in the number of weddings in Scotland, and it would have excellent benefits for the wedding industry, boosting local economies and supporting small businesses. It will be hugely popular, and who does not love a good wedding? Polls consistently show that the majority of the public and, indeed, the majority of MPs support the legal recognition of humanist marriages. That support is growing as more and more couples are able to choose humanist ceremonies each year. Recognition would give the Government a legacy to be proud of—a legacy on a par with the legislation of same-sex marriage, as a moment of progress, of fairness and of aligning the law with the values of the peoples that they serve. Let us not forget that that is what Labour promised: from 2014 to the last election, the Labour party made a clear and repeated commitment to lay the order once in power. We are keen to do that, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who is unable to attend today’s ceremony but said he would join us post nuptials at the reception, as he wishes to add his support. We request haste to end this discrimination and deliver a change that would give thousands of couples the right to have their deeply meaningful and humanist wedding legally recognised in every part of the UK. I ask the Minister: can we lay this legislation? We have had a very long engagement. Minister, will you marry our ambitions with your Government’s agenda? Can we finally set the date?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this ceremonious debate, the personal stories shared and the tone of the debate. We have witnessed a marriage today between my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), which was a treat for all of us. We have had an incredibly important debate, but we have been waiting. I acknowledge the Minister’s comments, but more than a decade has passed since Parliament gave the Government power to make this change—a change backed by public support, clear legal authority and a strong moral case. The Labour Government have the chance to act and bring an end to this unnecessary injustice. It is slightly disappointing not to hear more clarity on the timeframe. We are asking for equal treatment, fairness and recognition, and it is a straightforward and uncontroversial step to give legal status to humanist marriages. I say to the Minister: let us not wait any longer. The engagement has been long enough. The guests are ready, the vows have been written and the case is clear for finally delivering the legal recognition that humanist couples have waited so long to see. Will she pronounce our humanist marriages lawfully wedded? Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the recognition of humanist marriages.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the recognition of humanist marriages. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, to which Humanists UK provides the secretariat. Many Members present are also members of the APPG. Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to witness the joining of the hon. Member for Tamworth, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), who jointly requested this debate to discuss our wish to see humanist marriages made legal throughout the UK. We are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. Humanists UK trains and accredits celebrants who, just this morning, will probably have conducted at least four weddings and a funeral. I pay tribute to such celebrants, one of whom conducted my grandmother’s funeral, but this debate is about humanist marriage. Why? Because despite conducting tens of thousands of ceremonies every year, including weddings, they are legally recognised in only some of the UK jurisdictions in which they operate, and are not legally recognised in England, Wales or the Isle of Man. Humanist weddings are non-religious wedding ceremonies conducted by accredited humanist celebrants. Humanists UK defines humanists as non-religious people who rely on the scientific method to understand the universe. Humanists make ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern for others, and believe that meaning in life is something that we all discover for ourselves through seeking happiness and contributing to the wellbeing of others. Humanist ceremonies are a manifestation of that philosophy—an expression of self-created meaning and shared happiness. Those ceremonies should be a profound reflection of the participants’ values and beliefs, their relationship, their families and friends, and their place in the world. Central to the ceremony is a focus entirely on the couple, ensuring that it is deeply personal, while remaining inclusive of all of those attending, irrespective of their diverse religious beliefs. Humanist weddings are a manifestation of the couple’s non-religious beliefs and identity, and they are built collaboratively with their loved ones to reflect all of their contributions. It is rare for most non-religious people to express their beliefs publicly, and unlike religious people, there is no compulsion to attend a place of worship on a weekly basis. For those who choose to have a humanist wedding, it is an opportunity for a rare public expression of their beliefs, which makes their wedding feel all the more significant and makes it all the more tragic that such weddings are not legally recognised in England and Wales. In creating such a ceremony, humanist celebrants can dedicate up to 40 hours—sometimes more—to working closely with the couple. That substantial time investment is focused on getting to know the couple so that the celebrant marrying them is not someone who they have just met on the day, but someone who they have a solid, personal relationship with. It is focused on a deep understanding of the couple, their shared values and their feelings for one another, enabling the creation of a ceremony with enduring impact. It is more than the one-time commitment that can be associated with other forms of marriage solemnisation. The location of the ceremony often holds particular significance as well. The focus is on finding the place that will be most meaningful, which could be where the couple met, where they fell in love or where they got engaged; it could be a garden, their local beach or where they go on holiday. For example, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) had a humanist wedding. His partner is Scottish, and he told me that they picked Scotland over England for their marriage partly for that reason, but also because they wanted the marriage to be legal. They got married in the highlands in a place of huge personal significance for them. Humanist marriages have legal recognition in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Ireland and Guernsey, but we have inequity within the UK because Wales and England remain the exception. The Welsh Government have long championed the change, but progress ultimately hinges on the UK Government’s willingness to act. Humanist marriages have proved incredibly popular where they are legally recognised, with more humanist than religious marriages currently taking place in Scotland. The number of such weddings in Ireland and Northern Ireland has also grown enormously, but in England, the lack of legal recognition suppresses the huge demand.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Disadvantaged Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I started my career working for Oxfam, whose mission was to make poverty history. Across the country, including in my constituency, we have seen what over a decade of neglect looks like: community centres gone, local shops shut down, public services underfunded and overstretched. In Tamworth, youth centres were left to crumble—they were not repaired; they were closed—so young people lost a safe space. That is what happens when investment dries up. Since 2012, more than 760 youth clubs have shut nationwide. That is not just a number; it is a message that says, “You don’t matter.” That is how it feels in places such as Glascote Heath, Belgrave and Stonydelph. The Government promised levelling up but the most deprived areas have seen little support, and some none at all. How can we talk about levelling up while cutting back support for the people who need it most? We are the sixth-richest country in the world but, I ask, rich for whom? In my constituency, as a union organiser for over 11 years, I saw people working long hours and relying on in-work benefits. Disabled people are now worried that their support may be stripped away while they face rising bills and shrinking safety nets. I ask the Government to rethink their approach in this area. This issue is about more than just poverty; it is about inequity and exclusion, and how they breed division. Last summer, we saw unrest in Tamworth, communities divided, and tensions that had been building for years. Work must now get under way to rebuild, with the local authorities and the support that goes with them. Let us be honest: inequality cannot be patched over with slogans; it is fixed by investing properly in schools, housing, the NHS and jobs that people can build a life around.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to join my parliamentary colleagues in celebrating the new agreement that our Government have confirmed with the European Union. While the Opposition try to figure out why, all of a sudden, they are against the fishing deal they wrote, working people such as my Tamworth constituents are relieved that they have a Government delivering on what is important to them—cheaper food in the supermarkets, better policing of our borders and less needless bureaucracy getting in the way of free trade. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I am doubly heartened to see that the Government’s work is in line with many of our published recommendations. In feedback submitted to the Committee, the Agricultural Industries Confederation stated: “An SPS veterinary agreement has the biggest potential to positively impact UK agricultural supply chains businesses.” The Government’s phytosanitary agreement will enable our farmers to trade and shave pounds off every weekly shop. In collaboration with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I am actively investigating avenues for reducing commercial energy costs. National Grid estimates that bringing the European and British energy markets into closer alignment could save the economy £350 million a year. I therefore commend the announced link between our emissions trading systems as a positive first step towards reducing consumer and business energy costs. After years of unreasonable Governments embarrassing us abroad and stifling business at home, Britain is back as a proud, sovereign, free-trading nation. While some in this place try to spin a £360 million investment in our seaside communities as bad for fishing, my constituents and I will be celebrating cheaper food in our supermarkets, more efficient energy markets and shorter queues at the airport.

• 20 May 2025 · Pension Savings: Investment Returns · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps she is taking to help increase returns on investment from pension savings.

• 20 May 2025 · Pension Savings: Investment Returns · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister share with me, as chair of the reconstituted all-party parliamentary group on pensions and growth, any plans for how counties that are outside mayoral authorities, such as Staffordshire, could benefit from pension reforms to encourage more investment in the UK, to support infrastructure, jobs and local regeneration?

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  LightSpeed Broadband has been installing infrastructure across my constituency. Disgracefully, it has falsely claimed in communications, including written letters to my constituents, that during a meeting I signed off on its works. That is a gross misrepresentation of the meeting I held with the company to raise complaints about this issue, and this unacceptable behaviour undermines Members and this House. May I therefore request a statement on how the Government are ensuring that corporate companies cannot misrepresent Members, make false claims for financial gain or undermine MPs in their constituencies, and the penalties for doing so? Such company is a disgrace, and I warn colleagues about their conduct.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important debate. This week, we are celebrating Staffordshire Day, which gives us the perfect opportunity to reflect on the cultural contributions of our towns and cities. In my constituency of Tamworth and the villages, we are incredibly proud of our rich heritage—from its origin as the ancient capital of Mercia and the home of the iconic Tamworth castle to its pivotal role in the industrial revolution and the development of the modern midlands. We can all agree that Staffordshire is at the centre of the universe. Tamworth stands as testament to centuries of resilience, innovation and historic significance. Cultural contributions from arts and heritage in Tamworth and across Staffordshire are essential in shaping our country’s identity, enriching our communities and supporting local economic growth. As an arts graduate, I am proud that nationally the cultural sector contributed £35 billion to the UK economy in 2023 and supported around 700,000 jobs. I was saddened that under the previous Government, grants for the arts were cut in real terms, which made decisions challenging for arts organisations and cultural places. Despite those challenges, the sector has shown a remarkable resilience. Between 2019 and 2022, the arts and culture sector grew by 5% in real terms, which is more than double the growth rate for the UK economy. The cultural sector also plays a really important role in promoting community cohesion, education and wellbeing across Staffordshire. In Tamworth, we launched a programme that focused on social cohesion with community-led initiatives, arts projects and educational programmes. Some took place at Tamworth castle alongside Community Together CIC, with heritage-focused workshops and a festival last year celebrating “Athelstan 1100”, which had arts exhibitions, live performances and heritage trails. In conclusion, let me say how proud I am that Tamworth castle museum was awarded £1.7 million; as a museum, it needs funding to support it and the great work that it does. I am really proud to celebrate Staffordshire Day alongside my colleagues here in the House.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member, has heard evidence about the importance of the steel industry, and about the need for primary steelmaking to be retained as a key pillar of UK industrial sovereignty. We have heard that blast furnaces still play a critical role in strategic and high-grade steel production. Does my hon. Friend agree that our economic security is intrinsically linked with our onshore industrial capabilities, and that our Government’s focus on both construction and defence in these uncertain times means that this Bill is very welcome news?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  On International Women’s Day, our community in Tamworth came together to not only celebrate the achievements of women, but reflect on the important issue of the safety of women and girls. Local women Tamanna and Mckenzie took the initiative to organise a walk-and-talk event, bringing together key organisations, including the UP Creative Hub community interest company and Tamworth Street Angels. They had never organised an event before, and they managed to pull together 50 women in just two weeks. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Tamanna and Mckenzie on that fantastic event, and on their dedication to raising awareness of such an important issue?