Fuel Duty

Adam Dance Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry]

My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned.

Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty in line with the retail prices index since 2011 has brought real-term cuts for motorists for 14 years, and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 2011-12 and 2024-25. The additional 5p cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has alone cost £13 billion since then.

The fuel duty freeze has been regressive. It has helped the richest tenth of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest tenth. The fact remains that the poorest people, who can afford no holidays whether or not the Government agree to this motion, are not driving or owning cars. Yet through all this time the cost of bus and rail travel, upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely, has continued to rise.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I completely understand what you are saying about public transport, but in rural communities, such as mine in Somerset, there is no public transport, so how can someone get to college? How can someone get to work? How can apprentices actually get a job? What you are saying is great, but that is a 10-year plan. We need action now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Start again.

[Adam Dance]

I apologise for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Member agree that that plan is for the next 10 years? We need change now. We need fuel duty sorted out now.

[Siân Berry]

I have not yet outlined my plans; I have merely complained about the rising cost of bus and rail fares that has accompanied continued freezes in fuel duty. I will move on to my next point.

I am very aware of the manospherical gender ratio there has been in the Chamber throughout the debate, and that is pertinent to this point. Hon. Members must remember that, in any given family with a car who are just about managing, the poorest and most disadvantaged members of that family will most likely be the spouse and children of the main driver. Those people, in any part of the country, including in rural areas, often have little or no access to the basic mobility that a car can provide. They are dependent on good public transport services—often absent. They are dependent on safe streets—often absent. They are dependent on transport services to access their jobs, daily lives and essential services when the car is in use by the main driver. Members should not forget that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Of course the war increases the risk. The Americans chose to go into that war and that is now having an impact on all of us. The question under debate is what are we doing about that and what measures are being taken. We are discussing fuel duty, which, as it stands, the hon. Gentleman’s Government will increase in September.

I have asked the Government to talk about the framework and the trigger points. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that increase is under consideration, but we need to know when that consideration will be made and what the trigger points are, because, as I rightly highlighted, we have seen all this before in 2022. We know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, the park homes and the people living off grid.

The fifth point that the Prime Minister made earlier this week was about de-escalation, but he has no control over that if he says that he is not involved in the war. I am all in favour of de-escalation, but that is not a domestic policy that will bring down the cost of living—nothing tangible can come from that stance.

Why does this all matter so much? I live in and represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural. We sit in the very heart of England, at the centre of the logistics industry. That means that every single day men and women from across Barwell, Earl Shilton and Donisthorpe get up, drive their vans, go out and drive their lorries, and support the economy.

[Adam Dance]

My constituent Sam works in a local haulage company. He tells me that the average profit margin for a company like his is 2%, while the cost of running a typical lorry has increased by 22%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must support rather than damage this industry that we rely on to deliver essential goods, starting by cancelling the plan to increase fuel duty?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Road Haulage Association has estimated that the fuel duty change will involve about an extra £2,000. On top of that, the change will hit the individual householder or car owner by about £140. The Government talk about making a difference, for example with the warm home discount or freezing energy prices, but those measures will already have evaporated given the very nature of the fuel duty escalation, on top of the prices that are rising because of Iran. People who work in the logistics industry are very susceptible to these fluctuations. It is right that we all want to move to electricity, but that is not going to happen immediately. I do not disagree with many of the arguments about the direction that we need to take, but the question is: what can we do now in the light of the reaction from Iran?

My constituents do not have the choice of walking or getting a bus, because we are a rural constituency and they rely on their cars. This increase will hit their cost of living by the very nature of the way it comes in. Let us contrast that with the 14 or 15 years of Conservative Government. That is usually the stock answer we hear from Labour Members. Gosh, 14 years! Yes, for 14 years we froze fuel duty because we recognised the impact it had on our households, on the white van man who is out working, on the delivery driver and on the lady who is driving from Hinckley to take a package up to Appleby Magna. Those people really need that support, and the change that we made and delivered had an impact.

Youth Unemployment

Adam Dance Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right. That ratio of 1:8 is too high, and it grew a lot in the last few years. She asks about discussions with young people, and she makes a really important point. When I talk to young people, they tell me that they want to work and make the most of themselves; they just need a platform that will help them. In every part of the programme that we have brought forward today, whether it is the apprenticeship changes, the help for the long-term unemployed, the short apprenticeship courses or the hiring bonus, the motivation that I have had is to give young people a platform on which to stand and take the next step in their lives.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

People with special educational needs and disabilities are more likely not to be in employment or training. It is great that the new apprenticeship incentives will include recruitment for 19 to 24-year-olds with education, health and care plans, but a majority of people with SEND leave school without one. Will the Secretary of State set out what specialised support will be on offer to young people with SEND without EHCPs who are looking for work or apprenticeships, as well as what new guidance employers will get?

Level 7 Apprenticeships

Adam Dance Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered level 7 apprenticeships.

In the interests of transparency, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before entering Parliament, I taught architecture at the University of Bath and I ran an architectural practice. As my entry states, I still hold an advisory role with the university and I am in the process of winding down the business. I have additional connections in that I was a Wiltshire councillor on planning committees. It will therefore come as no surprise that I am deeply committed to both education and the built environment. In addition, I represent a rural constituency in the west of England, which has no university, but does have an outstanding college of further education, Wiltshire college and university centre, with strong apprenticeship programmes.

A recent Government assessment identified acute areas of deprivation across all four towns in my constituency, driven in large part by limited access to education and skills. For many young people in rural areas, apprenticeships are the only realistic route.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Investment in level 7 apprenticeships is so important. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to keep up investment in vocational education facilities, and will she join me in congratulating Yeovil college, which has been awarded more than £2 million in Government funding to upgrade its engineering facility? That is the kind of investment that we need more of.

[Sarah Gibson]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s congratulations to Yeovil college.

The option to study while earning is crucial to reduce barriers, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is distinctly the case for architecture—an industry that historically has been run by a narrow, predominantly male, section of the middle class, and where the apprenticeship route has begun to make a real difference. Benchmarking by the Royal Institute of British Architects shows that apprenticeships have achieved a far better gender balance than the wider profession has ever seen, with level 7 entrants last year almost at parity.

Neurodivergent People: Employment

Adam Dance Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of supporting neurodivergent people into employment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have secured this debate on an important topic and I want to acknowledge that neurodiversity has a huge range of impacts. Many neurodivergent people need no support with employment, while those with certain learning disabilities need significant support.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenges neurodiverse people face with employment often start at school, and that we need universal screening for neurodivergence, alongside proper teacher training, so that our fantastic teaching staff are given the tools and confidence to identify and support all their pupils?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree with my hon. Friend that recognising neurodivergence in school and giving support at an early stage is incredibly important. As I said, I want to make the distinction and recognise that neurodivergent people and those with learning disabilities are distinguishable groups, both of which I will speak about.

Over the past year, I have visited many fantastic businesses across my constituency and have been struck by how many are going above and beyond to forge pathways into the world of work for people with learning disabilities. I want to share some of their success stories today.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Adam Dance Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

I will vote against the Bill today because my Liverpool Riverside constituents deserve better, disabled people across the country deserve better, and the Government need to do better for disabled people.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I wish to speak in favour of amendments 12, 13 and 17, and Liberal Democrat new clauses 2, 3, 6 and 7.

The Bill has been an absolute shambles from the start; there was no consultation with disabled people, and there has been last-minute chopping and changing. The Timms review and the removal of the PIP elements of the Bill are welcome, but the process that got us there has left disabled people in Yeovil fearful, and with little confidence in the Government. For example, my constituent Noel has unfortunately been unable to work due to a degenerative condition. He receives universal credit and has been left deeply distressed by the proposed changes; he visits my office almost daily for support. He is not alone. So many people in Yeovil have made it clear that the proposals are just unfair.

The whole point of the Bill, as far as I can tell, was to get people back into meaningful work and lower the welfare bill—things that I think we all want—but at no stage has the Bill done what is needed to help get people back into meaningful work: address the crisis in our NHS and social care system, and our growing chronic health issues. I have constituents who would have ended up homeless as a result of the original proposals, and now, without a full impact assessment, we do not really know what effect the Bill will have on our constituents. I am really concerned that people with Parkinson’s and conditions like MS will effectively be excluded, as a result of the criteria, from the higher rate of the health element of universal credit. At the very least, I urge colleagues to support amendment 17 to address that.

The original Bill was supposed to save around £5.5 billion, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the amended version will deliver basically no savings over the next four years, as over that period, the forecast savings from reducing the universal credit health element for new claimants will be offset or exceeded by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance. What is the actual point of this Bill?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend and neighbour’s constituency, like mine, is extremely rural; he will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is four to five times higher than it is in urban areas. PIP allows people to live independently. Both my hon. Friend and I see integrated care boards that are under extreme financial pressure. We will end up paying one way or another—we might as well give people the independence to live freely while we do it.

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. We will see a huge impact from ICBs having to make a 50% cut. We are already seeing the impact in Yeovil, as hon. Members will have heard me say. The maternity unit has had its funding cut, and is being shut for six months.

The Bill was not produced with disabled people; lots of its content is being removed; there is no impact assessment; and the Bill is not likely to make any real savings. This tells me that the Government should go back to the drawing board, and either withdraw the Bill, or adopt the Lib Dem amendments and new clauses that require proper consultation and impact assessments. Either way, the Government must stop making decisions about disabled people without them.

I thank some Labour Back Benchers for having a backbone and voting against their Government in support of disabled people. I hope they do so again today.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I rise to disagree with Opposition new clause 12, which would indefinitely block the provisions of the Bill. I am speaking today not only as the MP for Beckenham and Penge, but from personal experience, as one of the few Members of this House who has been a recipient of the higher rates of the disability living allowance and mobility allowance, and having relied on a Motability car throughout my teenage years. I will speak to why the provisions in the Bill are so welcome, and to the damage that the Conservative new clause would do to it.

First, this legislation and the wider debate we are having do not exist in a vacuum. The Bill cannot be separated from the impact of more than a decade of savage cuts to our NHS and community care services, which have led to what one NHS manager describes as “medieval” levels of untreated illness. In poorer parts of the country in particular, community care has been decimated, and A&E attendance has almost doubled since 2010. This country now has the lowest life expectancy in western Europe, one of the highest rates of preventable deaths among rich countries, and one of the lowest numbers of neighbourhood nurses and GPs per head among wealthy nations. The dismantling of preventive care has not only brought our NHS to the brink; it has done more than anything else to drive the increase that we are discussing in the number of people who are on health-related benefits and who are disabled. I can speak to that from personal experience.

When I was 13, I had an accident in which I shattered my right hip. It left me unable to walk for four years. I needed nearly 10 major operations on the NHS at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, and when I was a sixth former, I became one of the youngest people in the country to have a hip replacement. When I had my first hip replacement in the 2000s, under a Labour Government, the average waiting time for a hip replacement in Britain was under nine weeks, although, thanks to the staff at the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, I was seen even quicker. I then received excellent rehabilitation care, with hydrotherapy every other day.

After 14 years of Conservative Government, the waiting list for a hip replacement has trebled from nine weeks to 27 weeks. That is up from two months to more than six months. It is not uncommon in Britain today to wait up to two years for a hip replacement, and rehabilitation services are non-existent.

This situation is replicated for other treatments. The Nuffield Trust notes that there was an increase in waiting times of nearly 300% for respiratory medicine services under the previous Government. The ballooning of NHS waiting lists and the list of people on health-related benefits go hand in hand, so we cannot divorce progress on the issues that we are discussing today from progress on the NHS. We are already seeing great strides forward. Following record investment from this Government, our NHS is on track to achieve a target of 92% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. There has also been investment in rehabilitation services, such as hydrotherapy, which are essential.

We must also understand this debate in the context of cuts to other community and preventive services, including programmes such as Sure Start. I was very proud to have had the opportunity to work for Tessa Jowell, who created Sure Start under the last Labour Government. Tessa understood the importance of a child’s first 1,000 days, and designed Sure Start as an early intervention programme, which had a significant and positive impact on the long-term outcomes for hundreds of thousands of families and children in this country. The programme was savagely cut by the previous Government in one of the most short-sighted and cruel things that they did over 14 years. That has led to increased hospital admissions. Evidence shows that young people who had access to Sure Start were more likely to be in very good or excellent health.

Alongside this investment and the great progress that this Government are making on health, we also need to reform the DWP and the systems around health-related benefits in this country. That is why opposing new clause 12 is so important today.

I want to touch on what happens when a person has had medical treatment and is looking to get back into the world of work, and also on the right to try, which is in the Bill. In essence, the Bill says that trying work will not trigger a PIP award review or work capability assessment. The importance of this is borne out in research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published in November last year, which said that almost three quarters of work-related disability benefit claimants whom it surveyed cited a fear of losing benefits as a significant or very significant barrier to work.

The right to try matters, because people with a disability or a significant health condition often will not know what they are capable of doing until they have tried to do it. They may not know what adjustments they will need to get back to work. Eight years ago, I was told that I would need a series of operations on my ankle and knee, followed by a second hip replacement—a revision to the one that I had received a decade earlier. After this, I optimistically thought that I would be able to return to work five days a week in the office as soon as I could walk unaided. I was not able to do so; it would take several months for me to do that again. I was fortunate that I had been with my employer for several years, and I had six months’ unpaid leave, which allowed me to try and initially fail to get back to work. However, for anyone relying on support from the DWP today, the reality is often very different.

We have a perverse and inflexible system in this country, which has been designed to penalise and issue sanctions, rather than incentivise and provide support. It is a broken welfare system, designed by the previous Government, that is failing people. It traps people by telling them that the only way to get help is to declare that they will never work again. It creates a climate of fear—a fear that if they try to work, they will lose their support. This Government are absolutely right to challenge and reform the system, and I am fully behind them doing so. If implemented well, the right to try will make a really big difference to getting people back to work, and will go some way to dismantling the fear that surrounds the DWP for disabled people. It is a positive measure that will empower disabled people, rather than patronise or infantilise them. It has been campaigned on for decades. It is long overdue, so I am pleased to see it in the Bill.

Finally, I wish to touch on co-production. I am pleased to see it in the Bill, but new clause 12 would block it. Co-production brings people together. It leads to policy that is more person-centred and effective, and outcomes that are more equitable and sustainable. It is not only essential in all conversations about disability policy, but particularly important when legislation passes through a Chamber like this one, which so starkly under-represents the voices and lived experiences of disabled people.

Although disabled people make up 20% of the population, only 2% of MPs are disabled. I think everyone in this Chamber has received an A1 print-out of an election map. I have one in my office. The top right-hand corner of that poster lists the women, ethnic minority, and LGBT MPs, but it has never been lost on me that there are no disabled MPs included.

Disabled people are a marginalised minority who are so often overlooked in every corner of public life. As we look to reform our welfare system and the institutions across society, I hope we will stick true to the principle of co-production so that services and policies are designed and implemented in a way that empowers disabled people and meets their real needs.

Disabled People in Poverty

Adam Dance Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

One of the most common reasons why people claim PIP in Yeovil is poor mental health. Does my hon. Friend agree that to support vulnerable people’s mental wellbeing, the Government must urgently change course on the proposed cuts to PIP and introduce proper staff and accessible mental health hubs in every rural community?

[Edward Morello]

I absolutely agree. The costs for disabled people who live in rural areas include more expensive journeys to access healthcare, unreliable and sparse public transport, and higher energy bills for heating homes that are often older and less efficient.

Hundreds of my constituents have expressed their concerns to me over the last few months, and I have retold some of their stories in this Chamber. Each one represents a wider failure. The Government’s own analysis shows that the proposed changes to PIP will push 300,000 people into poverty. About 150,000 carers stand to lose carers allowance due to the knock-on effect of losing PIP eligibility, harming those who care for the most vulnerable. I urge the Government to change course.

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Adam Dance Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

In Yeovil, 7.9% of working-age adults claim PIP, which is higher than the average for the south-west. For my constituents, PIP is not some kind of luxury; it allows them to live their lives, manage their disabilities, go to work and do daily tasks that people without disabilities can do. For example, one constituent told me that

“we are terrified of becoming homeless if these cuts go ahead”.

The Government’s proposals are likely to result in rising child poverty, and that is just not good enough. Many of the changes detailed in the Government’s new Green Paper seem to be financially driven. That is simply wrong; Labour should do something about that.

The assessment process has to change, especially assessments over the phone, which have left my constituents unable to express their needs and get the support they are owed. The Government cannot make decisions about disabled people without consulting them. Over the past decade, we have seen under-investment in our social care system, which has to change. If it does not, there will be no meaningful drop in the welfare bill.

In conclusion, it is right that we bring down the welfare bill, make Britain healthier and give all our constituents meaningful work, but that cannot come at the expense of the most vulnerable.