partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.

Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology

Labour Party

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
646
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
258
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
109
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
14
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
19
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
15
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
2
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q You have talked a lot about adult social care in terms of the very elderly and frail and people with dementia, but it also affects younger people. For example, Swallow Lodge, which is a facility for working-age adults in my constituency, is under threat of closure. I and others have made the arguments about how it is a lifeline that allows the families to have a break and the individuals using the service to flourish and enjoy life, but there is an economic argument too. How well do you think that is understood? Closing such a place could lead to higher costs for the NHS in mental health or physical health support, further social care admissions and the like. Sir Andrew Dilnot: You are absolutely right to emphasise the importance of non-elderly adult social care, which is roughly half of all of the expenditure and growing. One reason that we see particular pressures in the elderly care sphere is that the less-elderly need has grown very dramatically, again because of the scope for increased human flourishing. On the whole, as far as I can see, there is very little understanding of the integrated nature of these costs between social care and the NHS, so I think there is very little thinking in budgetary terms about the consequences of the squeeze on social care leading to increased expenditure and needs elsewhere in the NHS. That is not easy to resolve. Moving to a system that properly integrates those trade-offs will be difficult, and it requires a different sort of funding regime, but while we do not, those costs exist. My sense is that they are second order at the national level, but where they are certainly not second order is for the individuals concerned and their families, for whom this kind of thing is an eruption of anxiety and grief, in the context that families are already under pressures that most of us would find hard to imagine.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Minister, you have previously said: “The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 809.] In response to a written question this week, though, which asked what assessment you have made of the disruption of development of new services caused by the abolition of NHS England, you said: “The abolition of NHS England is causing no disruption to the development of new services.” I wonder which of those statements you agree with the most and whether you want to change your mind in the light of any of the evidence you have heard today. Karin Smyth: I do not know exactly what year you are quoting from, but I am happy to take that full on. Of course, change, reorganisations and changes in legislation have consequences at different times depending on what they are. That will determine changes to some services at local level. I think that quote probably relates to the 2012 changes, which, as I have often said, brought me into Parliament. The entire infrastructure of the health service was destroyed and changed in order to bring forward that legislation. I can never find anybody—I think I have heard Lord Lansley say this—who thinks that was a good thing. I am very happy to say that part of the rationale was the fact that, despite lots of warnings about the damage to that infrastructure, that lesson was not learned. We will not go through the history of the passage of that Act. It even had to be paused mid-way through to enact other ways of making things work. I am sure that you will come back in your second question to decisions about some of the provisions in this Bill. It is true, and a matter of record, that as an incoming Government we did not intend to abolish NHS England as an organisation; in our determination to change the outcomes of the health service, that decision was made some eight months into our being in government. Today, we have not heard a single person suggest that that decision is wrong. Dr Johnson is from the Opposition. The Bill was not opposed in principle on Second Reading. There is overwhelming consensus on the major provision in the Bill—the abolition of NHS England—and on the single patient record. I am mindful, on a personal level, of the consequences for individual people’s jobs and of trying to get that right. I accept much of the criticism from Mr Restell about how it would be better to do it much more quickly, and about making sure that it is done in a different way, but the consequences of abolishing NHS England are some of the things that we are seeing.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q May I press you on the answer to my first question before I move on to the next? In the light of what you have heard today, do you want to correct your statement this week, in response to a written question, that the abolition of NHS England is “causing no disruption”—yes or no? Karin Smyth: In terms of service delivery—I think the written question was about delivering services— I stand by that.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q My next question is about the vision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston spoke earlier about his reforms of the past, and there was a coherent vision to those, but today we have heard that there is not really a plan. On the single patient record and other aspects of the Bill, lots of decisions have yet to be made. You are asking people to move from here to there without specifying where “there” is. Is this ready? Are you trying to get to a landing place that you understand as a coherent vision, or are you just trying to unpick things that somebody did before and that you did not like? Karin Smyth: Do you mean the future state of ICBs?

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    No, I mean the system as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston spoke earlier about how ICBs were designed to link in with upper-tier local authorities, and he gave a reason why. Under these reforms, Lincolnshire ICB, which was part of a mayoral authority, will now link in with Derbyshire and with Nottinghamshire, which are part of another mayoral authority but not a complete mayoral authority. You have things jumbled up. I wonder whether that is because, rather than having a vision, you have started to unpick somebody else’s work because you did not like it. Likewise, with the single patient record, we have heard that lots of necessary decisions were not made before the Bill was introduced, so people are being asked to deliver things that have not been properly considered. Is that fair? Karin Smyth: I think they are two separate things. On the provision made in the Bill, abolishing NHS England brings with it a lot of technical detail to ensure that the legal responsibilities and duties are placed, rightly, on the Secretary of State and into ICBs. It clarifies the landscape on very technical matters such as licences and foundation trusts, and there is a large chunk of detail on the consequences of abolishing NHS England. Alongside that, there is a move to give ICBs a larger footprint, in parallel with the Government’s agenda on devolution. I accept that that is a lot of change in all our constituencies and for all our areas. We are making sure that we make the most of mayoral authorities to allow mayors to be on ICBs, as they are largely determiners of a lot of economic development, transport and indeed the wider determinants of health. We are still going through some of that change; you will recently have been written to for your views on it as local Members of Parliament, along with local government. We need to make sure that that is embedded as quickly as possible so that we can stabilise that side of the system. On the single patient record, the Bill will provide enabling powers to bring it forward in regulations. There will be further detailed consultation both with clinicians and with patients and the public, as we have heard, because building trust is critical. That will come next, which is usual in parliamentary terms: as legislators we understand that primary legislation makes provision and secondary legislation sets out regulation. I thought Dr Byrne was very helpful earlier on the point about bringing public trust with us and explaining the two stages of bringing this forward.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q We have heard a lot about independence: the independence of HSSIB, its ability to independently investigate and independently recommend, and Healthwatch’s ability to independently describe patient voice without interference from those whose homework it is marking. Do you have any reflections on the Bill and what it contains in the light of what you have heard? Karin Smyth: There is a fundamental philosophical, and perhaps political, difference in the approach that this Government are taking compared with what has gone before, in terms of the notion of responsibility and accountability for both commissioning and delivering services, and the position of independence. We talked earlier today about perception and reality. The system has not worked. To my earlier question— I think I said this on Second Reading—we have had what is called an independent voice in some of these bodies for over 50 years, and we have had numerous recommendations. I disagree with Jeremy Hunt on this. Under his stewardship of the new NHS England, we had a plethora of recommendations and new organisations, and layer upon layer of bureaucracy, totally remote from any kind of democratic accountability or oversight. That is not working, and I do not think that anybody is really defending that. It is the job of the NHS—both providers and commissioners—to include patient voice and patient experience in their work. I think Ciarán Devane from the NHS Alliance said that getting boards right, in terms of their managerial, clinical and patient experience work, is their responsibility. Outsourcing lots of that work to other bodies has not worked, and I think it is outsourcing that responsibility. We have to make boards work at a local level; they have to step up to the plate, and I think they want to. They are certainly equipped to be able to do that—not taking into account that people will need some skilling in some of these areas. There is a debate to be had about independent organisations, and I think we will have a good debate on it in Committee. As a final comment before you come back, this is a bit of a bugbear of mine, and perhaps as I am speaking on behalf of the Department I should not say it, but I will: none of my constituents are hard to reach—not a single one of them. We know exactly where they are; we largely know what is wrong with them; we largely know what their health outcomes are going to be; we know their ethnicity, demographics and so on. What are hard to reach are the remote organisations that have not served them well, and that is what we are determined to put right. Putting that right in this Bill is the start of doing that.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentConservativeDr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Second sitting)

    Q The question was really about trust, and how people can be trusting of figures. For example, with Healthwatch, if you internalise patient experience into an organisation, do people then trust you when you say that it has got better? They will have only their own experience and the experience of their own family to work on; that will be the lens through which they look at things. We know that the waiting list numbers have come down, and there is not widespread trust in those numbers, for all sorts of reasons. If the numbers for patient experience are governed by the Department of Health, or the ICBs themselves marking their own homework, will the public trust them? Whether they should trust them is one question, but will they trust them? Karin Smyth: I will come back to the waiting lists, but you are absolutely right about trust. In saying that I expect this to be the board’s job, I think it is its job to get this right, and we need to support it to do that. We heard a bit from Penny Dash about the national quality board and the patient experience directorate inside the Department of Health and Social Care reporting directly to the chief executive and the permanent secretary. That has to be part of the wider architecture, which is of course outside the Bill, so we need to be able to tell that story to the wider public. We know from all the recommendations, reviews and the support that we give as Members of Parliament to our constituents that trust is really important. Getting that right and bringing people on that journey with us will be really important. Independence helps with that, and that it is why it is good to debate it as we consider the Bill—it is good to be able to air some of it—but I think people accept that things are not working and have not been working. I think your question about waiting lists is about the data and the information that says where we are at. It is really complex. To follow NHS England’s data, of which there is a lot—I commend the amount of data that is available—you need to be quite clever at spreadsheets, and at finding and articulating data, in order to bring it back to your own constituency and local place. These things are complex. It is complex to record, track and recognise how people move through a waiting list, for example. It is good that we are transparent about that. One thing that I am keen to push out is data on performance in trusts. Making so-called league tables is controversial, but the more information that we have out there, and the more we have honest debates about how complex and difficult it is—I am happy to take your questions around how that moves in order to for us to explain that—the more that helps to build trust.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentConservativeDr Ben Spencer

    Thames Water

    Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no taxpayer money will be used to bail out Thames Water or its shareholders?

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentConservativeDr Ben Spencer

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    Before I begin, I would also like to make some remarks in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox. I never met Jo Cox. I never knew Jo Cox, and I am very sad that I did not, because having seen the impact she has had on our politics, on this place and on the people who knew her, she was clearly an incredible person. I do not think anyone can disagree with what she stood for, and in particular, that we have more in common in our politics. Our politics is worse off without her. Yet again, we return to this Government’s vacant vacillation regarding our national security. I urge the Minister again to take this opportunity to strengthen UK cyber-security from the threat posed by foreign state actors. Protecting the UK and its citizens is the primary responsibility of Government, but still, in the face of clear evidence of increasing threats, this Government fail to act. The risk of physical threats and the need to invest in defence are clear to all, yet the Government prioritise increasing welfare spending over the safety and security of armed forces personnel and our country. The situation is so serious that the Defence Secretary had to resign, as he could not defend the inaction of this Government or the risks they are taking. While the dangers presented to our cyber-security may be less visible, they are no less real. Hostile state actors are working every single hour of every single day to undermine our democracy and our security. These are risks that every Member across this House will be aware of. It is chilling to know that when Iran shut down its internet access, social media accounts purporting to be pro-independence Scottish people stopped tweeting. Expert analysis has estimated that thousands of similar accounts could originate in Iran and that as much as 26% of such accounts could be fake. Social media is now a weapon. We know that hostile state actors have sought to attack and undermine Parliament. Just last week we were told that spyware had been discovered in Government buildings linked to recent high-profile decisions regarding China’s controversial mega-embassy project in London.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentConservativeDr Ben Spencer

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for the knowledge and experience he brings to the background of that particular case. I entirely agree that it is incumbent on all parties across the House to strengthen our national security and to be clear-eyed about the threat of hostile state actors. I will continue to develop that point in my wind-up speech. The evidence is clear that we face an increasing threat from foreign state actors. We need to take action to recognise those risks and to prevent such attacks. Cyber-security should be at the forefront of our defences, and for that reason, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have focused again on amending the Bill, particularly with new clauses 14 and 15. We table them in the hope that the Government will not squander another opportunity to act in this Bill. New clause 14 would require the Government to directly identify the threats we face, ending the prevarication we have seen in recent months by obliging the Secretary of State to establish and maintain by regulation a list of foreign powers presenting a significant cyber-security risk to the UK. The amendment would strengthen the link between intelligence agencies and policy enforcement, ensuring that decisions by the Secretary of State to deploy special national security direction powers are based on GCHQ’s verified risk assessments regarding hostile states and state-affiliated groups. It is not about reacting after an attack occurs, but creating a proactive framework to evaluate and mitigate threats, built directly into UK supply chains. That would ensure that the UK is better prepared to deal with cyber-threats and attacks from hostile state actors. With the risks continuing to grow, these decisions cannot remain at the political whim of a Government who are reluctant to act. Let us talk about the dragon in the room. In 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre confirmed that China state-affiliated actors were responsible for cyber-attacks on the UK’s Electoral Commission and Parliament in 2021 and 2022, yet this Government continue to refuse to recognise China as a threat to the UK. New clause 14 would compel the Government to recognise formally what is readily apparent to those on these Benches, to our security services and to the many Members across both Houses who have expressed urgent concern about the security risks that China and other foreign state actors pose to the United Kingdom. The new clause would force the Government to acknowledge that China is a threat. In view of this established and growing threat, our new clause 15 would compel the Secretary of State to review state-sponsored cyber-threats to the UK’s infrastructure, including the cyber-security risk to surrounding critical networks in the vicinity of the super-embassy site in the City of London. As I said in Committee, there is simply no point in granting the Secretary of State powers to issue directions on the basis of national security if the Government are not willing to be clear-eyed about the most critical national and cyber-security threats to this nation. The new clause also strikes an important balance between ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and recognising and protecting the sensitive nature of some of the material that may be unearthed, by making provision for such information to be sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I am pleased that, having resisted calls to address this risk during previous stages of the Bill’s progress, the Government have now taken some action to address risks from foreign state actors. The publication last week of their National Security (State Threats) Bill comes in response to a sharp spike in state-backed intelligence operations, sabotage and proxy violence. Their own explanatory notes to that Bill state: “Threats to the UK from foreign states are persistent and take many forms, including espionage, foreign interference in the UK’s political system, sabotage, disinformation, cyber operations, and even assassinations. Collectively these are referred to by the Government as state threats.” However, the Bill itself does not once mention cyber-security, and contains no provision requiring assessment of the risks posed. It does not apply to states themselves, and therefore can only be complemented and strengthened by new clauses 14 and 15, which no responsible Government or Member of the House could vote against. Amendment 3, which would insert a provision headed “Exemption from disclosure: right to a fair trial”, was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). As a Member of Parliament whose constituency includes Runnymede, I am proud both to call him a friend and to work with him on, in particular, his fight for the rule of law and fair trials. The amendment would prevent the sharing of information with overseas authorities for the purpose of prosecuting crimes not committed in the UK, if the Secretary of State determined that the receiving country was one in which the right to a fair trial could not be guaranteed. It would address genuine human rights concerns, and would close a loophole in the Bill that currently fails to anticipate politically motivated requests from authoritarian states. It would help to block hostile state actors such as Russia, China and Iran from probing our systems to detect firmware back doors or vulnerabilities within, for instance, the UK’s utility networks, healthcare systems and data centres. It would also create a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Parliament justifying decisions on which foreign jurisdictions are trusted or barred from intelligence sharing. That alone would be invaluable, and would end the many fruitless hours of questions and debate in the Chamber initiated by Conservative Members seeking a clear answer from the Government on whether they see countries such as China as a threat—per my earlier remarks. I am therefore pleased, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to support my right hon. Friend’s amendment. Let me also pay tribute to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). I thank her for her comments, which were echoed by others, about the risk from the internet of things and cellular modules. That is an important area, and we need to get it right. I will conclude by addressing the amendments tabled by our Liberal Democrat colleagues regarding digital sovereignty and the impact that this approach could have on the UK. New clause 13 is the clearest demonstration to date that the Liberal Democrats do not understand the tech sector or global supply chains. Of course it is right to support British business, but it is not feasible or possible to achieve full sovereignty in a global market or supply chain. Rather, we should prioritise capacities and capabilities, and ensure that the UK has an indispensable role in global supply chains.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentConservativeDr Ben Spencer

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I refer the hon. Member to her new clause 13, particularly subsection 3(c), which makes it very clear that companies would need to deviate from “foreign technologies”, which would be quite a burden. We need to back Britain in key sectors, from quantum and photonics to chip design and innovation. In so many areas, we lead the world. We should not try to restrict the influence and access of global markets. We must engage not in protectionism, but in leverage, to back Britain and position ourselves so that we are indispensable in the modern global tech sector and supply chains.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentConservativeDr Ben Spencer

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I do not want any part of the UK to be subject to the awful AI Act that has been passed by the European Union. Northern Ireland, and particularly Belfast, is a technological powerhouse of which we should be very proud. We need to ensure that it continues to go from strength to strength as part of our fantastic Union. We on the Conservative Benches will not back new clause 13, because we understand how markets and global supply chains work. We believe in Britain.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentConservativeDr Andrew Murrison

    Strait of Hormuz

    Iran has demonstrated that it can close the strait at will, and it probably will threaten to do so in the future when it wants something, so what can we do with international partners, particularly in the region, to engineer alternative routes that will allow oil, gas and fertiliser to exit the Gulf overland, thus neutralising the strait?

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentConservativeCaroline Nokes

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentConservativeCaroline Nokes

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentConservativeCaroline Nokes

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentConservativeCaroline Nokes

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have had no notice that the Government intend to bring a statement, but I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench have heard him, and should that change, we will doubtless hear before the Adjournment.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentConservativeCaroline Nokes

    Business without Debate

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will know that comments made outside the Chamber are not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentConservativeBob Blackman

    Topical Questions

    In Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Pakistani security forces have fired on peaceful demonstrators who were standing for human rights, and the right to food and proper security in their area. More than 30 people were killed, and more than 200 injured, including British nationals. What action has the Secretary of State taken to call in the Pakistani high commissioner and say not only that that is unacceptable, but ask what action is being taken to protect innocent bystanders?

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentConservativeBob Blackman

    Thames Water

    The Secretary of State is absolutely right to put customers at the forefront, but the problem, as she said in her statement, is that this will all take rather a long time to unwind. At present, uncertainty is the real concern for customers, especially the uncertainty about whether they will be charged extra on their bills. The Secretary of State has given a letter to Ofwat, but what specific changes does she want to see in the deal to encourage her to agree to it, so that we can move forward rather than having uncertainty?

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentConservativeAlison Griffiths

    Community Hospitals

    The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about trust and promises being made but not delivered. Twenty years ago, Littlehampton hospital in my constituency closed, with the promise that a replacement health service would follow. In Rustington, there has been a lack of consultation and the hospital has closed; we are hoping it will reopen. Does the hon. Lady agree that consultation, trust and following through on promises are so important?

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentConservativeAlison Griffiths

    Community Hospitals

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this vital debate. I also commend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for sharing her experiences in a community hospital setting, which were really interesting to hear. When I think about community hospitals, I think about trust. I think about the residents in my constituency who lost Littlehampton hospital more than 20 years ago. They were told it would be rebuilt. They were told not to worry. Yet to this day, many local people, like my constituent Sandra, still talk about what was taken away from them. The site is still cordoned off, unused. When local NHS leaders ask my constituents to trust them today, they are speaking to people who have heard those reassurances before, only to see valued community hospitals taken away from them. That brings me to Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington. For many of my constituents across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and our villages, Zachary Merton is not simply a building: it is somewhere they received treatment, welcomed children into the world and visited loved ones receiving palliative care. It is somewhere that provided those services close to home when they were needed most. The decision to permanently close in-patient services and remove beds at this much loved community hospital has caused enormous concern. Residents packed a public meeting that I organised last month. Hundreds more have signed petitions, written to me and contacted my office. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a voice. West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has already determined that closing Zachary Merton was a “significant variation” in service provision. That is vital because Parliament has established a statutory process for a reason. Residents trust those of us who sit in this place to ensure that those processes are followed. We are not talking about moving a cupboard from one room to another; we are talking about the permanent loss of healthcare services. What on earth is the point of Parliament setting rules around consultation if local NHS leaders can simply decide that they do not apply? What is the point of local authority scrutiny committees examining those decisions if their conclusions can be brushed aside? What is the point of telling residents that they have a right to be heard if services can be removed from them before they are ever given that opportunity? That is what my constituents simply cannot understand. Frankly, neither can I. I have formally asked the Secretary of State to call in the decision to close Zachary Merton hospital. I raised it again at Health questions only last week, and I will continue pressing until my constituents get the answers, consultation and respect they deserve. My constituents have heard this story before. They were told that Littlehampton hospital would close temporarily, but temporary became permanent, and 25 years later people still talk about the services that were lost. So when residents are told not to worry about Zachary Merton, can Ministers really be surprised that they are sceptical? Community hospitals should be part of the future NHS, and they should help keep care close to home. They support rehabilitation and reduce pressure on acute hospitals. Most importantly, they give people confidence that local healthcare services will still be there when they need them. They must not become easier places from which to remove services. My constituents have already seen one community hospital disappear. Their trust must not be taken for granted again, either by local NHS decision makers or by this Government. They are determined not to see history repeat itself, and so am I.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentConservativeAlison Griffiths

    Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my constituency neighbour, on securing this very important debate. Access to NHS dentistry is one of the issues that my constituents raise with me most often, and when they do, they are not talking about contract reform, commissioning arrangements or NHS structures. They are talking about pain, cost, worry and ringing practice after practice but still not being able to get an appointment. Anthony in Littlehampton contacted me after being told that he needed a crown. He is on personal independence payment and employment and support allowance. The treatment that he needs would cost hundreds of pounds. His question was simple: how is he meant to afford that? Clare in Bognor Regis did everything that patients are told to do. She remained with her NHS dentist and kept up with her appointments. Yet she was then told that NHS provision at her practice was being reduced and that she would be placed on a waiting list. Jill in Middleton-on-Sea is a pensioner who has spent years trying to navigate a system in which practices close, go private or stop taking NHS patients altogether. She is still trying to find care that she can afford. Those are not isolated cases. They show what happens when NHS dentistry becomes too difficult to access. People wait, put treatment off and make compromises that they should not have to make, and then routine problems become urgent ones. We too often talk about dental care as though it sits separately from the rest of the NHS. It does not. Poor oral health affects confidence, nutrition, wellbeing and wider health outcomes, including in respect of heart disease and septicaemia. One constituent who contacted me, Andrew from Bognor Regis, was undergoing treatment for two separate cancers. Through no fault of his own, regular dental appointments had—understandably—fallen by the wayside while he focused on fighting those illnesses. When he later tried to access NHS dental care again, he found himself in effect locked out of the system—abandoned at precisely the moment he needed support the most. What struck me was not simply his concern about finding dental care, but the wider impact that poor access can have on a patient’s healthcare journey. A patient battling cancer should not also be worrying about whether they can access a dentist. However, there has been some local progress and I would like to recognise it. In Bognor Regis, mydentist is now delivering additional NHS dental activity and offering about 56 urgent appointments each week. That matters. Urgent appointments help people to get treatment when they need it the most, and stop problems becoming even more serious. The local ICB has also confirmed that new NHS dental contracts have been awarded for both Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, with services expected to open next year. That is welcome. But let us be honest: we are not where we need to be. My constituents should not have to become dental detectives simply to find treatment. They should not have to wait until pain becomes an emergency before the system responds. Urgent care is important, but must not become a substitute for routine access. We also need to get much more serious about prevention. That starts with children. It starts in the early years with good habits, education and helping families to understand the importance of looking after their oral health. Prevention is better for patients, and it is also better for taxpayers. Finally, we need to make every appointment count. I recently met Katie Cook, the practice manager at the new mydentist in Bognor Regis, and she told me that around 5% of appointments each week are lost because patients simply do not attend. This is not about blaming people—life happens—but a cancelled appointment can often be reused; a missed appointment cannot. When so many residents are desperate to be seen, that lost time matters. The national dental contract still needs reform, access needs to improve and patients need clearer routes to care when they cannot find an NHS dentist. I will finish by asking the Minister three questions. First, what further steps will the Government take to improve access to routine NHS dentistry so that people are not forced to wait until a problem becomes an emergency before they can be seen? Secondly, what more can be done to support prevention, particularly among children and young people, so that we stop problems from developing in the first place? Thirdly, what assurances can the Minister give that areas such as West Sussex will receive the additional capacity needed to bring down waiting lists and improve access to NHS appointments? My constituents do not expect miracles—they understand the pressures facing the NHS—but they do expect to be able to see a dentist when they need one. They expect a system that prevents problems rather than simply responding to crises, and they expect access to NHS dentistry to be determined by need, not by whether they can afford to go private. That is the standard my constituents deserve, and it is the standard they expect this Government to deliver.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentConservativeAlison Griffiths

    Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

    As this is a debate on dentistry in West Sussex, I invite the Minister to share the numbers that relate specifically to West Sussex rather than to the country.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentConservativeAlison Griffiths

    Access to Dental Services: West Sussex

    In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and in significant parts of Chichester, we have coastal areas. In our manifesto, the Conservative party pledged golden handshakes to attract dentists to coastal constituencies, because we know that is one of the issues. Could you tell please me what specific proposals you have to attract dentists to coastal constituencies?

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentConservativeAlicia Kearns

    Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. The Conservative party supports this order and the sensible operational change that it makes. e-Gates were rolled out across our major airports under successive Conservative-led Governments, with 264 e-gates operating by 2019. They now process the majority of arrivals at our busiest ports of entry, freeing up border officers to focus on genuine threats and concerns at our borders. We lowered the minimum e-gate age from 12 to 10 in 2023, following a successful trial, so we support the Government continuing in that direction. This is a practical change. As anyone who has stood in a Border Force queue at Stansted, for example, on a Sunday night in August with tired children knows, we want to get our children home as quickly and safely as possible. Where changes can be made safely and can ease the burden, we will support them. However, the effectiveness of e-gates relies on public confidence in the system, so can the Minister expand on whether the Home Office will monitor the impact of lowering the age threshold, particularly on processing times and accuracy rates, and the experience of families travelling with younger children? Will the Minister confirm whether the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has been formally consulted on the change, given her work highlighting the challenges that Border Force faces in identifying trafficked children, particularly at ports of entry? Will the Government commit to a review after the first year of operation to look specifically at the ability of Border Force to identify trafficked or vulnerable children at the gates, particularly those subject to modern slavery, and commit to broader safeguarding regarding children at those gates? We recognise the measure is a positive change. Our border must remain welcoming to legitimate travellers and robust against those who try to abuse it, particularly anyone with a malevolent interest in children.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourYasmin Qureshi

    Defence Investment Plan

    I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I find it remarkable that the Conservatives have raised this urgent question, given that under their watch, real-terms defence spending fell by 22% and their own former Defence Secretary admitted that they had left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. We should also reject the framing of this debate. Pitting welfare against security is divisive and corrosive, and we should call it out for what it is. This Government are already spending £62.2 billion on defence this year, rising to £73.5 billion by 2028-29. Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the defence investment plan is published, it will maximise spending with British industries so that every pound spent also strengthens—

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourYasmin Qureshi

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    I welcome the statement regarding the safety of our children online. I am grateful to the young people of Bolton South and Walkden who have shared their views with me. Children should obviously not be an afterthought at the implementation stage, so will the Secretary of State confirm that their voices have genuinely shaped the decision? Will she also assure the House that when these measures are implemented, children will remain at front and centre as the architects of their own online world?

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourYasmin Qureshi

    NHS Dentistry

    I am proud to speak in this debate. I declare that I co-chair the all-parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health. I have been working on this issue for the best part of a decade, raising it with Ministers in the previous Government, and I have to say that the scale of the challenge that this Government inherited is nothing short of a national scandal. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken: the 700,000 additional urgent appointments; the broadening of that definition in February; and the 1.8 million extra treatments delivered in just seven months. These are real achievements, and I pay tribute to the Minister, whom I have always found to be accessible. He and I have had a number of discussions, and I know that he is not just sympathetic to the issue, but very keen to resolve it. However, as he knows, although these steps are welcome, they are just a sticking plaster on a wound that runs very deep. Almost 14 million people in this country could not access NHS dental care in early 2025—that is more than one in four adults in England, and more than three times as many as before the pandemic. These are not statistics; they are people in pain, people who cannot eat properly and people who are even embarrassed to smile. The British Dental Association’s research tells us that 41% of adults now have tooth decay—levels that have not been seen since the 1990s, undoing decades of hard-won progress in oral health. Polling from Ipsos makes for truly shocking reading: people across this country who cannot get an NHS appointment have been forced to pull their own teeth out. In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, that is just not acceptable. How did we get here? Since 2010, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on dentistry has more than halved, from 3.3% to just 1.5%. That is the direct result of 14 years of the previous Government—£1 billion gone, and patient charges hiked by over two thirds. In 2023, the Health and Social Care Committee branded the dental contract “not fit for purpose”; both the Public Accounts Committee and the Nuffield Trust have said the same. Yet the previous Government for 14 years did nothing about it. After the Tory Government recovery plan was found by the National Audit Office to be off track, this Government have tried to change things. The new patient premium cost £88 million, but produced no measurable improvement in access. Just last week, we learned that despite the offer of a £20,000 golden hello, just two dentists in Greater Manchester signed up to do NHS work. That tells us how broken our system is. I want to raise a specific injustice that was brought to my attention by the Epilepsy Society. Around 630,000 people in this country have epilepsy. A third have uncontrolled seizures and fall without warning, often face-first, breaking their teeth again and again. Harriet, who is 29 years old, has six missing teeth, including her front teeth—top and bottom. After she broke her NHS dentures three times in a single year, her dentist has refused to issue another set. She can barely speak clearly, she struggles to eat, and every time a seizure strikes she faces a new bill for the damage she could not possibly prevent. A broken arm caused by a seizure is treated free in hospital; a broken tooth caused by that same seizure incurs significant expenditure. There is no medical exemption for epilepsy-related dental damage, but there should be. I urge the Minister to look specifically at that in the short term before going on to the full dental contract. What is the cost of fixing it, and why do we need it? The British Dental Association estimated that it would take about £1.5 billion a year to restore NHS dentistry to a universal service. When the Chancellor announced £29 billion for the NHS in her statement on the spending review, I asked her whether any of that money could be set aside for dentistry. Sadly, it has not been, and no additional money has been set out for dentistry. Catching decay early is far cheaper than an emergency treatment, prevention in children costs a fraction of what we spend fixing the damage in adults and a workforce who stay in the NHS are definitely cheaper than one who walk away. We need a new contract that breaks decisively with units of dental activity, prioritises prevention and makes NHS dentistry a place where talented professionals want to build their careers. The Government have announced a public consultation for this summer, which is great news, but we need a timetable and a firm deadline for a new system in this Parliament. We cannot kick this into the long grass again—13 years of that was quite enough. As I said, I have been raising these issues for years. I sat in rooms with Ministers and heard warm words but found nothing changed. I do believe that this Government are different and that the Minister is serious—I have had many discussions with him, and he has met the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health a number of times—but that seriousness must be matched with urgency, and that urgency must be matched with investment. The people of Bolton South and Walkden and people across the country deserve to see a dentist without waiting years and without pulling their own teeth. They deserve a Government who will finally fix NHS dentistry. I urge the Minister to please urge the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to give it the utmost priority. Let us resolve it once and for all.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    I will chunter from a standing position shortly.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening it and for rightly highlighting and celebrating the fall in pensioner poverty, while noting that that is no grounds for complacency about what happens in the years to come. I also thank the select but high-quality group of hon. Members who have chosen to speak and to share their insights, and the honourable members of the public who contributed their own voices to the debate by signing the petition. As we have heard, over 100,000 have done so. I suspect that many more people would have at least shared the sentiment behind the petition of wanting to support our pensioners in retirement. This Government certainly do. The real question is how that is best done. Do we have clear enough priorities that can be delivered on, and delivered on at times when there are many other competing pressures? Our priorities as a Government, when it comes to supporting pensioners, are twofold: raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS. The foundation of the vast majority of pensioners’ incomes is, of course, the state pension, which we have heard a lot about today.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Our approach is to increase the basic pension and the new state pension in the years ahead, because pensioners, as well as the population as a whole, have seen living standards pressures in recent years. As her constituent’s case shows, the foundation of not all but the vast majority of pensioners’ incomes is the state pension. The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 over this Parliament, reflecting our manifesto commitment to uprate via the triple lock throughout this Parliament. I enjoyed the discussion of the triple lock and the praising of the raising of the level of the state pension from the lows we saw before. It is interesting that—one, two, three, four—four Conservative Members neglected to mention that the pension had to be rescued because of policies put in place by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Decoupling pensions and leaving the uprating significantly behind the level of earnings in the population is why we saw pensioner poverty rates rise to 30% over the course of the 1990s. Everyone has limited time and there is only so much we can choose to—

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    Of course. I look forward to the denunciation of the hon. Gentleman’s previous Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    He was not my predecessor, because I am the Pensions Minister and Gordon Brown was never a Pensions Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman know who was? Margaret Thatcher. Gordon Brown oversaw big falls in pensioner poverty. Why? Because he introduced pension credit in the early 2000s. That then drove the huge falls in pensioner poverty that we saw in the 2000s, supported by increases in private pension savings that came through during those years. So, yes, I do endorse the record of that previous Chancellor, even though he is not a predecessor of mine. Hon. Members will know that the basic and the new state pensions increased by 4.8% in April; I think it is a matter of cross-party consensus that that is a good thing. It will boost pensioner incomes by up to £575 a year. We are also protecting the poorest pensioners with a 4.8% increase in the pension credit minimum guarantee.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    It is for the Chair to decide what is appropriate, but I will come on to the question of fair rates of tax. We should be clear and transparent in how we talk about this issue: any increase in the rate of the state pension is always significantly greater than any increase in tax that follows from that increase due to our not having tax rates of over 100%. It is important that we are heard to say that to people. I will come on to the rates of tax in a second. It is obviously an important part of this debate, given the nature of the petition. The single biggest betrayal of older generations today is not anything to do with pensions. It is the state of the NHS that we inherited: an NHS that our pensioners in particular rely on and that in 2024 was letting far too many of them down. Here is one fact that it is hard to get over: over one in five of those aged over 75 were on English NHS waiting lists, which soared to over 7 million. One in five people over 75 were left on an NHS waiting list. That is what letting down pensioners looks like, and our priority is to turn that around. The number of those waiting has fallen by over 400,000 since we took office. That progress reflects reform, but it also reflects resources, with £26 billion additional investment supporting 5 million appointments. The need to turn around the NHS is something that I think we all agree on. It is slightly telling that there was no mention of the NHS in the previous contributions. As I am also a Treasury Minister, it is my job to remind all hon. Members that we can will the ends, but not the means. As always, that applies particularly to the Liberal Democrats, who gave up connecting the two several years ago. Delivering the funding to raise the state pension and rescue the NHS involves choices. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked about one area in the welfare space and about choices there. I gently say to him, having seen the work of the Department under the previous Government, that there was no plan then. Under the current Opposition, there still is no plan to change the welfare system, but they also claim that changes to the welfare system would fund their proposals on defence and on tax. It is implausible that they would make any difference in this area.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourTorsten Bell

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    I apologise to the right hon. Member for underselling him, but I think that he is also underselling the work that this Government are doing. Changes to the flawed welfare system that we inherited are already taking place. In April, we reduced the financial incentive put in place by a previous Conservative Prime Minister that provided people with a strong incentive to label themselves as too sick to work and therefore did not provide them with any employment support whatsoever. We are bringing forward other measures month by month. Members will see progress in the next few months, in terms of offering people support if they hire young, unemployed people. Changes are happening right now. I have discussed the choices on the welfare side. Given the nature of the petition, I want to come on to how those choices include tax, because those who made the effort to sign the petition deserve to know where we stand. Not a single Member set out their views on the petition’s proposal clearly, but we owe some honesty about that for the quality of the debate. The reality is that no political party will deliver a doubling of the personal allowance for pensioners. If any Member disagrees with that, now is the moment for them to stand up and set out their support for the petition, but I suspect all Opposition Members will agree. Why is that? It would come at a very substantial fiscal cost of several billion pounds each year. That is inconsistent with the priorities I have set out, including on the state pension and the NHS, which I think most hon. Members share. Too often, debates on this topic do pensioners an injustice by pretending that most of them are not already paying income tax. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) said a little about that, but the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) explained the situation exactly: the system, as it was set up, has always been that state and private pensions are taxable. The vast majority of pensioners are already paying income tax; over 80% of pensioners were doing so by the end of the previous Conservative Government. The question is whether we can keep the contribution that is asked of pensioners—and workers, for that matter—down by making other changes to our tax system. That is what the last Budget focused on: making the system fairer by asking those who can afford to contribute more to do so, not least by taxes on those with the most valuable properties. As he has done in many of our interactions, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest opposed some of the changes that we set out on inheritance tax, salary sacrifice and the rest, but that would mean less money for the NHS or higher tax rates on pensioners, workers and others—there are consequences to our choices. It is true that we have extended the personal allowance freeze that was put in place by the previous Government. That reflects the need to protect the state pension, rescue our NHS and make sure that public finances are put on a sustainable footing. I am not hiding from the consequences of that policy decision, but the UK has one of the most generous personal tax allowances in the OECD and the G7. It is important to note that our income tax system is progressive; it is not about just who comes into tax but how much tax people pay. Those who have more contribute more, which is exactly as it should be. The impact of the freeze is that higher rate taxpayers, on average, will contribute roughly three times as much as a basic rate taxpayer; the majority of pensioners who pay tax do so at the basic rate or not at all. Although I have been honest that doubling the personal allowance for any particular group is not a remotely realistic prospect, our tax system recognises pensioners. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned the 2010 Government’s record on the triple lock, but he slightly missed the abolition of the age-related personal allowance, a very generous version of which the petition calls to have brought back. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) praised the coalition Government but somehow also forgot to mention the abolition of the age-related personal allowance. Our tax system recognises pensioners in other ways, not just by that position, which was abolished under the coalition Government. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, those over the state pension age pay no national insurance. Older generations also tend to benefit most from the multiple tax allowances, not least the £1,000 savings allowance for basic rate taxpayers. The personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic state pension and the full new state pension this year, but, as several hon. Members have set out, the Chancellor has also promised that we will ease the administrative burden for pensioners so that they do not have to pay small amounts of tax via simple assessment from 2027-28. I have heard hon. Members’ requests for more detail on that in the near future, and the direct answer to the question from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is that those changes will be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill. I recognise the substantial support for the petition, which is as it should be. Pensioners who have worked hard all their lives deserve a decent retirement. The best way to deliver that is for this Government to continue their work to rescue the NHS and increase the state pension throughout the course of this Parliament, and, as we look to future generations of pensioners, to put in place a stronger private pensions system. That is what the Pensions Commission is looking at right now, which I think has cross-party support, because we want to know that tomorrow’s generations of pensioners will also look forward to the retirement we all want to see them enjoy.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourTom Rutland

    Brain Cancer

    This is an issue close to my heart, because I lost both a friend and a mentor in the late, great Tessa Jowell to this dreadful disease. Brain cancer has also impacted many of my constituents and their families, including Lorna, who is currently supporting a family member through her diagnosis. So, given that there are 13,000 new cases recorded each year and research spending lags behind need, does the hon. Gentleman agree that much more must be done to deliver better and more effective treatments?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourTom Collins

    Topical Questions

    T7. The Department for Education has recently released new guidance for local authorities on the role of family hubs. It describes a significant departure from conventional delivery models; there will be a high degree of network and partnership delivery, not only with public bodies, but with the voluntary sector and businesses—a change in culture that will improve all areas of local authority delivery. What measures might the Department consider to foster and facilitate networking and best practice across local authorities, and will the Minister meet me to discuss how the all-party parliamentary group on family hubs, which I chair, might help to deliver that culture change?

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourTim Roca

    NHS Dentistry

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, and he has mentioned dentistry challenges in his area. Like other Members, he has talked about the contract, which currently rewards activity rather than prevention. Is that one of the changes that he would like to see?

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourTim Roca

    Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire

    As the Minister will know, the proposed route runs through Macclesfield, so I have a number of constituents and communities who are concerned about it. They have questions that we should accept in good faith—questions about the route, about public safety, which the Minister is coming to, and about the environmental impact. Does he agree that they deserve proper and full answers to those questions? There should be a proper and full consultation.

    Hansard source