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

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

1. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   Short-term Lets: Licensing

   Last week I met representatives from 22 town and parish councils who were all deeply concerned that new Government policies are curtailing their power over planning decisions, and concerned at the lack of truly affordable homes for locals. I understand the Government have a house building target, but the housing crisis in South Devon is exacerbated by the spread of second homes and holiday lets, removing even former council homes from the market and leading to a shortage in rental properties. However, we do not know the true extent of the issue without the short-term let registration scheme. When will the Department introduce the register, so that we can control short-term holiday lets in our rural and coastal towns?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   Social Media Ban for Under-16s

   I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly the bit about communication with strangers and chatbots, and I am sure that the parents of South Devon will join me in doing so. However, we know from Australia that an outright ban does not give the big tech companies the incentive to redesign their platforms to make them less addictive, misogynistic or full of toxic, divisive misinformation, so how will the Government continue to pressurise and incentivise the tech companies to make these changes? As she says, there will always be children who circumvent the ban, and there will also be vulnerable adults and older adults who are victims of such misinformation.

   Hansard source
3. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   NHS Dentistry

   Does the hon. Member agree that the national golden hello scheme to attract and retain NHS dentists is just not working? Only four of 19 posts in Devon have been filled, and the Fresh Dental practice in Dartmouth will end the provision of NHS dental services at the end of June. It will no longer provide NHS care and is the last dentist in the town. It says that it has tried to recruit for years but cannot fill the positions. It says: “It has become increasingly difficult to maintain the NHS contract in a sustainable way.”

   Hansard source
4. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Cameron Thomas

   Brain Cancer

   Zoe Wilson was a well-loved English teacher, a dedicated mother to her two boys, John and Mark, and wife to Matthew. She was the kind of neighbour who delivered fresh baked goods to your doorstep. Will my hon. Friend remember her with me, and thank Matthew for his continuing work, ever since losing her, for better outcomes for others?

   Hansard source
5. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Cameron Thomas

   Defence Investment Plan

   I want to put on the record my respect for the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). Both served in the roles they relinquished last week with the sincerity and integrity that those roles demanded. Each should be commended for putting the needs of our country before their own this past week, citing the Government’s underwhelming commitment to defence investment—of course, the rest of us will just have to take their word for it. I also have great respect for the incumbent Secretary of State for Defence. I know that he is with the King this week and is unable to explain what it is about the Government’s approach that inspires him but not his predecessor. In his absence, can the Minister explain when we will see the defence investment plan that he has now been left to front?

   Hansard source
6. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Calum Miller

   The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I welcome this legislation; if we needed any further explanation of the need for it, the terrible events and attacks over the weekend, which the Minister has already referred to, provide us with that. Allow me to add my party’s admiration for the personnel involved in the first interdiction of a shadow fleet tanker over the weekend. This legislation is long awaited: I am reliably informed by my noble Friend Lord Purvis that since March 2022 he has called no fewer than eight times in the other place for the loophole on refined products paid for in third currencies to be closed. I am glad that we finally have this legislation before us. I note that the licence on these refined products was initially not time-limited; as the Minister has said, it has now been rendered so. I understand that the Minister and his colleagues in the other place met Lord Purvis, and that Lord Purvis wrote to the Minister seeking a firm end date. I ask the Minister three things. Will he kindly deposit that correspondence in the Commons Library, to make clear the constructive exchange that took place? Will he confirm that the licence will end no later than 1 January 2027? Will he also confirm that the licence remains under review and could be suspended prior to that date? I also understand that businesses now operating under the LNG and refined products licences have to notify the Government that they are operating under that licence. Can the Minister state whether notifications have been made since the entry into force of the regime? If not, will he agree to let us know in writing and commit to a monthly update on the notifications made for as long as the licences remain in place? We must continue to isolate Russia as the rogue state that it is. That means taking robust action to ensure that sanctions are not sidestepped. Since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, it has been necessary and appropriate to implement a wide range of sanctions against both individuals and companies. Liberal Democrats want to put a stop to oligarchs from corrupt regimes channelling their money through the UK by beginning the seizure of frozen Russian assets in the UK, with proceeds being repurposed to finance support for Ukraine, so that we can stand with Ukraine even if US support wavers. We also want action on releasing the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club for the benefit of Ukrainian civilians; the proper resourcing of the National Crime Agency; and the closure of loopholes on economic crime legislation that allow Putin’s cronies and other kleptocrats to continue funnelling dirty cash into our country. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a complete prohibition on UK companies providing maritime services, such as insurance, for Russia’s export of fossil fuels. The scandal of UK plc helping to facilitate profits for Putin’s war machine must end. To conclude, will the Minister confirm that the Government will keep all sanctions on oil and gas products, and on professional, maritime and banking services, under review, and bring forward further packages that choke off Russia’s revenue streams?

   Hansard source
7. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Brian Mathew

   Russian Shadow Fleet

   I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and thank him for his statement. I also thank our brave Royal Marines for undertaking this action. It has been reported in the press that our entire hunter-killer fleet is out of the water, being repaired and maintained. Is that true? When will these submarines be back on duty and defending our seas?

   Hansard source
8. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Brian Mathew

   NHS Dentistry

   In my constituency of Melksham and Devizes in Wiltshire, in two years only 29% of adults were seen by dentists. Only 56% of Wiltshire’s children are seen by an NHS dentist each year, which is a figure of shame, given that the NHS recommends that children be seen regularly from their very first tooth. Nationally, the picture is just as bleak. According to NHS England, over 12 million children across the country did not see an NHS dentist at all in the year to June 2024. The consequences are severe. Tooth decay is now the leading cause of hospital admissions for children aged six to 10 in England, with over 35,000 children admitted each year for tooth extractions under general anaesthetic. Those risky procedures are almost entirely preventable. The lack of access to dental services across the country has a devastating knock-on impact on our country’s overall health, evidenced by rising levels of oral cancers in the UK. These include cancers of the tongue, lips, gums, tonsils and throat—the eighth-most common cancer in the UK, with nearly 12,000 new cases recorded in 2023. Eddie Crouch, chair of the British Dental Association, has pointed out that dentists are on the frontline of detecting those cancers before they turn fatal. With early detection, oral cancers have a survival rate of around 90%, but if diagnosis is delayed that drops to just 50%. The ongoing crisis in NHS dentistry is therefore not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of life and death for some patients. The previous Health Secretary was right when he said that cancer survival should not come down to who won the lottery of life. I urge the Government to heed his words and act with urgency to end the dental deserts, restore children’s services before a generation grows up without routine care, and rebuild the services that catch those cancers early and save lives. Lastly, on Ukrainian dentists who could be working for the NHS, will the Minister acknowledge their qualifications and allow them to practice here? The current situation is ridiculous, with a professor of dentistry in my area, for example, reduced to working as a dental assistant.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alison Bennett

   Social Media Ban for Under-16s

   I welcome the Secretary of State’s realism in accepting that the bans announced today will not be 100% perfect. Can she tell me what proportion of under-16s the Government expect will be prevented from accessing social media?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I beg to move, That this House is concerned about NHS dentistry; notes that over a quarter of a million people have signed a petition calling for urgent action to save NHS dentistry and make it fit for the 21st century; regrets that nearly 14 million people were unable to access NHS dentistry in England in 2025; welcomes the Government’s commitment to both tackle and rebuild dentistry for the long term; and calls on the Government to set out a clear timetable for the fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract, and to improve retention of NHS dentists and access for patients across the country. Around 14 million people, or one in four people, were unable to access NHS dental care in early 2025. Some 56% of children in Somerset did not see an NHS dentist in 2025. We are all seeing scenes that we would expect to read about in a Charles Dickens novel, not read about in the news, hear about from friends, or, if you are an MP, hear about almost every day from constituents. I have heard from 15 parents directly who have recently taken their children to hospital with dental issues. One local told me that her 86-year-old father was in so much pain that he pulled out his own teeth because he could not get dental treatment. I have heard from a military family and a pregnant woman who could not find NHS dental treatment. To highlight the scale of the problem, a local dental practice told me that every day, it takes in at the very least 10 to 15 unplanned emergencies, compared to two or three a few years ago. The situation has got so bad that some locals are telling me that it is cheaper, sometimes by hundreds of pounds, to fly to Spain to get dental treatment—and a tan, of course. One couple who lived in Thailand for a while even told me that when they came back to the UK, they worked out that it was easier and cheaper to stay registered in Thailand, and to go back there to get dental treatment. I mean, that is just insane! Over 93% of respondents to a survey of locals that I carried out recently were dissatisfied with the availability of NHS dentistry, and 69% of parents I surveyed said that getting an NHS dental appointment was either very difficult or impossible. It would be easier to pull teeth. Like many Members of this House, since being elected, I have been doing all I can to fix the issue. Luckily, we have had some real successes. After finding underspend in dentistry budgets in Somerset, I worked with our local NHS to open new dentists in Crewkerne and Chard. As a result, and with the new practice in Wellington, NHS dentistry has been brought to 20,000 extra people in Somerset, which is good news. However, the underused dentistry budget has fallen by 91% across the country. That means that there is not enough money to open new NHS dentist practices through underspend, which is a real problem, as we need NHS dentists in Yeovil, Ilminster and the rest of my constituency. It is not as if the workforce was not there. While the number of dentists registering to provide care in the UK has gone up to around 47,000, we are seeing the number of NHS dentists fall. Only around 25,000 dentists are doing some work for the NHS.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to that issue later. During covid, people missed appointments, and then got completely taken off the dental list. One local working in dentistry summed it up perfectly when they told me that, “NHS dentistry is in terminal decline.” Patients have had to either go private or go without a dentist. Just before the general election, I had a £1,600 bill for a root-canal filling that needed to be redone. I was fortunate, in that I could afford that, but many people would have had to have the tooth ripped out. In a cost of living crisis, this is more than a problem. In my public survey, 87% of respondents rated private dentistry as unaffordable. To be fair, the Government have made a good start by providing 100,000 urgent dental appointments. That is great, but the target is 700,000. I find it worrying that the Government seem to have quietly dropped their promise to deliver 700,000 more dental appointments by broadening the definition of “urgent” dental appointments for clinical reasons.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I totally agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to that point later. I hope the Minister can clarify my point about broadening the definition of “urgent” dental appointments for clinical reasons, and I am happy to give way if he wants to do so now.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I will move on, but if the Minister could remember to address that question later, it would be most helpful. On urgent care, we Liberal Democrats would go further by introducing a £750 million dental rescue plan and flexible commissioning, which would guarantee an NHS dentist for everyone needing urgent and emergency care. I welcome the Government’s work on prevention, and particularly the support for supervised toothbrushing. I have raised this with the Minister before, but schools in my area rightly pointed out that when all the tasks that teaching staff have to do are factored in, sometimes getting the toothbrushing scheme in place is not possible. Schools in my area have had their own ways of promoting good oral health, but I also understand the drive to support and manage this nationally, so will the Minister meet me to hear from schools in my area, and talk about what we can do to support them without adding more burdens?

    Hansard source
14. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour. I will come on to contracting later, but he is completely right on that point. Dentists in my area are asking why there is no funding for them to do school visits, as they would be happy to come in and support. We also need to look more broadly at the way we inform families. What makes people in Yeovil really angry, however, is that we have all known for years what is wrong. We have an underfunded system with an NHS dental contract from 2006 that just does not work—100% of respondents I surveyed from dental practices in Yeovil said that the contract is not fit for purpose. Just about everyone agrees with that, as we have heard today. The biggest issue is units of activity, which are like tokens that the NHS gives to local dentists to use each year. The system basically sets quotas on the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS. If they go over that quota, dentists are not paid and will have to cover the cost of material, lab work and other overheads. One of the biggest problems with the system is that it underpays for treating patients with complex and high needs. The Government’s recent changes are a welcome first step, with new care packages for patients with very high needs, and higher rates. NHS Somerset is doing all it can and has increased units of activity by 10,000 from 2025-26.

    Hansard source
15. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I completely agree with the hon. Member on that point. We have seen that in my constituency and others in Somerset: one place will be on a higher rate, and another place will be on less. Ultimately, we need to get rid of that system if we want more NHS dentists, and look at alternatives, such as the weighted model suggested by the Health and Social Care Committee. But that is not all. One of the frustrating things that I found when we were setting up a new NHS dentist in my area is that dentists cannot prioritise locals. The dental contract means that people do not register with a dentist as they do a GP; they can attend any dental practice that is taking NHS patients, even if the practice is based miles away. That is because, technically, people are only with a dentist for as long as a course of treatment, which means that if someone lives in Yeovil, Crewkerne or Chard—or in the rest of my constituency—they do not have the right to be permanently registered with their local NHS dental practice. When we got the new practices open, there was no guarantee that locals who needed a dentist most would get one. That is madness. We had people travelling 200 or 300 miles to come to one of our new dental practices, and someone a mile down the road could not sign up. What is the point of opening a new dental practice in our area if it does not benefit all—or even half—of the people there? That part of the contract also means that to stay with their NHS dentist, someone needs to have six to 12-monthly appointments to keep their spot. That meant that a lot of people lost spots during covid. Local providers, the NHS and I are doing our best locally, but there is only so much we can do within those rules. I urge the Minister to make reintroducing permanent patient registration rights a priority in contract reforms. Even then, without proper funding such changes will not work. Since 2010, the amount of the NHS budget spent on dentistry has more than halved. Integrated care boards, which oversee local NHS services, have also been making serious budget cuts, with 50% of their staff having to be made redundant. That has left us in a situation where we invest less of our health budget in dentistry than any of our European neighbours, according to data from the OECD. At the same time, dental practices in Yeovil tell me that the cost of materials, energy and labour have gone through the roof, while missed appointments or last-minute cancellations are costing practices a fortune. We need the Minister to set out how the Government plan to fund NHS dentistry properly. Will he also set out what steps he is taking to support dentists with day-to-day costs, particularly in relation to resourcing and cancellations? There is one other big issue that we have to address: getting dentists to work and stay in rural areas such as Somerset. Mark, who is about to retire after 39 years as a dentist in Yeovil—thank you for your hard work, Mark—has been saying to policymakers and the press since the mid-1990s that we would end up in exactly this situation if we did not attract dentists to places like south Somerset, which lose out because NHS dentistry tends to be concentrated around dental training schools and urban centres. It is therefore a good start that the Government will require younger dentists to work in the NHS after graduation for around three years, but that is only a short-term fix, just like the golden hello bonus—another one-off fix. We need to write proper workforce planning for health and social care into law, including projections for dentists and dental staff. Similarly, the Government’s recent announcement of 50 new dental school places from 2027 is great, but that is a rise of only 6%—a drop of water in the dental Sahara desert that is the south-west. I think it is fair to say that dentists trained in Portsmouth will probably stay around there and instead of coming to fill demand in Somerset, which is a real tragedy because as a community we have so much to offer. I invite the Minister to come to Somerset to talk with us about how we can get that across to dentists. Ultimately, we need fundamental changes to the NHS contract, how we fund it and how we recruit. Of the local dentists I surveyed, 100% said that they were not satisfied with the Government’s progress on improving the NHS dental contract, while 82% of the public I surveyed rated the Government’s performance on NHS dentistry as poor or very poor. Two years into this Government, we are still waiting for proper changes to the NHS dental contract; if we factor in early discussions, consultations and then actually drafting and proposing the thing—we all know how long those things take—I am sure the Minister is aware that if this is kicked down the road any further, the Government will not be able to deliver on their promise to roll out a new NHS dental system by the next election. I urge the Minister to provide a clear commitment to getting the consultation on fundamental reforms done this summer, no matter how distracting a new Secretary of State, a by-election and a change of Prime Minister may be—let us get on with it. I hope the Minister will also use this debate as an opportunity to go further and provide a clear timetable for when formal negotiations will start, as well as a firm deadline for rolling out the new system in this Parliament. I know that the Minister is committed to getting this right, and that he is working with a difficult brief, but there seems to be a disappointing trend emerging with this Government, whether in social care, defence, investment or dentistry: if it is hard, kick it down the road. We were promised change, so please work with us to deliver that. I do not want to have to be back here in a year or two, reporting that things have got even worse in Yeovil.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    There is always a dig like that from the Labour Benches. Look, that was back in 2010. I was 18 at the time—I turned 34 on Saturday. Things have changed. The hon. Gentleman’s Government is in power now, and they are making a bit of a mess of a few things at the moment. This is something they could be really proud of; they could deliver change for the people of this country who voted for them. Get out there, make change and get their teeth sorted.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    Like me, the hon. Member represents a rural constituency. Does he agree that this issue affects us a lot worse in rural areas? We do not have universities close by to train dentists.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    I thank the Minister for all his replies to my questions. Can he give me a timescale for when the contract will change? He also mentioned to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that Somerset is an outlier, so will he take me up on an offer to visit Somerset?

    Hansard source
19. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    NHS Dentistry

    It is late; I will be quick, so that we can all go home, brush our teeth and get some sleep. I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, my co-sponsors —the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford)—and the Minister, who I hope will follow up on what we have discussed today. I will leave the House with my survey results again: 100% of dentists in Yeovil constituency and 82% of the public are not happy with the progress that this Government have made on fixing NHS dentistry. Let us roll up our sleeves, work across parties and finally get it fixed. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House is concerned about NHS dentistry; notes that over a quarter of a million people have signed a petition calling for urgent action to save NHS dentistry and make it fit for the 21st century; regrets that nearly 14 million people were unable to access NHS dentistry in England in 2025; welcomes the Government’s commitment to both tackle and rebuild dentistry for the long term; and calls on the Government to set out a clear timetable for the fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract, and to improve retention of NHS dentists and access for patients across the country.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Brain Cancer

    Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should clarify more details of the funding announced, the funding allocated and the funding actually paid out under the existing funding plan since 2018, and should work harder to speed up the distribution of funding, not just the amount of funding that is in the pot?

    Hansard source
21. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Topical Questions

    Many councils, especially Brighton and Hove, with hundreds of acquisitions since 2017, are doing their best to buy, as well as build, their supply of new council housing. More family homes can be provided, and the speed of the benefits gives it a different Treasury business case. Will the Secretary of State help me win the Chancellor’s support for the idea of a massive, new dedicated “buy the supply” fund for councils?

    Hansard source
22. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    I very much agree with the Secretary of State about the gravity of the risks and the need for urgent action to protect young people’s wellbeing online. It is often the most vulnerable young people who are most likely to be exploited online, but it is also often the most vulnerable young people who use online channels to seek support for their vulnerabilities. Will she assure the House that action will be taken to support the most vulnerable young people, and does she agree that addressing the hollowing out of social services is a crucial part of that?

    Hansard source
23. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    NHS Dentistry

    It is a pleasure to co-sponsor the debate. In my constituency, registering with an NHS dentist as a new patient has become extremely difficult, if not impossible. East of England has the lowest number of NHS full-time equivalent dentists per head of population. When Ministers say that the system is improving, I ask them to picture the reality for patients in rural communities: people travelling miles, sometimes for hours, for appointments, ringing dozens of practices without success, and waiting until pain becomes unbearable before seeking urgent care. Leanne from Halesworth told me that it took three years to find an NHS dentist, while her children still cannot access NHS care. Another constituent, Michael from Dickleburgh, spent more than £2,000 on private treatment after being unable to access NHS treatment. Ministers have admitted that NHS dentistry has only enough budget for fewer than 40% of adults to be seen over a two-year period. The principle that an NHS service should be available to everyone is in tatters when it comes to dentistry. The Government have emphasised urgent appointments, but without additional workforce and funding, there would be fewer routine appointments, undermining the Government’s own prevention agenda. The British Dental Association estimates that the NHS dental budget has been cut by a third in real terms since 2010, reducing the allocation to 1.5% of the overall NHS budget. Further funding will clearly be needed to restore NHS dentistry as a universal service, yet when the Chancellor announced £29 billion of additional NHS funding in the spending review, the Minister indicated that none of that would likely be allocated to dental services. Delayed routine care leads to greater pain, more complex treatment and higher costs for both the patient and the NHS. Nowhere is that clearer than in children’s oral health. Tooth decay is the leading cause of hospital admission among five to nine-year-olds in England—a totally shocking fact Dentists do not grow on trees. I am delighted that, following many conversations, the University of East Anglia will begin training students from 2027. However, the truth is that, at UEA and nationally, not enough funded places are being provided. The previous Government promised a 40% increase in dental training places, but no funding was attached either for training those additional clinicians or for commissioning the NHS dentistry workforce that they would eventually join. The current Government have announced further expansion of dental school places, which I welcome, but the funding remains inadequate.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    NHS Dentistry

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who made an excellent speech in introducing this debate. Rural communities lose out so often when it comes to health services, and the decline they have seen in dentistry is a strong and worrying example of that. Unless NHS dentistry becomes a place where clinicians can build sustainable careers, new graduates will continue to drift away from NHS practice. If NHS work is too costly for dental practices to deliver, we should not be surprised when surgeries replace NHS service with private care. The Government must pursue contract reform and ensure that dentists are funded for the work they do, with a strong emphasis on prevention. The crisis in NHS dentistry will continue to deepen if immediate action is not taken. If the Government are serious about targeting dental deserts, East Anglia should be one of the first in line. I ask the Minister to do four things. Will he commit the funding needed to restore dental services? Will he support innovative therapist training models, such as Suffolk’s model? Will he review and reform NHS dental contracts, as promised? Will he commit to boosting the dental places in our region, and providing the places that we have lacked for decades?

    Hansard source
25. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    NHS Dentistry

    I thank my fellow hon. Member from Suffolk for giving way. He will be aware that the University of Suffolk is running training for dental therapists and hygienists, who are an important part of the jigsaw. The funding model is broken, because training a therapist receives support of only £5,000 a year, compared with £36,000 a year for dental students. Does he agree that that disparity needs to be addressed?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Topical Questions

    How can it be justified for a unitary authority to be formed that rips the waterside away from the New Forest, and places it under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton, when the building blocks of the new unitary authorities were stated by the Government to be the existing areas covered by district and borough councils?

    Hansard source
27. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence Investment Plan

    I know the Minister accepts that I have criticised successive Governments for not spending anything like the 4.5% that Margaret Thatcher used to spend on defence at the height of the cold war throughout the 1980s, but does he accept that the service chiefs have made an objective assessment of the Government’s own strategic defence review, and have arrived at the conclusion that the sum of £28 billion is necessary to implement it over, I believe, a four-year period? If he accepts that, how can he possibly go along with an offer from the Treasury of less than half the total needed?

    Hansard source
28. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    This has definitely been the Secretary of State’s finest hour. I am only slightly disappointed that, for reasons of his own, the Prime Minister chose to upstage it in Downing Street. Can she tell the House what the main reasons are in Australia for reports—admittedly according to AI—that as many as 61% of young people are getting around the restrictions? Will she be working jointly with the Australians to try to get that down to a more acceptable level?

    Hansard source
29. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Russian Shadow Fleet

    May I wish the new Secretary of State the best of luck in his new post and express the hope that the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him on his first outing is not too symbolic of what has perhaps been going on in backrooms behind the Treasury? On the question of the seizure of the ships, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a possibility that Russia may in response start to think about escorting such ships by means of warships? This would, of course, expose Russia’s hand very much more clearly, but it does bring a whole element of possible escalation into play, including the possibility of Ukrainian strikes against those ships. We all know how successful Ukraine has been in the Black sea, and it might end up doing something similar in the Baltic sea and beyond.

    Hansard source
30. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    NHS Dentistry

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Dental Association, which has supplied an excellent briefing to many right hon. and hon. Members for this debate, is in no doubt at all that it is precisely the 2006 contract that lies at the heart of the problem? The BDA states that it wants two things from this debate: one is a clear timetable from the Government as to when they will start to renegotiate that contract; and the other is a firm deadline for the roll-out of a new system in this Parliament. Those are the two things that we have been invited to press the Minister to deliver at the end of this debate.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    NHS Dentistry

    Does the Minister accept that there is a high degree of unanimity in all parts of the House about this terrible situation? Does he also accept that the British Dental Association traces this back to the 2006 contract? What it wants to know is: when are the formal negotiations on a new contract going to begin, and what is the date of the Minister’s deadline to introduce the new system in the lifetime of this Parliament, as promised in his general election manifesto?

    Hansard source
32. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Russian Shadow Fleet

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome the action in the channel. He will be aware that last night saw one of the biggest attacks yet on civilian buildings and people in Kyiv, and included damage to the historic cathedral there. He will also be aware that dual-use technology is still arriving in Russia via third countries. We heard today from the Ukrainian Speaker about washing machine microcircuits that were supposedly going to Kazakhstan being found in Russian missiles falling on Kyiv. Will the Secretary of State look again, with his colleagues, at what further action we can take to stop this technology being used to kill more people in Ukraine?

    Hansard source
33. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    I am pleased to support the revival motion before the House today. It is about 11 months since I moved Second Reading of the Bill last year. At that stage, it had already completed its passage through the House of Lords, and it was given a Second Reading without opposition. It then went into the Committee on unopposed private Bills, and the panel met in March this year under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Committee approved the Bill subject to an undertaking given by the Royal Albert Hall, which I will come back to. I do not want to repeat all of the speech I made on Second Reading, but I do want to set out again why the Bill is so necessary and beneficial, and not just to the Royal Albert Hall but to the many people who enjoy performances there. The Royal Albert Hall is one of our most important cultural institutions. There can be few people in this Chamber, or indeed the country, who have not enjoyed performances at the hall—either live or broadcast—including the last night of the Proms, the Festival of Remembrance, Cirque du Soleil and, tonight, Elvis Costello. I should declare that I served as a trustee of the Royal Albert Hall, appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, from 2018 to 2020. I was one of five independent trustees, and I also sat on the conflicts committee, which is an extremely important part of the management of the hall, and to which I will return. As a result, I gained a good understanding of the way in which the hall operates, and I saw how the council works to fulfil the charitable purposes of the hall. The hall has operated successfully for 150 years, and to explain why this Bill is necessary, it is important to appreciate its history and the model on which it is based. The hall was the idea of Prince Albert. Sadly, he died before he could see it completed, but the corporation was set up in 1867 in his memory, and the hall was built and opened by Queen Victoria less than four years later. The initial funding for the building of the hall came from the commissioners of the Great Exhibition, but it was insufficient, so the remainder—the gap that needed to be filled—was met by payment in return for seats in the hall. It is perhaps a unique model of public-private partnership. The hall has around 5,500 seats, of which around 1,250—just under a quarter—are privately owned. Those seat holders are members of the corporation, and in some cases those seats have been passed down through families across generations. Others have been bought by charities, companies and individuals when they have come up for sale. Ownership of a seat brings with it the right to attend certain performances—but not all—and the members elect from their ranks 18 out of the 23 trustees who run the hall. They also make a significant financial contribution each year through what is called the seat rate, which is currently around £2,250. That is an ongoing commitment of the seat holders to the continuation and the costs of the hall. On top of that, it has always been the case that seat holders agree to forgo their tickets for events held in the hall on just over 100 days each year. By giving up that right, the hall therefore has the tickets available either to offer to the promoter or to use for its own purposes. By doing so, it can attract higher artists, so it is of considerable financial benefit to the hall that the seat holders behave in that way. The practice of agreeing to forgo the right of using a seat is not covered expressly by the constitution of the hall; it is voted on and agreed by the members that they should do that. However, there has been a suggestion of legal challenge from a very small number who do not like the fact that a majority of the seat holders have voted accordingly to give up the right, so there is now legal uncertainty and a risk as to whether the Hall can continue to offer as many tickets as it does to what are called exclusives, where all the tickets are available for use by the hall. That legal uncertainty has resulted in several options for the hall, none of which is particularly palatable. It could continue to operate on the present basis, but it risks defeat in the courts, should that legal challenge be sustained. Indeed, failure to pass this Bill may encourage those seeking to challenge the current situation. The alternative is that the hall could revert to having exclusive performances only to the number permitted under the existing constitution. That probably means losing around 40 exclusive lettings in a year out of perhaps 150. The Bill is necessary to allow the existing practice to continue, to the benefit of the hall. If the Bill does not pass, the chief executive has calculated that it is likely to cost the Royal Albert Hall around £1.8 million.

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    I will make a couple of points to my hon. Friend. As I have said, I not only served as a trustee, but sat on what is called the conflicts committee. The conflicts committee has a majority of independent members—not of seat holders—and it is there to ensure that any decisions taken are done properly. While it may be the case that conflicts exist, that in itself is not a problem, so long as there are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that the current situation is not abused. Certainly no evidence has ever been suggested, as far as I am aware, of seat holders seeking to take decisions for their own benefit, rather than for the good of the hall. If they did do that, the Charity Commission would come down on them rapidly, so there is an existing control around that issue. My hon. Friend is right that concerns have been voiced about how the hall operates. When the Bill went through the House of Lords recently, an amendment was passed relating to the resale of tickets, which is the other issue that some Members have raised. It was suggested that seat holders, if they wished to sell their seats, should be required to do so through the hall’s own ticket resale mechanism. Many do choose to do that, but the problem with that is twofold. The first is how the resale mechanism works. It pools the takings and redistributes them among all seat holders. If not all seats are sold, that could end up costing seat holders money. The second problem, which is more fundamental, is that these are property rights. It is the legal right of the seat holder to decide whether to use the seat himself or herself, to pass it to somebody else, or to sell it. It is a fundamental property right. To meet the concerns that were expressed, and the amendment that was made in the House of Lords, the hall offered an alternative undertaking, which is that each year those trustees who are seat holders and had sold tickets during the course of the year would have the amount of money that they obtained as a result made public. Through that, there would be greater transparency, with anyone able to see that those seat holders who become trustees are not exploiting their position in that way. That undertaking was accepted by the panel of the Committee on unopposed Bills, and hence that undertaking is now being given by the hall in place of the amendment. This Bill is about one question alone: the ability of the hall to go on with the present practice, whereby seat holders go above and beyond the number of events or days where they agree to give up their rights and put more into the pot to the benefit of the hall and the public. If the Bill does not pass, there is a real risk that the entire model on which the hall operates will be undermined.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    We are talking about very few events where tickets are sold at a much greater price than their face value. There will be some. The problem with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that, at the end of the day, we are talking about somebody’s right as a legal owner of a property to decide what to do with it. The seat holders have been extremely generous in the level to which they agree to support the hall. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I agree with each other on many other occasions—we sit next to each other on the Foreign Affairs Committee—but on this we are on opposing sides. She has suggested, for instance, that the hall has benefited unfairly from the Government and the taxpayer because it received a loan of around £20 million during the covid pandemic. I was a Minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport during covid. The cultural recovery fund amounted to £1.5 billion. If that had not been put in place, the entire cultural landscape of this country would have collapsed. In the vast majority of cases, the funding was grants. Cultural institutions—theatres, museums, galleries and music venues—were given grants by the Government, ranging from the Royal Opera House through to the Hot Box in Chelmsford, which I occasionally attend to see up-and-coming bands. All of them were beneficiaries, but the difference was that in the case of the Royal Albert Hall, it was not a grant, but a loan, and it is repaying that loan. The great thing about the Royal Albert Hall is that for 150 years it has provided one of our greatest cultural assets, and at almost no cost to the public purse. Apart from that covid loan, there has been no cost to the public purse at all, and it remains the case that, unlike so many others, it does not receive a grant. If this Bill does not pass, a model that has been so successful for 150 years is at risk of being undermined. If the consequence is that the hall has to withdraw from a lot of its charitable activities—reaching out to put on events for young people and for communities—and becomes solely focused on having to raise money, the communities will lose out. There must be a real risk that ultimately, if that model is no longer sustainable, it will be the taxpayer who is asked to step in in place of it. Let me say this to Members on both sides of the House. When we come to consider the Bill, it will have undergone scrutiny, and can continue to undergo scrutiny. I am aware of the concerns that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is about to express. Let us have a continuing dialogue with the hall about those concerns, but the Bill is only about sustaining the present mechanism, which is clearly of benefit to the hall, to everyone who goes there, and to the country. I hope very much that it will be allowed to be revived and to pass into law.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    I should add that while the Government gave the hall £20 million as a loan, as it gave loans to so many institutions across the country, the seat holders—the members of the Royal Albert Hall —put in £2 million above and beyond what they had to provide under the arrangements normally, as support. The seat holders have been extraordinarily generous, and it is not the case that they have somehow exploited the Government. They put in their own money to the tune of £2 million to get the hall past covid.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    I think the hall’s representatives would be only too happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); indeed, they have asked to speak to her several times, without success. As has been pointed out, this is a very narrow Bill—it has a very restrictive title—and it is essential if the hall is to continue. We should continue to talk to the hall, but we should not stand in the way of this Bill, which is absolutely vital if the hall is to continue.

    Hansard source
39. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    rose—

    Hansard source
40. 15 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Hayes

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    I am extremely grateful for your indulgence and generosity, Dr Huq. I wish to speak because I have enjoyed correspondence with the Minister at the Treasury Bench on exactly this subject on behalf of constituents who have written to me. Not only has he replied to me to address the concerns of my constituents, but so have his ministerial colleagues in the Treasury—such is the volume of my correspondence that it is too much for him alone to handle. It reflects the widespread concern among my constituents about the freezing of thresholds and the effect on pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) has so admirably and ably highlighted. At the heart of this matter is a fundamental principle, which is that we owe a particular and special debt to those who have given a lifetime’s work to this nation. That is why a previous Government introduced what is known as the triple lock. I need not rehearse the argument for it at length today, except to say that in my judgment it is entirely legitimate and justified. Once it has been promised, it cannot be taken away—that is the political reality—but it has pushed more and more pensioners into taxation as thresholds have been frozen. Each year, more pensioners pay tax who should never have paid tax at all. That is not an entirely new phenomenon: I remember my father, who had a small works pension, paying tax in his 80s. He has been dead for more than 20 years, but he said to me then, “I am 85 and still paying tax. Is that really appropriate?” My answer then, like my answer now, was no. It is not appropriate for people on relatively modest incomes to be drawn into tax because of the freezing of thresholds. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, but—with your further indulgence, Dr Huq—I want to make two other points. I want to make a case, as I have before in this very Chamber, for the WASPI women. Those women were caught out by a change in the provision of pensions due to an alteration in the age at which women retired. They have suffered an injustice; that is not just my consideration or judgment, but that of the ombudsman, who accused the Government of maladministration. Those women, too, deserve a hearing. Before you call me to order, Dr Huq, and tell me that I am digressing from the subject at hand—

    Hansard source