Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    NHS Dentistry

    The Government were elected on a platform that included a dentistry rescue plan. They correctly assessed a crisis in NHS dentistry and promised to fix it. Nowhere is that crisis more felt than in the rural areas across the country. Nearly two years on from the general election, I consulted residents across my constituency in a survey about the health care issues that mattered to them. Almost everyone who replied mentioned the state of NHS dentistry and the lack of provision across Somerset. If the Government want to show genuine support for rural communities, as they claim, they can no longer ignore those voices calling for action—but ignore them, the Minister does. When I asked the Minister on the Floor of this House what steps he was taking to increase the number of dentists accessible to rural communities, he directed me to, “Watch my post box” to be furnished with the numbers of how many more appointments have been provided in my constituency. I did wait, and then I waited some more, and no response came. Eventually, having chased the special adviser outside the Chamber and threatened a point of order for the Minister’s reply, I did get a response. It then became clear why his Department had been so reticent: the numbers revealed that 4% fewer NHS dental treatments had been delivered in the first seven months of this financial year compared with the same period before the general election. The Government are too busy patting themselves on the back to notice the dire reality of NHS dental provision across Somerset and other rural counties. For meaningful change to be felt by my constituents and patients across the country, reform of the system needs to start being treated as a priority. Access to quality NHS dental care should be available to all, not just those in urban Labour constituencies. Families in Somerset should not need to travel miles for basic care, paying fees they cannot afford or, worse still, going without treatment altogether. Polling for Ipsos last year revealed that when people cannot secure dental treatment, a quarter will resort to at-home DIY solutions. That is simply not acceptable in a modern health service. Before those on the Government Benches leap to their feet with interventions beginning with “Fourteen years”, which we hear every sitting day, I have to acknowledge that this problem did not start in July 2024. Previous Governments, including previous Conservative Governments, did not do enough to fix the problem. The last Government did take steps, including an uprating of NHS dental unit pricing, but far more needs to be done to address the deeper structural issues in the system. Contract reform, fundamentally, is what we need to see. I am encouraged that Ministers seem to agree, but on this issue, this Government’s intervention follows a familiar pattern. Instead of taking action, they are launching a consultation. This Government and this Minister have been in office for two years, and I would have thought that by now they would have worked out what they wanted to do to improve the system. If the Minister is going to consult, I very much hope that it is on the basis of a well-thought-through plan and that it is not being used as another delaying tactic. I hope, in particular, that he will consider how we can strengthen the dental workforce in rural areas. Something I have raised previously with the Minister is how we can train more dentists locally. Clinicians who train in a community are more likely to stay and practise there. In Bridgwater, discussions took place with Bridgwater and Taunton college on the potential for partnerships, such as with the University of Bristol dental hospital, to deliver local training pathways. If student dentists could do some of their practice within rural communities, it might encourage them to work there afterwards. The Minister asked me to write to him about that, and I did, but I got a whole load of platitudes back and, regrettably, no action was taken.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    NHS Dentistry

    I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I think golden hellos are a useful tool, but they are not sufficient. Reform of the contract is fundamentally what we need, and one would hope that after two years in his place, the Minister would have developed an idea of what to take forward. I believe that these local partnerships are exactly the sort of solution that could make a real difference to areas such as Bridgwater. More broadly, the Government must ensure that NHS dentistry is a viable and attractive career. This means continuing to look at how procedures are valued, at whether payments properly reflect the work involved and at how we can encourage dentists not just to enter the NHS but to remain in it. This House has already identified the problem and we have talked about reform, but now we need to deliver results to those in need. My residents across the Bridgwater constituency do not want another consultation that drags on for months without anything changing. They want an appointment with a dentist, and I urge the Minister to do all he can to deliver upon that as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    NHS Dentistry

    The Minister will recall that when he wrote to me on 23 April, he confirmed that under Labour 4% fewer dental treatments were performed in Somerset than in the same period before the general election. If everything is so wonderful, why is dentistry in Somerset worse now under his watch than it was under the last Government?

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentSir Alec Shelbrooke

    Defence Investment Plan

    Last week, I was away at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I thought I had understood why the former Secretary of State for Defence had resigned, but here today according to the Minister it is really unknown. Where the Minister is right is in talking about making sure that naval procurement does not go through the problems it had in the past—that was one of the consequences of being in power with the Liberal Democrats. On procuring ships, there are shipyards that are worried about whether they can maintain their workforces—without the DIP, they cannot know—and I am concerned to read that the Type 83 destroyer may be postponed. Will all the plans for capital ships currently in place remain—yes or no, or is that up for debate as well?

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentSir Alec Shelbrooke

    Russian Shadow Fleet

    May I offer my congratulations to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He is a good fit for the role, and I hope that he will listen to those across the House and try to work constructively. In that spirit, this incredible operation was reliant on the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Earlier today, I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry about whether the plans in place for the Type 26s, Type 31s and Type 83s would remain as outlined. I am really looking for a yes or no answer, given that there are shipyards wondering whether they can keep their current workforce because they are relying on the DIP but it is not there. I ask the Secretary of State directly: are the plans in place for ships for the Royal Navy going to remain?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentSimon Hoare

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    I am sure that the right hon. Lady paid as close attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon as I did, but she has just repeated that during covid the Government, to quote her phrase, bailed out the Royal Albert Hall. My right hon. Friend has explained to the House that the Government made a loan that is being repaid by the Royal Albert Hall. I do not recall anyone in the House saying that providing the cultural support that the Government gave cultural institutions during covid was the wrong thing to do. In fact, we were all probably clamouring for more to ensure that our theatres and other institutions were kept afloat in a post-covid scenario. If the right hon. Lady has got that basic fact wrong, why should we believe anything else that she is about to say?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentSimon Hoare

    NHS Dentistry

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my near neighbour, for bringing forward this motion. He will agree that this is an issue that seems to fall hardest—disproportionately so—on rural areas. Does he also agree that Governments of both hues have tried a number of gimmicks and initiatives, but the core of the issue is to try to make NHS dentistry more attractive, and the best way to do that—please forgive the pun—is a root-and-branch reform of the contract to ensure that it pays? It is not rocket science; it is quite easy to do.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Brain Cancer

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee with his extremely well thought-through and detailed opening remarks. I pay tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned, and to the advocacy groups that work tirelessly, to improve outcomes for brain cancer patients. As the petitioners request, investment in research is key. I join them—some are my constituents—in calling on the Government to increase research funding and to go further in legally enshrining the right to try genome sequencing, trials, immunotherapy, and repurposed drugs and vaccines. I will use my time to highlight some of the progress that has been made in treatment options, because there is some hope. Trials in the USA have shown very promising results for sonodynamic therapy as a treatment for children with the brain cancer known as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. DIPG is an inoperable brain tumour primarily affecting children, and it is deemed terminal on diagnosis. The only form of treatment offered is radiotherapy, which may prolong life for a few months at best. On average, the survival rate is less than 10 months. Sonodynamic therapy uses focused ultrasound to produce a light that interacts with an administered prodrug. It is being worked on now in the USA and progress is being made. I am delighted to say that St Mary’s hospital in London is following suit with some promising results. I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister what the Government’s plans are for rolling out this type of therapy across the UK, and in particular for rolling it out to trials of vulnerable children who are willing to get involved. I conclude by paying tribute once again to those of my constituents who signed the petition and want to see the Government do their bit.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentRishi Sunak

    High Streets

    I know the Secretary of State will agree that access to cash and banking services is an important part of vibrant high streets, particularly in market towns in North Yorkshire such as Stokesley. Will he join me in thanking Link for agreeing to representations by me and the local community to install a banking hub after the closure of the last bank branch in Stokesley? It will make an enormous difference to the local community. I know this is something that the Secretary of State is also passionate about, and we are all delighted to have that banking hub coming to Stokesley.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Defence Investment Plan

    Members of 42 Commando Royal Marines, led by Commanding Officer Tom Quinn, were a key part of the seizure of the Russian shadow fleet vessel yesterday morning. It is clear that our Royal Marines will always deliver for this country. They are world class, and I have had the privilege of seeing them in action at their home in Bickleigh barracks in my constituency. However, their ability to succeed can be sustained only if we invest in our defence and prepare for the wars of tomorrow. The former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—a former Royal Marine himself—said in his resignation letter: “We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one.” Does the Minister agree?

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentRebecca Paul

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    I really welcome this restriction on social media for children. As a mother, I am grateful for it, and I am grateful to everyone across the House who has pushed for it. As others have alluded to, there will clearly be practical issues and difficulties with implementation, and we all need to work together to address that, but one thing I would like to understand from the Secretary of State is what consideration has been given to enforcement through the device, as opposed to age verification by social media providers.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentPeter Fortune

    Russian Shadow Fleet

    It is good to see the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) moving to the right. I pay tribute to members of the armed forces community, who played a big part in this operation; they truly are the best of us. Could the Secretary of State advise us on any actions that are being taken regarding the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich, which has been patrolling in English waters for two months without intervention from the Royal Navy?

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentPeter Fortune

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    I defer to my right hon. Friend’s superior knowledge in this area. I recognise the value of the asset. Can he reassure me on the concerns about conflicts of interests? Those people holding the seats are also trustees, so they are taking decisions for financial gain. Is he reassured that the process he is suggesting we follow will counter that issue?

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentNigel Huddleston

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    If we do divide today, I shall be supporting this Bill, primarily for the reason that mentioned in its introduction: today we are debating whether to reintroduce the Bill. If we choose to do so, there will be plenty of opportunity to debate it at a later stage, and it appears that several Members want to do just that. Given that the debate has swayed into the substance of the Bill, I should say that I am one of the former Ministers who oversaw the implementation and execution of the culture recovery fund, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), when we were in government—something that I am very proud of.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentNigel Huddleston

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival

    Absolutely. The Royal Albert Hall is a vital part of our tourism ecosystem, our cultural history and our cultural offering. Therefore, my final comment is an offer to the Minister. I am one of the biggest supporters of the arts, culture and heritage, and am very proud to be so, but I sometimes wonder when we have such debates whether it is truly appropriate in this day and age for us to discuss in this Chamber, when there are other demands on our time, the minutiae of the internal dynamics, operations and rule changes in certain institutions. When they were set up and established in other centuries, Parliament was the right vehicle to have such discussions, but I wonder whether it is the right vehicle now. If the Minister—or indeed the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) or others—wishes to discuss, once this has been resolved, whether there is a broader debate to be had about some of the ecclesiastical, heritage and academic institutions where Parliament still needs to arbitrate on what, at the end of the day, are internal operational decisions, I would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether that is an appropriate debate to have in this place.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    Before we come to the statement, I must place on the record Mr Speaker’s disappointment that the Prime Minister chose Downing Street over this House as the place in which to make the important announcement about banning under-16s from social media. The Prime Minister’s very own rulebook states that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance in this House when it is sitting. His approach this morning is symptomatic of a pattern of disrespect for this House from No. 10. The Government have said that they will update the ministerial code on this point, and I urge them to get on with it. In the meantime, they must stick with the rules as they are set out. Mr Speaker wishes to thank the Secretary of State, who is a shining example of a Minister taking the code seriously on this matter and not briefing out her statement before she has come to the House. I call the Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    Order. There should not be clapping in the Chamber or the Gallery. No doubt the Doorkeepers will remove people if they need to.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    Order. It is highly unlikely that everyone will be able to ask questions. Far too many Members are bobbing, and we have a large amount of business to get through. However, if both questions and answers took 30 seconds, we could get most Members in.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    Order. I understand how important this debate is, but, fundamentally, Members may ask one question that lasts under 30 seconds.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    I tried to go as fast as I could, but we could not get everybody in.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Defence Investment Plan

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect of the delay in the defence investment plan on our armed forces’ ability to defend the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Defence Investment Plan

    It speaks volumes that a junior Minister has been sent to answer this question today. If the new Defence Secretary is too scared to face tough questions at the Dispatch Box, waiting for an easier statement later, then I do not have much confidence in him facing down the threats from Russia. It has been two years since Labour paused the Conservatives’ plan to fund our armed forces, and a year since Labour’s strategic defence review. [Interruption.] We have been warning that the delays to the defence investment plan—

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Defence Investment Plan

    We have been warning that the delays to the defence investment plan are making our troops and our country less safe. Last week, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces quit the Government, because they knew that those warnings were true and they were no longer willing to defend the indefensible. They have done the honourable thing by resigning. It could not have been easy for the former Defence Secretary—a Labour man through and through—when he said that “I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.” That is absolutely shocking. What on earth are the Government playing at? The statement that the Minister has just given shows that the Government are still in denial. He did not say that there would be extra money for the defence investment plan, as his former mentor—so he says—asked for. The Prime Minister needs to tell the Chancellor to find the money. The answer is to cut the welfare budget, and I am willing to lend the Government 116 votes to do just that—I know Labour Back Benchers will not do it—with the proviso that the defence investment plan meets three simple tests. First, the Government must at a minimum find the £28 billion that the Chief of the Defence Staff has said is needed. Will they? Secondly, the funding must be provided before 2030. Will it? There is no kicking into the long grass here. If the answer to both of those questions is no, the Minister should have resigned along with his colleagues. Thirdly, the funding must ensure that we are ready to fight the wars of the future, not the past. I am sure the Minister will now stand up and try to blame the situation on Conservative Governments, forgetting that these are new threats, not past threats. This Government need to stop wasting time and do what is necessary to keep the British people safe today.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentMr Andrew Snowden

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

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has highlighted, the barbaric attacks by Russia over the weekend have added more significance to what we are discussing today. We should also pay tribute to the extraordinary professionalism and courage of our Royal Marines, the Navy, the RAF and the National Crime Agency in successfully intercepting and boarding a vessel from Russia’s shadow fleet in the English channel. We commend all those involved in that landmark operation, but it reinforces the point that these powers must be used decisively and consistently. We hope that this is not a one-off success but the beginning of a sustained effort. Can the Minister confirm whether we should expect to see further such operations going forward? Russia relies on this shadow fleet to evade international sanctions and bankroll its illegal war in Ukraine. Operations such as this strike directly at Putin’s ability to fund his aggression. Protecting the UK means standing firmly with our allies in Ukraine. Putin believed that he could seize Ukraine in a matter of days, but the determination of the Ukrainian people proved him wrong. We have a responsibility to do everything possible to limit Russia’s ability to continue its aggression against a peaceful, democratic nation. Russia remains the most pressing threat to European security. We of course support measures that help constrain Russia’s ability to prosecute its illegal invasion and its attempts to destabilise the west. However, as Conservative Front Benchers have already put on the record in the House, we regret that the Government originally left open a loophole for Russian oil that had been refined into diesel and jet fuel in other countries. We understand that that position changed over the weekend, and that there will now be a ban on imports of diesel and jet fuel made from Russian oil by 1 January 2027. As we said, the decision last month to leave the loophole open should not have been necessary, because Britain should be issuing UK oil and gas licences. This is not the time to be running down our domestic fuel production. Rather than relying on imports from countries that wish us harm, we should get drilling in the North sea: that will boost our energy security and bring down household bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has argued, approving licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw North sea fields would help the UK make greater use of its resources. Instead, the Government’s opposition to further domestic production risks leaving us dependent on energy supplies linked to hostile states. We do not believe that is the right approach. We welcome the ban on Russian uranium and the clarity that the regulations provide by prohibiting imports, whether they come directly from Russia or via third countries. However, can the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to expand domestic nuclear capability and strengthen long-term energy resilience in response to that? The ban on British companies shipping Russian liquefied natural gas is another welcome measure. Restricting the transportation of Russian LNG will reduce opportunities for third countries to trade in these products. We also welcome the extension of restrictions on construction services. What assurance can the Minister provide that the exemptions in the regulations will be applied narrowly and not become a loophole? The provisions targeting the shadow fleet are particularly important because they move beyond banning goods and focus on the methods used to evade sanctions. Although those powers appear robust, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on how they will operate in practice. How many vessels do the Government expect to have to designate? What evidential threshold will be required? Given the use of opaque ownership structures and frequent reflagging of ships, how confident are Ministers that these powers can keep pace with evolving tactics? Although we welcome the early signs of success, how will the Government assess whether those measures are delivering meaningful results in the long term? I look forward to the Minister’s response and to receiving reassurance that these measures will be effective in strengthening both our national security and the wider sanctions regime against Russia.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentMr Andrew Snowden

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

    The Minister will be grateful that I did not intervene earlier on the topic of oil and gas in the North sea—we have had that argument many times, so I will leave it be. On his current point, could the Minister copy me into his correspondence with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim on this topic? As the Minister touched on, there is particular concern around not just the regulations themselves but the ways in which Russia could use deviation to get around their enforcement. I am keen to see that the language in the regulations is just generic wording rather than there being any specific concern.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentMr Andrew Snowden

    NHS Dentistry

    I have met with my local dentists. Does the hon. Member agree that part of the problem is the massive differential in the price per unit that each dental practice is paid? It means that for some dental practices it is no longer viable to continue to do NHS dentistry, whereas for others, based on the legacy price per unit they get, it remains competitive.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentMr Andrew Snowden

    NHS Dentistry

    My hon. Friend mentions rural communities and dental deserts. My constituency, Fylde, is split between rural and coastal, and those coastal areas are experiencing the same dental deserts. I agree that the dental contract is the root cause, and we want a commitment from the Minister to review it.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentMims Davies

    Brain Cancer

    My constituent from East Grinstead, Holly Vivian, an NHS nurse, is very concerned about late diagnosis, particularly given her own medical training, saying that she was concerned and was not diagnosed until she had her second child because of pregnancy symptoms. Whether it is the constant headaches that we have heard about today, or light vomiting, it is really important to give those patients the best chance to be heard.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentMike Wood

    Brain Cancer

    Behind every statistic is a human face. For me, it is my senior parliamentary assistant, Dan Horrocks—a father, husband, a four-time cancer survivor and a brilliant colleague who has fought this disease for 14 years. We are incredibly proud of Dan’s strength and his tireless campaigning, for which he was deservedly awarded the British Empire Medal in the new year honours list. Dan’s journey began with persistent headaches. Three separate GPs missed it. It was only caught because of the keen eyes of a local optician at a free eye test. That is the first hurdle: diagnosis. Far too often, symptoms are dismissed as routine migraines, but the second hurdle is even more devastating. Once a patient is diagnosed with an aggressive glioblastoma, they are offered the NHS gold standard of treatment: surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Let us be honest: that gold standard has barely changed in decades. It is designed to manage the disease for a short time, not to cure it, and when it runs its course, our constituents are effectively told to go home and to prepare to die. These outcomes do not happen by accident. They are the direct result of structures and choices made over many years. When a clinical trial does happen, like the groundbreaking trial established in memory of Margaret, the sister of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), it happens because a handful of grieving, determined people refuse to take no for an answer. If it requires extraordinary political intervention just to start one trial, the system is fundamentally broken, and we need a radical shift. First, we must demand clear, measurable targets, specifying exactly how many clinical trials we expect to see, how many patients will be recruited and who is accountable. Secondly, we need an immediate, aggressive focus on repurposing existing licensed drugs that already control other cancers to see whether they can cross the blood-brain barrier and save lives today. We cannot allow the next generation of patients to be left stranded. Dan and the thousands of families like his are not asking for miracles; they are looking for justice.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentMike Wood

    Defence Investment Plan

    The Minister was clear that the previous Defence Secretary asked him to remain in post; will he be equally clear about what exactly he disagrees with in the letter that the previous Defence Secretary sent the Prime Minister about the defence investment plan last Thursday?

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentMark Garnier

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    Thank you, Dr Huq, for your stewardship of this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate. Most importantly, I thank the 119,000 people who signed this petition, 247 of whom are from my constituency of Wyre Forest. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) for also raising this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for bringing up the WASPI women, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who needs hearty congratulations on getting Brexit into this debate—well done to him. This is a timely debate, and I agree with the wider point at the heart of the proposal that the petition seeks to address. We are all facing a higher tax burden thanks to this Government’s choices and policies, and we are all really struggling with cost of living rises—again, thanks to this Government’s tax choices on employment. Pensioners, instead of living with the dignity in retirement that they have worked so hard for and deserve, have a greater financial burden placed on them. Now we have the prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer floating more tax rises in the next Budget. That is deeply concerning for all of us, but especially for those on low incomes. I hope that this Minister, who played a key role in the last Budget, will be able to rule out tax rises in the next Budget at the Dispatch Box here today. The thrust behind the petition is very clear, but first we must understand the historical context of how the pension system works. That context goes back over a century to 1921, when the Government of the time struck a deal with future pensioners. The basis of that deal was that people could save money into a fund from untaxed earnings; the Treasury would contribute to that fund the tax that would otherwise have been paid. Then the fund would be allowed to grow without being subject to any tax during its lifetime. At the time of retirement, the fund would be used to provide an income for the pensioner but, importantly, that income would be treated as taxable income. It would be replacing the earnings that that individual would have been generating, had they still been in work. In 1946, when the state pension was introduced, that pension payout was to be subject to tax in exactly the same way that private pensions were back in 1921. That system has remained unchanged ever since. The simple contract between the state and the pensioner has not changed at all since 1921. It is important to underline this point. Successive Governments maintain that a pension, whether state or occupational, is a form of income. Specifically, it is treated as a replacement for earnings. However, there have been breaks for pensioners, most notably the exemption from paying national insurance contributions. Today, a pensioner will be asked to pay income tax above the tax-free threshold, but they will not be asked to pay national insurance, as the working population do. Where we can absolutely agree with the wider sentiment of the petition is that this Government are confusing the pension landscape. In their first 20 months, the Labour Government have not been the pensioner’s best friend. Prior to the last Budget, the Chancellor flew a few kites about reducing the tax-free lump sum. That resulted in pensioners withdrawing £3.9 billion in one-off lump sums from their pensions between October 2024 and October 2025. That was an increase of nearly 30% on the year before. When the Budget was actually announced, the Chancellor raided unused pensions in her inheritance tax calculations—a policy that will bring more families into paying inheritance tax and will mean that fewer people can pass money on to their loved ones when they die. However, this petition talks specifically about the personal allowance. The last Government made a decision to help those in the bottom decile of earnings by increasing the tax-free threshold at an accelerated rate. That helped pensioners as well as lower-earning people, and over time it brought the state pension to a level below that of the tax-free threshold. That has two benefits: first, there is no tax for state pensioners, and secondly there is no tax return to be filled in by state pensioners. But now this Government are choosing to freeze income tax thresholds until 2031, and the Government have extended the freeze because of their economic mismanagement. The Chancellor, in her first Budget, stated: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] As I say, that was her first Budget. After promising to not extend the freeze—something we would have supported —she went back on her word and chose not to protect hard-working people. That matters to pensioners, because the state pension will soon rise above the income tax threshold due to the triple lock, which we all agree is a good thing to remedy the ills that happened when the state pension fell to, I think, about 13% or 14% of average earnings. That means that pensioners will now have to start paying income tax on—[Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Minister.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentMark Garnier

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    I am sure that the Minister will chunter intelligently at some point. In our 2024 manifesto, the Conservative party proposed the triple lock plus to stop this problem happening. It would have exempted the state pension from income tax, as the threshold would have risen at the same rate as the triple lock. Now it seems that this Government might be considering using our policy, albeit in a slightly cack-handed way. The Government have proposed that basic-rate state pensioners will not have to fill in a tax return, although this seems to be a specific sort of form-filling break for the over-67s rather than an actual hiking of the allowance. However, in a Treasury Committee hearing recently, a director at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Cerys McDonald, stated that the policy would be included in the next Finance Bill. She said: “We will be working with the Treasury and Ministers to bring forward legislation to support the policy intent in the next Finance Bill.” Of course, we welcome the Government effectively taking our policy and exempting those who are on a state pension, but we do not have any detail as to how this plan will work. Pensioners deserve clarity. Perhaps the Minister could confirm today that the proposals to which Cerys McDonald referred will be introduced. It is not just policy that is blighting pensioners. The Sunday Times has highlighted that up to 8.7 million pensioners have been overcharged on their tax bill by an apparently careless taxman. That means that as much as £43.5 million was collected in error last year. I am pleased that HMRC is putting that right and that the fix should be finalised in the summer, but it has been working on this for a year. It is taking far too long. Will the Minister set out what he will do to resolve the situation and confirm to the House when it is fixed? This petition is well-intentioned and it is correct that we are all facing a higher tax burden than ever before. As has been reported, many pensioners are being overcharged on their tax bill. The Government need to get a hold of this situation and do more to reduce the tax burden on pensioners, because, as we have heard from many Members today, they deserve dignity and security in their retirement, but they have been left wanting by this Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is willing to raise the tax-free threshold, as identified in this petition, from £12,500 or thereabouts to £25,140, and will then maintain it at 200% of the working person’s tax-free threshold. Will he agree with the petition, or will he rule out that proposal today? Finally, I have been shadowing the Minister for about 18 months now. He is a very decent gentleman and I enjoy shadowing him. I wish him the very best of luck in the upcoming reshuffle after the by-election on Thursday.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentMark Garnier

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    It is interesting that the Minister raises that point. He will no doubt remember that Chancellor Gordon Brown raised the state pension by, I think, 50p a week. Did he support that policy by one of his predecessor Chancellors?

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Leasehold Reform

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like millions of people across the country, I am a leaseholder. We have been waiting nearly two years since the Government promised to improve the system. While the Government dither, leaseholders are being ripped off with higher service charges from companies such as FirstPort. We need action, not words, to take on these bad companies. Every MP in this House is aware of the situation, so can the Minister tell me why the leasehold Bill does nothing to hold management companies to account?

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Retirement Home Exit Fees

    The Minister should also consider the impact of the conveyancing process on this important issue. I have heard many complaints from older people in my constituency about the lack of transparency from solicitors, with families then hit with huge fees at the worst possible time. I am sure if people knew what they were signing up for lots of these properties would never be sold. Will the Minister commit to going further than the older people’s housing taskforce report and look closely at the entire conveyancing process?

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    National Planning Policy Framework: Proposed Health Inequality Duty

    On adding things to the NPPF and the importance of green spaces, may I urge the Minister to consider adding greater protections for our national landscapes? There have been two outrageous decisions by the planning inspector in my constituency in the last month: one is about a car park north of Whitchurch, and the other is about a large solar farm just above St Mary Bourne, towards Andover. Both are within the national landscape, and they run the risk of setting a precedent for large-scale industrial development in our “once lost, gone forever” beautiful parts of the country. If we can persuade the Minister, will he strengthen those protections? If not, can I please bring the National Landscapes Association to meet him to discuss the problems we are facing?

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    The statement is not before time, but it is extremely welcome, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on extracting it through what must have been very complicated Government machinery. I want to ask a couple of quick questions, if I may. First, just for clarity—because my school WhatsApp groups have lit up, as I am sure many others have today—can the Secretary of State confirm that all the enforcement will be against the platforms and the companies, and not against parents? As she knows, screens are a major source of conflict in the home at present, and we do not want to start thermonuclear war in homes up and down the land. Secondly, how will the Secretary of State stop the development of similar attributes in gaming environments, which are often on servers overseas and develop sophisticated ways in which to overcome the barriers that she may put in their way? Thirdly—

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    Very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State be looking at the design of content that remains on mainstream entertainment for children, which has moved much more towards the “flickering lights” mode of engaging their attention and may well now blossom and bloom in the absence of social media?

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentJulia Lopez

    Social Media Ban for Under-16s

    I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. As someone infamous for her impatience, waiting for the Prime Minister to opine on something that she genuine cares about must have been as frustrating for her as it has been for us. Today the Prime Minister announced, as his shot at a legacy, something that six months ago he said he was personally opposed to—a ban on social media for under-16s. We can be grateful that he got there in the end, but the victory is not his. Thanks must go to some of the gutsier Labour Back Benchers whom we have heard cited today, the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Education Secretary and, in particular, my noble Friend Lord Nash for his dogged determination in pursuing his amendments. Above all, we must thank those parents who took the senseless tragedies that befell their families and turned their pain into a legacy that will benefit so many children. They have conducted themselves with dignity and grace, and many are in the Gallery today to see the results of their courage. The Prime Minister’s about-turn tells many stories. If he were a man with views, his position could have been laid out at the start of the year, with the consultation used as a chance to polish the policy. As it is, officials’ heads have been left spinning trying to retrofit details to this damascene conversion. The Prime Minister likes to make a virtue of process, but he has used process in this case as a tool to avoid doing what so many hon. Members said was not only inevitable, but right and entirely necessary. We have had votes: the Prime Minister instructed his troops three times to vote against the ban. We have had debates: the Prime Minister would not give a view. But lo, a career-critical by-election comes along and, upon realising that protecting kids is not just popular but vital, the Prime Minister has finally found his voice. With Makerfield going to the polls on Thursday, perhaps we should use the next couple of days to maximum effect by trying to extract his opinions on funding defence, cutting welfare and getting cheap energy, because this country has been waiting for leadership for too long. As Conservatives, we believe in the ultimate responsibility of parents over their children, but they face huge challenges in keeping their children safe online. It is not simply a matter of denying them a phone or a computer. There are many good uses of tech that children and young people should be free to explore, but the onus is on us, as adults, to create a positive place for their exploration. Instead, activity that would never be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetised and algorithmically amplified, to the detriment of kids. The Online Safety Act 2023 was a step forward, but we better understand now that it is not just what children see, but how social media works. The success of the policy will depend heavily on its implementation, and the announcement still begs many questions. What additional resource is the Secretary of State giving to Ofcom? She is asking the regulator to take on a substantial amount of extra work. Does she expect tech companies to contribute more towards the regulator’s budget or will the funding come from her own budget? When can we expect precise definitions of what brings a platform into scope? A list of banned platforms has been briefed today, but it is not clear why some do not make the cut. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that this work will not distract from implementing the final stages of the OSA? What lessons has she learned from the circumvention of the Australia ban that will make the UK experience and our ban more effective? The Secretary of State talks about more effective age assurances, and I agree with her about the need to reset social norms, but will she be ruling out mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? What privacy protections will be in place if children’s images are taken as part of face scanning for age verification? Is she considering age verification at app store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but as a chance to reduce friction for adults wishing to access social media? The Government have said that they are considering overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18s. How do Ministers square granting 16-year-olds the solemn duty to vote, but not the power to have a cheeky night-time scroll on Instagram? The same applies to romantic chat bots. How is this going to work? Will the restrictions apply to 16-year-olds or 18-year-olds, given that both meet the age of sexual consent? On efforts to prevent children from taking or sharing nude imagery, will the Secretary of State set out the scope of the law she is considering and categorically rule out client-side scanning tools being applied to adults’ phones? We are told that the first set of regulations to enable the social media ban could be in effect by spring 2027. How confident is the Secretary of State that she will achieve her timeline? She will understand that this policy is not easily implemented—she has made reference to that—and she has detractors who share the aim but not the means, fearing that a ban pushes children out of supervised accounts and towards riskier services. What does she say to those, like Ian Russell, who believe that this policy is not only wrong but cynically timed? She suggests that it comes down to enforcement of the OSA, which makes my earlier questions more relevant. Finally, I wish to ask the Secretary of State about her tweet last week on updating the Online Safety Act to remove illegal content with greater speed during “times of crisis”. The scenes in Belfast rightly appalled every decent citizen in our nation. The vicious barbarism of Hadi Alodid, just like the despicable murder of Henry Nowak, has ignited anger and sparked protests that have led to indiscriminate violence against innocent people. Violence and protest can often mix, but they are none the less two very different things. Laws exist that prohibit incitement, criminalise threats to kill and stop platforms from hosting illegal content, and they must rightly be enforced with strength. On the other hand, peaceful protest is a legitimate response to failure—in this case, the perceived failure of the political class to adequately deal with concerns that the public have raised time and again via the ballot box. In such circumstances, I appreciate that the Government have a job on their hands to ensure that work to stop the spread of illegal content is not perceived to be or does not become an attempt to obscure legitimate political comment. What powers are being taken? How will “times of crisis” be defined? What assurances can the Secretary of State offer the House that she understands that if the Government do not get their approach right, any actions she proposes risk stoking the very unrest that her policy is designed to subdue? For too long, we have implicitly decided that childhood and parenting must simply adapt to the darker manifestations of the internet as a reality of modern life. Giving parents the support that they need is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities, but when harm from social media to our children is real and growing, the time comes for action, even when the answers are not perfect. I look forward to working with the Secretary of State on ensuring that the implementation of her policy is as close to perfect as it can be.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    State Pensioners: Personal Allowance

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 740671 relating to personal allowance for state pensioners. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to the petitioner, Tim Mason, and the 120,000 people who have signed the petition, including hundreds in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. I come to this debate with a simple starting principle: those who have worked hard throughout their life should have dignity and security in retirement. Tim got in touch with me prior to the debate to explain why he created the petition. His story is worth sharing: he receives a pension from the Royal Mail of about £400 per month, but once he receives his state pension, that Royal Mail pension is reduced to about £290 per month. His motivation for starting the petition was that many other pensioners will undoubtedly find themselves in the same position, paying tax on relatively small pensions for which they have worked hard and saved throughout their life. There are growing concerns that increasing numbers of pensioners are finding themselves liable to pay tax on their pensions. That is because the triple lock has increased the state pension year on year, while personal tax allowances have remained frozen. As a result, some pensioners are required to complete a self-assessment tax return, while others receive unexpected tax bills from HM Revenue and Customs. Many pensioners do not have substantial incomes and have limited savings; it can therefore be both distressing and deeply worrying for those hard-pressed pensioners to deal with tax demands. As the organisation Silver Voices has highlighted, taxing the state pension risks undermining the very principle of a retirement safety net, which was designed to ensure that people can afford life’s basic necessities in retirement. Pensioners face many other challenges too, such as higher heating and fuel bills. We cannot forget that it was this Labour Government who so cruelly stripped away the winter fuel allowance two years ago as one of their first acts in government. In Scotland, the SNP Government did the same. Although the partial U-turn last year was welcome, many pensioners spent a winter cold in their homes, and some pensioners still do not receive the support on which they had previously relied. When the Conservatives came into office in 2010, the previous Labour Government had already subjected pensioners to a pension tax raid worth more than £100 billion, and had delivered a paltry 75p-per-week increase in the state pension. Improving the lives of pensioners had to be a priority, and that is why the triple lock was introduced. It was the right thing to do and, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, the Conservative party stands by it. The introduction of the triple lock saw the basic state pension increase by £3,700 between 2010 and 2024. At the last general election, my Conservative colleagues and I stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce a “triple lock plus”, guaranteeing that the state pension and the tax-free personal allowance for pensioners would always rise by inflation, earnings growth or 2.5%, whichever was the highest. A view has evolved among some people, particularly online, that pensioners are all wealthy and that they enjoy multiple holidays, drive expensive cars and own second homes that they rent out to younger generations. That may be true of a very small minority, but it is simply not the reality for the vast majority of pensioners, especially in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. We should celebrate the fact that one of the landmark achievements of successive Governments over the past 30 years has been the reduction in pensioner poverty. There was a time not so long ago when 28% of pensioners lived in poverty. By 2024, that figure had fallen to just 12% for pensioner couples and 16% for pensioners overall. Poverty among pensioners is now lower than in any other age group in the United Kingdom. Many pensioners still struggle, however, and pensioner poverty is often the result of disadvantages that accumulate over a lifetime, long before retirement. We can and must do much more to improve the lives of pensioners. These are changes that would benefit many other people in our country. Take stamp duty land tax, or land and buildings transaction tax in Scotland: many pensioners would like to downsize and move into a home that is better suited to their needs, particularly once their children have left home, but those taxes, which can amount to thousands of pounds, are one of the biggest barriers preventing them from moving on. We should therefore scrap stamp duty and LBTT entirely. Doing so would benefit the whole country, help pensioners to move into more suitable homes if they so wish and potentially free up capital and free up family homes for younger people seeking to get on the housing ladder. Heating is one of the highest costs that pensioners face, and older people are often more exposed to rising energy costs. This Labour Government came to office promising to cut energy bills by £300, but household energy bills have risen by £294. We need to bring energy bills down, and we can do so by scrapping renewable energy subsidies, abolishing the carbon tax and cutting VAT on household energy bills. These measures would make a real difference to pensioners, helping them to keep more of the money they have worked hard for and saved throughout their life. They would deliver real, tangible benefits that would improve the lives of pensioners right now. We should not and cannot forget the hard work and often the sacrifices that pensioners have made. They have worked hard and contributed to our society. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised by the petitioner Tim Mason, as well as the thousands of people who have signed the petition. The purpose of this debate is not simply to consider one particular proposal, but to consider the broader concern expressed by many pensioners about the interaction between the rising state pension, the frozen tax thresholds and the financial pressures that many older people continue to face. The triple lock has undoubtedly made a significant difference to pensioners’ incomes. It remains one of the most important reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Government: it has helped to improve financial security in retirement and has played an important role in reducing pensioner poverty. Whether a separate personal allowance for pensioners is the right solution is a matter on which hon. Members may hold different views, but the petition demonstrates that these concerns are real and are shared by many people across the country. Pensioners have worked hard, paid their taxes, raised families, built communities and, in many cases, served or fought for our country. They deserve dignity, security and peace of mind in retirement. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the important issues raised by Tim Mason, and the many thousands of people who have supported his petition.

    Hansard source