Defence Investment Plan
Try to keep it short, Minister.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
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
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
Social Media Ban for Under-16s
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Social Media Ban for Under-16s
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
- Hansard source
Social Media Ban for Under-16s
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Social Media Ban for Under-16s
Ahem.
- Hansard source
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
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
Social Media Ban for Under-16s
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Social Media Ban for Under-16s
I tried to go as fast as I could, but we could not get everybody in.
- Hansard source
Russian Shadow Fleet
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
Russian Shadow Fleet
Why?
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
State Pensioners: Personal Allowance
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
State Pensioners: Personal Allowance
I did not anticipate having 45 minutes to speak, but I will do my best to fill the time. I thank Mr Mason for starting this petition and the 120,000 people who signed it. I also thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate; there was perhaps more quality than quantity on this occasion, but it was a very good debate and a lot of useful points were made. It is remarkable how often Mrs Thatcher and Brexit can still creep into some of these debates, but legitimate concerns were raised by the petitioner and those who signed the petition about how the tax system interacts with the state pension in particular. The Minister was very clear about the choices the Government have made, and I think that we all accept that the highest-paid pensioners should be paying tax, but the main thrust of this petition is about those at the bottom end of the income stream who are now creeping into the tax system, which I do not think any of us intended. Pensioners deserve protection and clarity, and they need to know the Government’s intentions for how they will be protected and looked after in their retirement. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 740671 relating to personal allowance for state pensioners.
- Hansard source
Russian Shadow Fleet
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and welcome him to his new post. He had a distinguished military career and, as Security Minister, will have had a foretaste of the operational demands of his new job. I will be turning to the circumstances that brought him to that position shortly, but we wish him well in his position. I also welcome the new Minister for Veterans, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), to his post and welcome his predecessor, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), to her new role as Armed Forces Minister. I also pay personal tribute to the previous Secretary of State. On the day he resigned, I said that he was an honourable man who had done an honourable thing, and I meant it. Whatever our political differences, I respect the dignity with which he left Government—on a point of principle, in the national interest. On the seizure of the Russian shadow fleet vessel, the Opposition welcome this action and the way it was conducted. Throughout his time in office, the previous Secretary of State and I maintained a rock-solid consensus in support of Ukraine, standing shoulder to shoulder against the Russian threat. Whenever he announced action against Russian naval activity in our territorial waters, such as against Yantar, I welcomed it, because we must stand strong against the serious threat posed by Putin. That is why it is important that this vessel was seized, but I do have one particular concern. Back in March, the Prime Minister announced that British armed forces are now able to board sanctioned vessels that are passing through our waters, but the BBC reports that since then in at least 94 instances shadow fleet vessels have crossed into UK territorial waters without a single one being interdicted by our armed forces. Until this weekend, almost three months after the policy was announced, no boarding of these vessels had taken place. What changed? On the specific action that took place, I pay tribute to all our brave armed forces and law enforcement personnel involved, who conducted their mission to the highest professional standards, because one thing is certain about those who serve in our military: give them the kit and they will do the job. But here is where the problem lies. This operation was necessary as part of our overall policy to deter Russia. However, that attempt at deterrence has been completely undermined by the total debacle of the defence investment plan. Last week we witnessed an unprecedented moment in UK defence, the likes of which has never been seen before, with the Secretary of State, his deputy and two Parliamentary Private Secretaries all resigning in total and unprecedented chaos. The Defence Secretary resigned from Government because the money the Prime Minister was offering for the defence investment plan was so meagre that it would “make the country less safe” and would “reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations”. That is a shattering verdict on this Government’s plans for defence, and it was one shared by the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). For some reason, he did not get a mention in the Secretary of State’s statement, or in the response from his junior Minister earlier. But as we are talking about the actions of our Royal Marines, let me put on the record my huge respect for the former Minister and the way in which he, too, resigned on a matter of principle. We share a passion for delivering the drone revolution, and given his distinguished military record, it was damning for him to say that the defence investment plan was “not built for the threat we face. It is neither transformative enough nor sufficiently funded.” In particular, in his resignation letter, the previous Armed Forces Minister stated that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is “unfit for purpose”. We agree 100%. Just as the professionalism of our personnel was at the heart of this weekend’s interdiction operation, standing by our veterans and serving personnel must be at the heart of defence policy. As a veteran of Operation Banner himself, does the Secretary of State agree that the last thing the Government should be doing is hounding former soldiers through the courts? If he agrees, will he therefore urge the Prime Minister to scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? On the core issue of funding, it will be deeply worrying for our NATO allies to see the chaos now surrounding the defence investment plan. It was meant to transform our armed forces, yet the very Secretary of State responsible for delivering the DIP until five days ago said that it will make us “less safe”. That is because the money on offer was nothing like enough. Is it true that the Prime Minister is refusing to give the Secretary of State any more cash for the defence investment plan? If so, in principle, does he welcome the offer from the Leader of the Opposition to work with the Government to find the welfare savings to fund defence? To conclude, as this is our first exchange at the Dispatch Box since his appointment, I assure the Secretary of State that we are willing to work with him in the national interest to find the money for defence. Will he work with us?
- Hansard source
NHS Dentistry
I thank my fellow sponsors of this debate: the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who is not in his place. Oral health is fundamental to dignity, confidence, employability and overall health. The ability to see a dentist when needed should never be treated as a luxury within a universal healthcare system, yet that is precisely what has happened. The consequences of that are not abstract but real, painful and increasingly visible. Tooth decay remains the leading cause of hospital admissions for children aged five to nine—though clearly poor parenting holds a lot of blame. A growing number of people are turning to so-called DIY dentistry because they have no other option. That alone should give this House pause for thought. We must be clear about what is driving this problem. It is often said that it is simply a workforce problem, but that is only part of the truth. As the Policy Exchange report “Pulling Teeth” sets out, there are over 37,000 dentists in England, yet only around 10,500 full-time equivalent NHS dentists. There is not a shortage of dentists but a shortage of dentists who are willing to work under the NHS contract.
- Hansard source
NHS Dentistry
My right hon. Friend is precisely right. The BDA is absolutely right to call for those two things; they are what the Government should be working towards. As my right hon. Friend said, the contract started in 2006 under the last Labour Government and was based on units of dental activity, and it is fundamentally misaligned with clinical reality. For example, it pays the same whether a dentist does one filling or six. Essentially, it rewards volume, not complexity, and it actively discourages preventive care. We also had covid. We have to remember that around 4 million adults struggled to access dental care before covid, and that figure has now risen to nearly 14 million. Of course, covid alone did not create the crisis, but it did significantly accelerate and expose it, and we are still dealing with the aftermath. This Government came into office promising action, yet nearly two years on, the gap between promise and reality is difficult to ignore. The roll-out of additional appointments was delayed, and even where appointments have been delivered, the British Dental Association has noted that they amount to only around two extra urgent slots per dentist per month. That is not transformation; it is marginal adjustment. At the same time, the long-promised NHS workforce plan remains unpublished. The ambition to expand access depends entirely on having enough clinicians willing and able to deliver NHS care. Without a credible workforce strategy, the objectives of reform remain difficult to assess, let alone achieve. As has been mentioned, that pressure is not evenly distributed. In parts of rural England, there are as few as 10 NHS dental practices per 100,000 people. These so-called dental deserts are not random but the predictable outcome of a system that fails to align funding with need.
- Hansard source
NHS Dentistry
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and as in so many healthcare cases, rural constituencies, and rural and coastal constituencies, are often hit the hardest. In my view, that is where the Government should be spending their efforts and money, in order to ensure that we get the same level of service in those areas as in large urban population centres. That brings me neatly to my constituency, where the consequences are very real. One family contacted me about their daughter, who lives with a long-term eating disorder and developed a serious dental infection. Despite seeking help, they faced delays, long waiting lists and limited access to specialist care, with treatment stretching close to a year. Another constituent raised the case of his wife, a head and neck cancer patient. Following chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, she now faces severe and ongoing oral health complications, yet access to appropriate NHS dental follow-up has been extremely limited, forcing reliance on expensive private care. Those are not isolated cases; they are emblematic of a system that is failing those who need it most. We must also recognise the financial and operational pressures facing dental practices. Rising national insurance contributions, increased wage costs and high levels of missed appointments all add further strain. In some practices, missed appointments alone cost tens of thousands of pounds a year. In Haslemere in my constituency, the local hospital has a fully equipped dental suite that is, unfortunately, entirely unused despite clear local demand. That is not inefficiency; it is systemic failure. Incremental change will not fix this. We need a credible workforce plan, genuine contract reform that rewards prevention, and a strategy for dental deserts that goes beyond short-term fixes. We need a system that aligns capacity with need, rather than relying on historical allocations drawn up nearly two decades ago. More fundamental proposals are also on the table, including models that would extend coverage and give patients greater choice and control. Whether or not every element of that is agreed by the House, what is clear is that the status quo is failing too many people for us simply to continue as we are. I have a lot of respect for the Minister—I am not entirely sure it is mutually given—and I have some questions for him. When will we see a fully funded and credible NHS dental workforce plan? How many additional dentists, hygienists and therapists are required to meet demand? What is the Government’s plan to ensure that dental deserts do not become a permanent feature of our healthcare system? Unless we answer those questions honestly, the Government are not reforming NHS dentistry; they are supervising its managed decline.
- Hansard source
Brain Cancer
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I was reflecting with my constituents Greg and Sally, whose son has a brain tumour, when I met them in my constituency office this morning—they also attended the all-party parliamentary group meeting a few weeks ago—on what has actually changed since I last spoke in a Backbench Business debate on brain tumours in 2023, and the sorry answer on funding is not a lot, and certainly not enough. In the few moments I have in the debate this afternoon, I want to cut to the chase and ask the Minister some direct questions about how we get that money spent and how we get real results to find cures and ways to prolong lives. To start on that, we must have a clear breakdown of the total spend on brain cancers by year over the last decade and how that breaks down by actual treatments; research into treatments, including into how much has been spent on trials; research into other areas with a bearing on brain cancer outcomes; research into how each of those involves artificial intelligence; and infrastructure. Specifically, I would very much like the Minister to address the issue of how the Government are planning to make the radical change in approach to brain tumour detection and treatment that is necessary for the UK to achieve its ambition to move from the fourth to the first quartile for survival in nine years. That is a worthy ambition, but we need to see the detail and the concrete steps that will be taken. It will involve answering big questions about artificial intelligence and other innovations. What I will say in my last few seconds is, given that brain cancer is the biggest killer of under-40s, we need to challenge the idea that it is really a rare cancer and ask whether the definition of “rare” is fit for purpose in the modern age.