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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions: That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 38, but does not insist on its Amendments 38A to 38D and proposes Amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment. That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 106, but proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment. That this House agrees with Lords amendment 105B.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    That was a very interesting answer from the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson, who authored the Government’s strategic defence review, has said that the Prime Minister has a “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. Why did he say that?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson is a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He also said: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack.” He said—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Lord Robertson’s criticisms were of the Prime Minister, and he said that Britain’s national security is “in peril”. Our armed forces are at the end of their tether, waiting for this Government to fund the strategic defence review. There are still two weeks of the parliamentary Session left, so why will the Prime Minister not publish the defence investment plan before the Session ends?

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister is talking about the biggest sustained increase. Talking about an increase is not the same as giving an increase. The military and the defence industry want to hear about what he is going to do, not hear him prosecuting past Governments. He promised that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions six weeks ago when it would be published—he had no idea. It is now the middle of April. What is the hold-up?

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister loves to misrepresent my position on Iran. Let us stop talking about what I did not say. Let us start talking about what he is not doing. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on Monday, I offered to work with the Prime Minister to identify the welfare savings we need. What did he say? “No thanks.” Now that Lord Robertson has said, “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”, will the Prime Minister think again and work with us to find savings to fund defence?

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    This is so poor from the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Labour MPs are laughing, but this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They are promoting sex toys in Parliament. It gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. [Interruption.] That is what they are doing, Mr Speaker. Let us get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending. It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the Ministry of Defence to make £3.5 billion of cuts this year. The Prime Minister will not fund our military, because he wants to fund more welfare. That is why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead, will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    It sounds like the Prime Minister does not want to spend the Chagos money on defence. Labour MPs will know Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He is Labour through and through. They all need to think about why he stuck his head above the parapet. I went through the strategic defence review with Lord Robertson last year. The Lib Dems and Reform refused to meet him. No other party is taking this seriously. I want to ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. In January 2024, the Conservatives approved an upgrade of destroyers, like HMS Dragon, so that they can better intercept ballistic missiles. In July 2024, the Prime Minister paused that plan. Will he immediately approve and fund that critical upgrade now?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentMr Peter Bedford

    Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As with many areas of Government policy, there is a degree of consensus across the House; the draft order is no different, and the official Opposition will not oppose it today. Auto-enrolment, alongside the creation of NEST, was an obvious achievement of the Cameron Government. It marked a fundamental shift in how people across the country look at retirement, encouraging millions to save and take long-term financial planning seriously. The liberalisation of one of the NEST pension schemes by enabling flexi-access drawdown is a logical next step. It aligns with the broader principle of pension freedoms introduced under previous Conservative Governments and represents a positive development for workers and savers within NEST. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points with the Minister. First, the pensions industry is uncomfortable with the significant use of secondary legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, but we are where we are with that. Secondly, as I have touched on, the official Opposition strongly support the principle of pension freedoms. With that in mind, will the Minister revisit previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would allow greater access to pension savings for the purpose of obtaining financial advice? Perhaps even more radically, will he introduce the sidecar savings pot discussed during consideration of the Bill? People under the age of 57 sometimes fall back on that in hard times. Finally, while reforms to promote pension freedoms are a positive step, the situation ultimately depends on the adequacy of savings and investment performance. Where individuals have not saved enough or where returns have fallen short, those freedoms risk offering a limited practical benefit. Could the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase auto-enrolment contribution rates, and will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not use the so-called “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill in a way that prioritises public finances at the expense of individuals’ pension pots? The Opposition will not be opposing the statutory instrument, but I emphasise that cross-party co-operation has long been the foundation of successful pensions policy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to listen to Opposition parties and the industry to reconsider the inclusion of any form of mandation clauses in the Pension Schemes Bill.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentMr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill

    Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentMr Mark Francois

    Strategic Defence Review: Funding

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to fund the recommendations of the strategic defence review.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentMr Mark Francois

    Strategic Defence Review: Funding

    Labour’s strategic defence review had three co-authors. I would like to ask the Minister a question about each of them in turn. Does he agree with Dr Fiona Hill that there is a “bizarre” lack of urgency in Government defence planning? Does he agree with General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the SDR, that there is “an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe…and where we actually are”? Or does he agree with Lord Robertson, lead author of the SDR, former Labour Defence Secretary and distinguished former NATO Secretary-General, that the Prime Minister has shown a “corrosive complacency” towards defence? All of those strong words have been spoken in the past 48 hours. This is no coincidence: the authors obviously understand the principles of combined arms manoeuvre. The truth is that Labour’s rhetoric on defence simply does not match the financial reality. We know that in the last financial year the Ministry of Defence was forced to make £2.6 billion of crippling in-year cuts. It has now been reported that in this financial year it will be asked to find a further £3.5 billion on top. That would be catastrophic for our armed forces. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be no in-year savings exercise this year? Finally, Labour’s SDR, published last June, promised us a comprehensive 10-year defence investment plan, which is still nowhere to be seen. One Labour peer told me prior to Easter that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot, except that Godot finally turned up. Can the Minister now tell the House in what month and what year Labour’s much-vaunted defence investment plan is actually going to be published, or is Labour’s Chancellor, who is adamantly refusing to sign it, still going to hold our armed forces to ransom? Is that not why our Prime Minister, who resolutely refuses to overrule her, is all mouth and no trousers on defence?

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentMatt Vickers

    Police Federation

    I thank you, Mrs Harris, for chairing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for sharing his experiences and for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the passionate and detailed contributions from Members who have offered their insight into the current and recent issues facing the Police Federation and its members. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to hard-working police officers across the country. The work they do, day in and day out, to keep our communities safe is second to none. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, for which they deserve all our thanks and admiration. Let us be honest: having a debate on the effectiveness of the Police Federation right now is probably not the toughest call. I will be careful not to stray into matters that are still subject to legal proceedings, but it is obvious why rank-and-file officers are deeply concerned. The arrests we have seen are extremely serious, and it is right that they are fully and properly investigated, but these issues do not sit in isolation. They add to wider concerns raised by the federation’s members, whether on governance, the handling of pension discussions or employment tribunal cases. Furthermore, legal cases involving the federation, which have been dropped, highlight concerns about free speech in the organisation, with officials seemingly being censored. Every police officer deserves strong and effective representation. They do the toughest and most demanding of jobs, often under significant pressure and with clear restrictions to ensure political neutrality. The least they should expect is a federation that backs them properly. The federation does important work, and I am sure it supports officers well in many individual cases, but there are clearly bigger structural concerns that need to be addressed. Colleagues will remember that, at the start of the last decade, action was taken by a previous Government to push for reform of the federation. The Normington review set out a number of serious issues, while also highlighting the importance of the federation having the confidence of members, something that has come through strongly again in this debate. At that time, the Government were clear that change was needed. As the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, said, “if the Federation does not start to turn itself around, you must not be under the impression that the government will let things remain as they are.” That warning was not issued lightly. It reflected a determination to ensure that the federation did not lapse into the kinds of practices identified in the Normington review, and it was underpinned by a broader conviction that the federation must be an authentic, credible and outward-looking voice for policing in this country. It cannot afford to become insular. Rather, it must reflect, with honesty and integrity, the experience of many thousands of officers who serve with dedication and courage. I appreciate that the federation has recently conducted reviews and embarked on a journey of improvement, but events continue to raise significant questions about its performance. As such, I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure the organisation is performing in the interests of all its members. The Police Federation was rightly created by an Act of Parliament over a century ago, which places a responsibility on all of us to ensure that it works for all of its members. Has the Department made an assessment of the organisation’s leadership and the structure of its current governance, and is it planning to do so after the legal matters have concluded? Although I recognise the challenges within the federation, it is critical to maintain the political neutrality of the police. Any measure that weakens the independence of officers would be disadvantageous to the excellent work carried out by officers working across the country. I want to see a federation that supports police officers and helps them to do their jobs effectively. We ask officers to do challenging work. As such, it is right that they are supported by a federation that works effectively and properly for them.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentMark Garnier

  15. ParliamentMark Garnier

  16. ParliamentMark Garnier

  17. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026

    If we are going to offer flexi-access drawdown, does the Minister agree that it would be better if members of defined contribution schemes had greater awareness of what their pension schemes were invested in? The latest research suggests that more than 50% of people in DC schemes do not know what they are invested in. To make informed decisions, does it not behove all pension fund holders to make themselves aware of what they are invested in?

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Strategic Defence Review: Funding

    On 6 March, the Minister kindly allowed the Defence Committee into the Ministry of Defence for a secret briefing. I would obviously never refer to the information that we received in that briefing, but it is telling that later that day, the Labour-dominated Defence Committee insisted on issuing a statement saying that we should go to 3% of GDP in this Parliament. That is the Conservative party’s policy, the Liberal Democrat party’s policy, and the Defence Committee’s recommendation. Will he tell us clearly why he is resisting it?

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Engagements

    Q4. Welfare spending is set to rise by another £70 billion by 2030. The last time I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said he was mending the system. Since then, this disastrous Labour Government have raised taxes on working people to give even more to those who do not work. The people I speak to across Broxbourne think that this Labour Government are taking them for mugs. So what does the Prime Minister say to working people across this United Kingdom who are being asked to pay more and are getting less?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    My constituents George and Areti are in the Gallery. Their story is one that no parent should ever have to go through. Their 15-year-old son, Chrisopher, was an active and outgoing young man with a bright future ahead of him. One night in January 2022, Christopher was in his room playing video games. He clicked on a pop-up link and was tricked into sharing personal information about himself and his family. Just moments later, he began to receive messages from an anonymous stranger, threatening to kill his family if he did not complete a series of challenges. Over the 50 harrowing days that followed, these sick challenges got worse and worse. Christopher felt that he was being watched constantly, and felt that he could not tell his mum or his dad what was going on, fearing for their safety. Tragically, the challenges reached such an unbearable level that sadly, in March 2022, Christopher took his own life. Since meeting George and Areti for the first time this year, I have been taken aback by their resilience and determination to ensure that this can never happen again. Together, they have set up a charity that works to educate others about the dangers that exist for children online. The Christoforos Charity Foundation sets up and has been doing events and activities for kids where they are encouraged to leave their phones behind and enjoy real-life connections. As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media. That is why we should act swiftly to protect children online. Will the Government stop all the reviews and get on and act now by banning phones in schools and bringing in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today?

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentLaura Trott

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House. That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentLaura Trott

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentLaura Trott

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference. Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children. If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them. I am here for Ellen. This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children. Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows. This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act. Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income.  In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand. When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual. Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with.  I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt.  Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states: “The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”. The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentLaura Trott

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it. I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift: “You want a fight? You found it”. Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentKatie Lam

    Pension Schemes Bill

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today. The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle. When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients. If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here. The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims. I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentJohn Glen

    Pension Schemes Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the winding-up speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, I understand that the Minister for Pensions made specific reference to me. I was elsewhere at the Treasury Committee, but I am told that he referred to a Westminster Hall debate on 25 November, and depicted me as arguing for the mandation of pension investments. In that debate, I explicitly said that mandation would be an “overreach”. I went on to say: “I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 122WH.] I would be grateful if you could advise me on how I could avoid being inadvertently misquoted by the Minister in future.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Strategic Defence Review: Funding

    To listen to the Minister, one might think that the DIP matters very little and that we are cracking on regardless, but the truth is that the MOD has been out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor, and the DIP is pinned down by the Treasury. The DIP matters a very great deal to industry because the demand signals that it will give allow industry to work up. From fighter jets to frigates, and from bayonets to bullets, these items cannot just be pulled off the shelves. This DIP matters rather more than the Minister is saying. Is that not the case?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentJames Wild

    Cost of Heating Oil

    I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), on securing the debate. In North West Norfolk, more than 20,000 households are off the gas grid. When people are struggling, urgent support is needed, so I welcome the crisis fund that Norfolk county council has established and the fact that the Conservative-led administration chose to double the funding to £6 million. Although that support is focused on people in need, I reiterate that that is not limited solely to people on benefits. Local authorities have discretion, and I have been told by the council that households earning around £35,000 would qualify, so I encourage anyone who is in need to apply to the council. Clearly, there is concern about the adequacy of those funds, which I raised with the Energy Secretary. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that his Department is monitoring in real time the payments that are going out. Like other Members, I have been helping constituents who have had orders cancelled or who have had to accept higher prices for existing orders. I am glad that Goff Petroleum, one of the main providers in Norfolk, agreed to honour their prices, even taking a loss to do so. We should recognise that the just-in-time model that many firms in the industry use exposes them, and thus customers too, to shocks. We need to see reform in the market: greater pricing transparency and formalised priority support for vulnerable people. We should also recognise that this is an issue for businesses, not just for households. Rural areas do not only face higher costs for heating oil. Prices at the pump have leapt—and in the Budget the Chancellor committed to increase fuel duty by 5p from September, after 14 years of freezes under the previous Conservative Government. That is the wrong choice and puts higher costs on to drivers and businesses. While international factors are largely at play, the Government can choose to act to ease the burden of tax and levy. That is what they should be doing. The plans that we have set out would do that and would save people £200.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Pension Schemes Bill

    Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions. Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Pension Schemes Bill

    My hon. Friend is exactly right. Sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this all as being technicalities, but the fact is that the Government are coming after people’s hard-earned savings, and the public can see it. The Government think it is a pension pot they can mess with. We know that it is people’s own savings. The Government do not know best. [Interruption.] The Minister should not just listen to us; he should listen to the noble Lords in the other place. The Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the other place. That is what happens when a Government put their fingers in their ears. This situation is entirely of the Pensions Minister’s own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here. Across this House, we want pensions policy to move forward. We have shared ambitions for our pension system, such as boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns, rather than minimising costs. We want greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots and a system that works better for people with terminal illness. Despite all the consensus, the Minister’s Bill is still far from the finish line. Returning to Lords amendment 1, which the Government are seeking to eject from this Bill, relates to the mandation powers. I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement. On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there is widespread support for those objectives, but even the Minister should have realised that he could not get away with saying that the provision is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement when the mandation power in his Bill was so glaringly different. Back in December last year, I warned him that mandation would not wash, but he did not listen. That is why I have fought mandation every step of the way, along with the pension sector, my colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lords in the other place, who resoundingly rejected it. The Minister is back here with his tail between his legs, and he has changed his tune from, “It’s all fine, nothing to see here”; he reluctantly tabled three amendments last week. I recognise the direction that the Government are trying to move in. They are reining in the power that they are taking, and trying to make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord. The fundamental problem remains unresolved, however, because at its core, the Bill still gives the Government the power to direct the investment of people’s pension savings, and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentHarriet Cross

    Economic Growth

    A strong job and business market is key for economic growth, but Labour’s huge rise in national insurance is a direct jobs tax, and the SNP’s huge increase in business rates is a direct tax on our businesses. Scottish Conservatives have a plan to revitalise our high streets, support jobs and get businesses investing. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government’s decisions since coming to power have cost jobs, businesses and investment in Scotland?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Cost of Heating Oil

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. I must start by declaring an interest: my home is off the gas grid, and we use heating oil. When constituents have raised this issue with me—many have—I therefore understand it not just as their Member of Parliament, but as a fellow purchaser of heating oil. When prices doubled—or, as we heard, sometimes tripled—overnight following the outbreak of war in the middle east, it was a genuine financial shock that was even greater than when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. According to evidence from Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert, customers who had paid around £300 to £350 for 500 litres of heating oil in February were being quoted between £600 and £1,000 just weeks later, and that price continues to go up. That is not a marginal increase. For families on fixed or modest incomes—not just the poorest households—that is the kind of bill that forces a choice between heating, eating and other necessities. So far, the Government have allocated £53 million in very targeted financial support across the United Kingdom, as we have heard. They have announced intentions to introduce consumer protections, including dispute resolution, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups. To be fair, they have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to examine the market, and have signalled that an energy independence Bill will include powers to establish an ombudsman or appoint a regulator. I acknowledge all those steps—they are not nothing—but let us be honest about what they amount to in practice. As we have heard, in Northern Ireland, where almost two thirds of households rely on heating oil, the allocation amounts to roughly £35 per household. The First Minister of Northern Ireland described it as a “slap in the face”; the Finance Minister said it was “significantly below par”. In Scotland, eligible households can apply for £300 in support. In England, the money flows through local authority crisis and resilience funds—I particularly note the example given from Norfolk. Are Ministers confident that funding is actually reaching people in every part of our country at the pace and scale required? The evidence from many places suggests that the answer is not a straightforward yes. Also, why has LPG—this has come up in the debate—not been more consistently included in the scope of support? LPG users are in much the same position as heating oil customers—off grid, without alternatives and facing the same challenges—yet they have too often been an afterthought in support announcements. That needs to be addressed. The problem is not confined to households. I have heard from businesses, some in my constituency, that are dependent on oil and LPG, including a pub that has had to completely close its kitchen and food offering because the cost of running it has become prohibitive. Thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises across rural Britain are in the same position, and the Government have not even attempted to support those businesses. That needs to change. That is the structural failure at the heart of this debate. Unlike gas or electricity, the heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem. There is no ombudsman or binding transparency requirement. The Competition and Markets Authority is now examining the market, which I welcome, but the CMA’s own chief executive has acknowledged troubling reports of cancelled orders and sudden price increases. That is precisely the kind of sharp practice that exploits the absence of regulation, examples of which Members have raised in this debate. We should end the practice of accepting orders without stating a clear, binding price up front, only for consumers to receive a bill on delivery significantly higher than anticipated. That is not a complex regulatory ask; it is basic consumer protection. When someone agrees to take delivery of heating oil, they should know what price they are paying before the tanker arrives, not after. The Government’s promise of an ombudsman and stronger consumer protection signals the right direction of travel, but it is a promise of future action, not present support. Rural households and businesses cannot wait for primary legislation to wend its way through Parliament before they receive the most basic of protections. I say to the Minister: adequate support means three things. It means emergency financial assistance that is genuinely proportionate to the scale of the crisis, not the equivalent of £35 per household, when those households are facing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in additional bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative colleagues, including myself, were the first to write to the CMA to investigate failings in the sector. I urge the Minister to continue to examine that “at pace”, which I think is the fashionable term, to get this right in future. We are also urging for LPG users to be treated with equal importance to heating oil consumers. That means immediate binding price transparency requirements, so that consumers know what they are paying before they commit. Around 1.5 million households across the UK rely on heating oil. They are disproportionately older, rural and without alternatives. They deserve better than warm words and a timetable that seems to stretch endlessly into the future.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentGreg Smith

  34. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Cost of Heating Oil

    The Minister seems to have pivoted towards electricity and away from heating oil, which this debate is about. On the wind auctions, I am not sure consumers will thank him for the price that has just been paid. However, we are talking predominantly about the many rural homes that are off the gas grid. Many are built out of stone—I declare an interest, as mine is built out of witchert, which is a form of cob—and heat pumps do not touch the sides. Will he at least acknowledge that for those rural homes, we need to look at things such as alternative fuels? Boilers can be converted to run on hydrotreated vegetable oil and, in the future, synthetic fuels. We must not just keep talking about electricity.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentGreg Smith

  36. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Engagements

    Q11. After 25 years on Princes Risborough High Street, retailer Kado has said that it is closing, citing hikes in business rates and the increases in taxation on employing people among its reasons. A few yards up on Duke Street, Salon Twentyfour Hair cannot afford for the first time in 21 years to take on a new apprentice. How many more businesses need to close, with jobs lost and apprenticeship opportunities trashed, before this Prime Minister understands that the practical out-turn of his policies is not working?

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.

    Hansard source