John Lamont
MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk · Conservative · United Kingdom
“They do not want vital healthcare decisions taken further away from the communities those services exist to serve. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the hard-working staff NHS Borders, and call on an increasingly centralising SNP Government not to forget rural and remote communities in Scotland?”
“There seems to be growing chatter on the Government Benches about an early general election, with some Labour Members apparently wondering whether the new Prime Minister might even go to the country before Christmas.”
“I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the business and, of course, the recess dates. It is always good to look forward to the next recess. Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the appalling terrorist attacks on the United States.”
“Instead, as Russell Findlay put it, we got more “meddling” and “gimmicks”—more centralisation, more bureaucracy and yet more attempts to distract from the SNP’s dire record in office.”
“A quarter of a century on, we should never forget the victims, nor should we ever waver in our determination to confront terrorism and defend the freedoms and values that those responsible sought to attack. I turn now to matters closer to home.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer, but of course for my constituents it is not No. 10 North, but “No. 10 Midlands”. According to a freedom of information request, tens of thousands of pounds have already been spent setting up No.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for John Lamont, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“We rightly welcome robust political disagreement; we encourage free speech and we welcome vigorous campaigning, but democracy also has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance; it is common sense, it is resilience, and it is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. I thank Richard Donaldson once again for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should: a member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law, more than 200,000 people agreed, and today Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should be closed. For my part, I believe that it should.”
“The obvious question is: what should change? The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification, preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, to ensure that politically motivated convictions, handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems, were not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing; they are reasons for careful legislation. The principle is clear: those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain’s greatest achievements.”
“Victims of terrorism have questioned whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions. Democracy depends on not only free elections but public confidence in those elected. If the public lose faith that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines around who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for Defence recently acknowledge that the Government are considering this issue through the defending democracy taskforce. That is welcome, but today’s debate gives Members an opportunity to go further.”
“It is important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today’s petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences. That distinction matters. It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. Following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative Members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election.”
“Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. That is an important principle, but society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards. Serving in Parliament, in a devolved legislature or on a local council is different from ordinary employment. They are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek those positions. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It is not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their life. It is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things. Others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process.”
“Members may hold differing views about that case, but today’s debate is about something much broader than one individual. It is about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed. There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate. Members often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day: our staff, Clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously.”
“The Government’s response to the petition states that there are currently “no plans” to change those rules. I hope that today’s debate will persuade the Minister to think again. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the catalyst for this petition was the case of Shahid Butt, who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year’s local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot that targeted, among other sites, the British consulate and that he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Mr Butt has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture. Those claims have been reported widely.”
“From Lockerbie to the 7 July bombings, the Manchester Arena attack and the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Those attacks were intended not just to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law. The petition before us arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office. Historical convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified.”
“I am grateful for that point. That is accurate, but the fact that anybody would want to vote for a convicted terrorist does raise serious questions, which I think we should be concerned about. Every day we walk through this palace, reminded of the human cost of terrorism. Within these walls are memorials to Members of Parliament murdered in terrorist attacks, including Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Their lives were taken because they believed in democracy. Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence; it is an attack on democratic life itself. We should not forget the many other victims of terrorism across our country.”
“Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions.”
“Yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our Government; they can come up with wording to get around that to ensure that those who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists—those who want to destroy our country and the institutions we in this place guard and protect dearly—are barred from standing for Parliament. I hope the Minister and her Government will reflect on today’s debate and on what the petitioner and all those who signed the petition put forward. I thank Richard Donaldson again for bringing this petition forward, and all Members who have taken part. Question put and agreed to.”
“I appreciate the Minister’s response and her initially positive style, but I am a bit disappointed with her conclusion. This is such an important principle: people who want to destroy our democracy, who want to pull the rug from under us and who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether that is for local government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament in Westminster. If they have ever held those fundamental views about bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, they absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament. I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that.”
“I thank all the Members who participated in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). All Members made very valid points, particularly both the Members from Northern Ireland—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) —who are obviously acutely aware of the challenges of having terrorists operating in their democratic institutions. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim; I totally forgot that Martin McGuinness had been convicted. Of course, anybody who is convicted of a terrorism offence should not be allowed to stand for office.”
“T5. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to launch an inquiry into the Peter Murrell scandal, because the SNP Government in Scotland refuse to do so. The High Court judge said that Murrell’s crimes were “not particularly sophisticated”, demolishing any suggestion that he somehow deceived everyone in the SNP. The people of Scotland deserve to know what John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon knew and when they knew it, so will the Government set up an inquiry so that we can get to the truth of this matter?”
“Q12. May I start by wishing Scotland well in their match tonight against Brazil?Following the conviction of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell for embezzlement, serious questions about governance and oversight remain unanswered. The Scottish Government are refusing to establish an inquiry, despite clear public concern. The law does provide for UK inquiries into devolved matters when there is a wider public interest, so as the Prime Minister prepares to leave office, will he set up an inquiry with the powers needed so that we can uncover the truth?”
“I was at the Royal Highland Show last week and farmers from across the UK were in their usual high spirits, but there is a real concern about the profitability and the future of farming. The SPS agreement, the price of fuel, red tape, the family farm tax and fertiliser are all big concerns. What specifically are the Government doing to address those concerns?”
“The Chancellor has overseen huge tax rises for those who work hard and do the right thing. Now they have been hit by soaring energy bills—a situation that is even more acute for many of my constituents who rely on heating oil. How does the Chancellor think that squares with the Government’s pledge to cut energy bills?”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.”
“The context matters. The Jewish community in Britain has experienced a sustained increase in antisemitic incidents in recent years. Many British Jews report feeling less secure than they have for decades, and synagogues, schools and community institutions continue to require significant security measures.”
“When political outcomes are routinely attributed to hidden influence rather than democratic choice, trust in democratic institutions is eroded. Conspiracy theories weaken our democracy, encourage suspicion and promote division. That is true regardless of who the alleged conspirators are, but when those allegations reinforce one of the oldest prejudices in human history, the consequences are particularly serious. We should also remember that conspiracy theories do not exist in a vacuum. History teaches us that conspiracy theories portraying Jews as powerful, manipulative and disloyal have often preceded discrimination, exclusion and violence. That is not a theoretical concern. At a time when antisemitism is rising across many parts of society, we must be especially careful not to lend legitimacy to narratives that reinforce such ideas.”
“As part of my preparation for the debate, I spoke to academics from the Royal United Services Institute who have considered the extent of foreign influence in the United Kingdom. The clearest and most substantiated concerns identified by successive Governments, parliamentary Committees and security services relate to hostile state activities from countries such as Russia and China. That makes it all the more striking that the petition singles out Israel, and frames its concern in language that echoes long-standing conspiracy theories about hidden influence. There is a clear difference between criticising a Government and advancing allegations that supporters of that Government exercise covert influence over democratic institutions. The concern is about not simply what the petition says but what it implies.”
“Holding Israel to standards that are not applied to any other country is an unmistakable breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as the former UK special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, Lord Pickles, has warned. The IHRA definition also as potentially antisemitic identifies allegations concerning Jewish control of Governments, institutions and public life, as well as accusations of dual loyalty directed towards Jewish citizens. The grossly disproportionate focus on Israel, and the hardline language that that has all too often entailed, means, I regret to say, that this mother of all Parliaments has played a dangerous role in the explosion of antisemitism in this country. It is a painful truth, but Lord Austin was right to say so last week in the other place.”
“In the year following Hamas’s horrific terror rampage of 7 October 2023, MPs made an astonishing 4,369 contributions in the Chamber relating to Israel. Consider for a second that that is more than double the number of mentions of the national health service, at 1,895. In the same period, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was mentioned 1,449 times, while the appalling suffering unleashed by the war in Sudan warranted only a paltry 225 mentions. The same disproportionate focus on Israel within this place continues to this day. Presented with those facts, it is undeniable that anyone who claims the existence of a lobby seeking to silence dissent is nothing less than delusional. A reasonable case can be made that the very opposite is true: Israel has been uniquely singled out.”
“It is unmistakably racist, but that is exactly the sort of harmful activity and rhetoric that has become commonplace—the sort of message that today’s petition stems from. That is why concerns have been raised by so many across the political spectrum about the framing of the petition. This is not an attempt to prevent criticism of Israel or shield any Government from scrutiny. The Government of Israel, like every Government in the world, can and should be subject to criticism. Their policies can be challenged. Their decisions can be debated. Their actions can be scrutinised robustly and vigorously. Indeed, that is entirely consistent with democratic debate. It should be noted that extensive parliamentary time has been spent debating Israel.”
“It fuelled antisemitic movements across Europe and beyond, and helped to create an environment in which discrimination, persecution and violence flourished. Today, such ideas are often expressed through different language, but the ill intent of its practitioners and its harmful consequences for Jews and wider society are all too familiar. Rather than speaking explicitly about Jews, some speak about Zionists, the lobby, hidden influence networks or pro-Israel control. The packaging has changed, but it is no less insidious in its implication. Like many of my colleagues, I have been accosted while walking outside Parliament by so-called peace activists handing out mock banknotes with “Bank of Zionism” written on them—an insinuation of Jewish control of our politics and economy.”
“For centuries, at the heart of antisemitism has been the claim that Jews exercise secret control over Governments, political systems, financial institutions, the media or public life. Those ideas have appeared in countless forms throughout history. They have been repackaged and modernised for different generations, but the core allegation remains remarkably consistent: that Jews acting collectively and covertly manipulate political events from behind the scenes. The most notorious example was the fraudulent document known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which purported to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although repeatedly exposed as a forgery, its pernicious influence was immense.”
“The petition calls for a public inquiry into what it describes as “pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”. That wording matters. The petition does not call for a review of lobbying regulations generally. It does not seek greater transparency about foreign influence from all states; indeed, it cynically overlooks the fact that there are campaigns and lobbies operating in the UK in support of almost all countries in the world. It does not ask for a broad examination of how political advocacy works in the United Kingdom. Instead, it singles out one country and, more importantly, invokes a long-standing allegation that people who support that country exercise hidden or improper influence over our democratic institutions. That false accusation has a very long and very troubling history.”
“The debate raises important questions not simply about foreign influence or political advocacy but about the boundaries between legitimate political criticism and conspiracy theories that have historically fuelled antisemitism. Let me also say at the outset that I recognise that many of the people who signed the petition, including the 194 in my constituency, may have done so in good faith. Many will have believed that they were supporting transparency in public life or expressing concern about the events in the middle east. I do not question their motives; however, Parliament has a responsibility not only to consider what is being said but to understand the historical and political context in which it is being said. We have a duty to recognise when language and ideas echo prejudices that have caused immense harm throughout history.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his point of order. As he will discover during the course of my contribution, I have a great degree of sympathy with his remarks. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While I will take interventions later in my speech, I would be grateful if I could develop some of my key points before doing so. The petition was created by Andy Kalil and signed by over 118,000 people. I begin by making it explicit that I do not support the petition; indeed, I believe that it raises profound concerns, not because it seeks scrutiny of politics or lobbying but because of the way in which it frames those concerns and the sinister narratives upon which it draws.”
“Parliament should reject those ideas, and send a clear message that antisemitic narratives, whether old or newly repackaged, will find no home in this Parliament of the United Kingdom.”
“The Prime Minister and the Government have rightly committed to a whole-of-society approach to tackling antisemitism. This debate is therefore about more than a petition; it is an early test of their resolve to confront antisemitism wherever it appears. I hope the Minister will use his contribution to make it clear that conspiracy theories concerning Jewish or pro-Israel control of politics have no place in democratic discourse. I hope that Members from all parties will stand together in defence of democratic debate, free from prejudice and conspiracy. Allegations of hidden pro-Israel or Zionist control of British democracy draw upon a tradition of conspiracy thinking that has poisoned public life for generations.”
“If there is one positive outcome of today’s debate, I hope it will be that there is a greater public understanding of how antisemitism can manifest in modern political discourse, particularly through conspiracy theories concerning power, influence and loyalty. We should use this opportunity not to legitimise those narratives but to expose them. This should not be a partisan issue. Members from every party should be able to agree that legitimate political disagreement must never rely upon, excuse or reinforce antisemitic narratives. We should be collectively clear that allegations of covert Jewish or pro-Israel control of politics are not legitimate political criticism; they are rooted in a tradition of antisemitic conspiracy theory that has caused immense harm throughout history. Parliament should reject those narratives.”
“If concerns about lobbying exist, they should be addressed through the established mechanisms that already exist. The challenge for all Members today is to ensure that the debate does not inadvertently amplify the very narratives that have caused such concern. We must expose those narratives, not to amplify but to challenge conspiracy theories. Parliament is at its strongest when it combines robust democratic debate with moral clarity. As legislators, we have a responsibility to understand that hatred evolves and adopts new language to advance old prejudices. We must now respond appropriately.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Against a backdrop of the Jewish community asking for extra protections, it is entirely understandable that a petition built around allegations of hidden pro-Israel influence has generated such deep anxiety. Many British Jews hear in that language echoes of accusations that have been directed at their community for generations. We should listen carefully to those concerns. That does not mean that public life should be beyond scrutiny—quite the opposite. Transparency is essential, foreign influence should be taken seriously, lobbying should be transparent, political donations should be properly regulated and Parliament should remain vigilant against inappropriate influence from any source, but those principles must be applied consistently.”
“That is the only way we will stamp out antisemitism. I congratulate the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their strong words.”
“I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. As I said at the start, my job was to introduce the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but it is not a petition that I have any sympathy with—I fundamentally disagree with it. When I was allocated this debate to introduce, I worried that I would be the only voice calling the petition out for what it is, but I am reassured that across the House and across parties—with a few notable exceptions, I have to say—there has been a unity of voice. Parliament has demonstrated that we see this petition for what it is: we are not comfortable with it, and we do not like it. It is astonishing that a minority of hon. Members said things that, frankly, amounted to the expression of antisemitic views. I found that deeply uncomfortable, and we, as legislators, must call it out.”
“Any further petition would have to attract more than 100,000 signatures, but the Petitions Committee has discretion, even when it reaches that number, on whether to grant another debate. When reflecting on how this debate has gone, and more widely on how the Jewish community in particular has reacted to the petition, I would certainly argue that it should not come back for another debate, even if it reached that threshold. We have had an opportunity to air our views, and we have collectively called it out for what it is. I am grateful to you, Mrs Harris, for chairing the debate, and to all hon. Members who have taken part. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“In a survey I conducted in the Borders about Network Rail’s new timetable changes, more than 70% of residents said they were now less likely to use Berwick-upon-Tweed station as a result. The timetable changes mean fewer direct services to London, with many passengers having to change trains. This is having a significant impact on elderly train users and disabled train users. Does the Minister agree that, if his plan for Great British Railways is to be a success, frequent and reliable services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London need to be reinstated?”