Twice as many spoken contributions during your average year. I’m proud to have reached the milestone of 250 spoken contributions in just over two years. Compared to 754 by my predecessor’s 14 years in office, that’s more than double his yearly average.

☎️ Additionally, we operate an answerphone service, leave a message and a member of the team will get back to you. Do not hesitate to get in touch!

📍Our office address is for written enquiries only as we have been advised by parliamentary security that we are unable to offer drop-in surgeries.

📱Please note we cannot guarantee responses via social media.

My office has moved! If you are a Harrogate and Knaresborough constituent and want to reach out – whether it’s about a policy issue, or a piece of casework I can assist with- drop us an email, answer phone message or letter.

The motion passed at Green Party Conf' actively undermines a 2-state solution, and does not address the rising threats of Islamophobia and Antisemitism here in the UK. This is a divisive motion that pours fuel on the fire of tensions in the UK, and will leave many British Jews feeling less safe.

Going back to basics on the original purpose of the triple lock with @mattchorley.bsky.social. If we want to tackle pensioner poverty and poverty across the board we need to target our resources better.

We already have pension credit - if the desired aim to reduce pension poverty - target the money where it is needed, rather than an above inflationary increase for all.

In the thread I literally say we should be tackling pensioner poverty and target support to stop it. That makes more sense than handing out above inflationary increases to everyone. On your latter point, what a load of absolutely baseless nonsense.

Thanks. I hadn’t thought of that.

Most millennials don’t think there will be a state pension when they retire so this isn’t being done with them in mind Pensioners will gain more from free social care than a linking rise of state pension to earnings Proud of triple lock in coalition but we must plan for future not venerate the past

I joined this party because I care about fairness and tackling inequality, and that has to include inequality between generations. This line, and this decision, fails on both counts. Ed needs to think again.

We're locked out of the housing market, paying higher taxes, repaying student loans that never seem to shrink, and putting off having children because of the cost of living.

Telling millennials we're keeping the triple lock to help us in 30 years' time is nonsense. We're on course to be the first generation worse off than our parents.

Ed is right that we shouldn't pit one generation against another. But intergenerational inequality is already one of the defining injustices of our time, and this would further entrench it. Worse, it gaslights an entire generation into believing it's for our benefit.

That money should go where it's needed most - to everyone in poverty, not just one group. It could help fund free personal care, a policy that would disproportionately benefit older people.

We talk about fairness, yet our answer is to give the same increase to every pensioner, treating the one choosing between heating and eating exactly the same as the one with millions in the bank. I can see no moral or fiscal case for above inflation rises for millionaires.

The case for the triple lock is a worthy one - stopping pensioner poverty. I want that as much as anyone. But pensioners are now less likely to be in poverty than children or working age adults.

I listened to Ed Davey on the Today programme this morning, and frankly, I think he missed the point. The idea that we're keeping the triple lock to help millennials is at best for the birds, and at worst downright insulting. I say that as a millennial.