What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Fleetwood and Lytham have been officially recognised as the two busiest coastguard stations in the UK, and I place on the record my thanks for their amazing dedication to keeping our people safe. Will the Minister reassure the House that the GMB union and volunteer coastguards will be fully consulted at all stages, and that communities like mine in Blackpool North and Fleetwood are not going to be put at risk?
We talk about getting people out of hospital, but it is also about keeping them out of there. I spent years in and out of hospital as a teenager; I was one of the youngest people in Britain to have a hip replacement when I was in sixth form. The rehabilitation services that I relied on at the Royal London hospital were sadly closed by the last Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we invest in those services for them to reopen, so that when people leave hospital, they stay out of hospital?
The last time we saw a change of such potential scale was when we moved from being a manufacturing economy to being more of a service economy. There were trade-offs at that time, and some people, cities, towns and villages were left behind—including in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that on this occasion we can plan because we know it is coming? We need to be thinking about jobs, access and skills for younger people, and ensuring that the benefits are felt right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.
Interconnectivity goes across not just buses but other modes of transport such as trains. There is a petition in one of my rural areas where, pre-covid, trains ran every 30 minutes; that is now every two hours, and there is a big gap in the middle of the day. Does the hon. Member agree that we need strategic planning in the mayoralties across all modes of transport?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this important debate. We live at a time when our country is being targeted—not just threatened or tested, but actively targeted. We have already heard from many hon. Members that the reality is that hostile states are seeking to harm us every single day. Cyber-attacks batter our systems, malign actors push relentlessly at the seams of our national security and disinformation campaigns seek to warp our public debates, including in Clacton in the weeks ahead, where Russian bots will have to decide whether it is going to be the current outgoing Member for Clacton or Count Binface—that is the choice they face. More seriously, we know these threats in our day-to-day work as Members. They happen to us and to anybody who wants to speak out in public debate. And why is that? It is to undermine our common security. We have had discussion today about whose fault it is that our defences have been run down in recent years. Let me be bipartisan: we all lived off the peace dividend from the end of the cold war—that is understandable and we get that—but in that time, we came together as a country and as a House to defend countries in need, not least Ukraine. We have done that, but now we need to look to our home defence, which is under threat in a way that it has never been since at least the second world war.
That is fantastic news for the future of NATO. I pay tribute to our Prime Minister for speaking up for NATO. This country has a NATO-first policy, and rightly so. We put our nuclear deterrent and our own taxpayers’ money to the service of NATO. We must come together as an alliance and we must recognise that our country’s contribution has been great, no matter what the debate about how we get to 3.5% of GDP in the years ahead. I thank my own Government—as a Labour MP, I should—for what they have done to support our armed forces by increasing pay and taking housing back into public ownership, so that the armed forces can have the morale that they deserve. But we need to keep doing more. I thank our defence industry in this country too. I want to mention two defence firms in my constituency of Stevenage. Airbus helps to produce between a quarter and a third of all satellites in space, but the company cannot manufacture the satellites in my town alone; it collaborates with companies in sites across the country, including in Portsmouth—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is in her place. We need to come together and support our SMEs. Last week, I visited Astute, a defence logistics firm in my constituency that needs our support. This Government are and must do more to support such companies in the armed forces industries, but that is not enough if we are going to truly make our country safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) made an excellent point about how we have to face the threats from hostile actors around the world. It is not just about the hardware or about the people we need to recruit to our armed forces. As many hon. Members have said, it is about a whole-of-society approach. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about national resilience, and this really has to be a national cause. The excellent strategic defence review finishes with that point and talks about a whole-of-society approach. Can we really do that? Members have said today that the public do not really feel that yet, but many Members and veterans do. The armed forces and our intelligence services see it. There are things that I do not even know about, but I do know—from what I am allowed to know—that this issue is serious and affecting us now. Russia’s grey-zone war is there, and it will not just be Russia in the years ahead—we know that there are others—so how do we take this approach? Before the second world war, many people thought, “Never again. We cannot rearm; we cannot do all this.” There was a famous debate in the Oxford Union, where they voted not to fight for King or country—and that is said about our young people today, but I do not believe it. I see countries, such as Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, that feel and see the urgency. Maybe we do not feel it yet in this country, but it behoves all of us, in this place and beyond, to help people understand what is going on. That will be harder now. In the 1930s, we had the mainstream media, or whatever it was called back then; now, we are going to be dealing with disinformation. When we try to make our case, there will always be somebody out there to talk about poor, maligned Putin. I have that in my patch—only a few days ago, a Russian state broadcaster wanted Stevenage to be attacked with missiles. We must do better, and I am sure that we will.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for tabling this urgent question on what is an incredibly important matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the remuneration of coastguard rescue officers, and I want to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by CROs across the United Kingdom. For generations, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve, often alongside full-time employment and family life. The reason we are here today is that the model had to change. For years, when people signed up as volunteers, they had their expenses covered and an offer of hourly pay—which they did not need to claim—in recognition of the incredible service they undertook and the impact it had on their personal life. A Court of Appeal judgment has clarified that this payment overwhelmingly shifted what many considered to be a volunteer relationship into a work-wage bargain, and that this in turn conferred worker status. Everything we have done since has been to respect that judgment, understand what we do next, and allow CROs to continue fulfilling their vital public service and retain operational capacity. There is no perfect solution, but ultimately, the volunteer model was judged at the time to be the better outcome for the service. That was the judgment reached by the MCA, which—as experts in search and rescue—took into account a variety of factors including profiles of incident types, geographies and organisational implications, as well as a survey of CRO sentiment and legal analysis, with which it made a recommendation. That recommendation allowed CROs to retain volunteer status, with the aim of protecting flexibility and the ability of people to serve alongside their primary employment. Careful consideration was given to options, including legal position, the operational implications and the wider organisational impact. I have heard the concerns of the CRO community about this change. That is why the next stage of the process—the engagement sessions that were due to take place this week—have been postponed while I carry on working with CROs, trade unions and colleagues across the House. I will reflect on what has been raised in these discussions and consider how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised in the long term. Volunteering has been at the heart of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s response for over 200 years. It enables individuals to serve their communities alongside their primary employment, maintaining choice and flexibility. I remain grateful to all members of the Coastguard Rescue Service for their unwavering commitment to their communities and people in distress around the UK coastline.
May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member not only for his championing of CROs, but for doing so in such a fair-minded, open and constructive way? I will respond substantively to some of the points he has made. On parliamentary scrutiny of prospective changes or working through options for the future of CROs, I make the commitment to him that Members of Parliament will be updated fully on any changes and on the next steps. During the Westminster Hall debate on this issue, he made the important point that MPs need to be allowed access to CROs to have meaningful conversations about what they think the future of the service should look like. The right hon. Member asks whether survey data was used to inform the judgment that was made. I can confirm to him that survey data was one constituent part of a package of advice in regard to an operational recommendation by experts at the MCA about what the future model should look like. That was used alongside impact assessments and modelling. He raised this in his contribution to the Westminster Hall debate, but if he has further information about how CROs believe this change will impact them, and about the reality for his rural constituency and the island communities that he represents so fulsomely, I strongly encourage him to share that with me. I reiterate that I want Members of Parliament to be able to play a full role in representing CROs throughout this process.
I have already made a commitment to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to keep the House fully informed about any next steps that are taken, but my hon. Friend raises a broader point about how CROs have been engaged throughout this process. There are some fundamental truths that I keep coming back to. One is that remuneration takes place because it allows CROs to carry out the work that they do. They do not do it for the money, but it allows them to carry out this vital public service. Another truth is that it is not always possible to reflect the scale of the contribution that CROs make. I was in Southampton the other day and spoke to around 15 CROs. They were talking about the system not recognising when they take the van for an MOT or douse down the equipment after somebody has been rescued from mud. Ultimately, it is about fairness and recognition, and that is what I want to do my level best to inject into this process.
On what I am doing personally to solve the problem, the reason that those consultation sessions are not going ahead this week is that I am honouring the commitment I made to the House last week in the Westminster Hall debate in responding to the number of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament about the operational implications of the decision that was taken. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised serious concerns and questions were asked about parliamentary engagement with CROs. Allegations were made that MPs were not granted proper access to engage with CROs prior to the decision being taken. Those things are all of serious concern to me, and that is why this pause has gone ahead. I question what the shadow Minister says about the data standing alone in the operational judgment that was made. I reiterate that a package of measures enables us to make a decision. It is based on impact assessments, operational evidence and the surveys that he references. The surveys only form a constituent part of that process. The salient point remains that it is right to reflect on the concerns that have been raised across this House and to consider long-term options that will ensure that CROs feel valued and that operational capacity is retained in every part of the United Kingdom, including our rural areas. That is what I am committed to doing.
I thank my hon. Friend for her doggedly determined support for her CROs. She is absolutely right to do what she is doing. I would be pleased to engage with the evidence sessions that are taking place next week, and I look forward to seeing the findings from them. She is right to point to the fact that CROs have decades of experience. I spoke to a CRO in Southampton just the other day who had served, including through the MCA, for the best part of 50 years. We cannot afford for that experience to slip through the cracks. She also mentions that CROs often have to respond to the most tragic of circumstances, when unfortunately it has not been possible to save people. Remuneration does not obscure that fact or make it better, but it is a way of recognising the enormous contribution that CROs make. That point about fairness and due regard for the contribution that CROs make has to run through the centre of what comes next.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson was right to say that CROs do not do it for the money, but it is the money that makes what they do possible. He also said that £11 an hour does not constitute remuneration in the way that it might, given that we would all hope that CROs can be respected. What it does do is go some small way towards compensating for the Christmas dinners and birthdays missed, the call-outs in the middle of the night, and the disruption to family life. That is a part of the CRO experience that I think needs to flow into our decision making and that was certainly reflected to me when I spoke to the 15 CROs in Southampton the other day and learned about their lived experience of processing these changes. The hon. Gentleman asked me about risk, about mitigating risk, and about operational certainty. I can confirm to him that operational impacts were carefully considered in the advice that was put to me, and that that modelling has been done and has informed this part of a package of data, alongside the survey information. That informs the experts in the MCA, who are there to advise on what the operational impacts would be, of the reality of the situation.
My hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to reiterate that CROs, their lived experience and their views on these changes must be at the heart of what happens next, which is why the meetings that were scheduled to take place this week are not taking place this week. I want to take the time to reflect on what hon. Members have told me, and also what CROs have had the opportunity to tell me about how these changes will affect them. Nowhere is that more important than in rural communities like the one that my hon. Friend represents. Let me build on that point. As the local Member of Parliament, she should be able to engage with her CROs on this matter where it is most convenient to do so—perhaps at the station itself—so that she can represent them. It is also important for trade union representation to be factored into ongoing engagement with CROs, so that we can make sure we get the details right.
We need to ensure that the CROs who are affected by these changes have an opportunity to carry on raising their concerns, but also to raise other instances. The hon. Gentleman has argued forcefully that the worker model is an appropriate way in which to continue, and that could be true in a great number of cases, but it is not true in every case. Indeed, I spoke to a CRO in Southampton for whom it is not the case. We need to tease out the detail of all these matters. We need to listen carefully to CROs, and we need to create the space to allow that to happen. I am not going to say specifically what options I may or may not take in the coming days, but by pausing the sessions that were meant to happen this week I am creating the space that will make it possible to weigh up those options dispassionately and ensure that we can get them right, so that CROs can continue to share their views and we can make decisions that reflect the incredible contribution they make.
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the House of making sure that workers and their rights are protected, but his characterisation of the situation at the start of his question was one that I could not reject more strongly. Changes in the coastguard rescue service operating model are the result of a legal judgment which meant that the current model could not legally continue. What we are attempting to do is maintain a system whereby CROs feel valued in their work and feel motivated to turn up and carry out their shifts, and ensure that the fairness that is inherent to that is respected and implemented. That is exactly why I have postponed those meetings this week, and created the space in which to hear from CROs directly about their concerns and to get the detail of this right.
I understand that for the hon. Gentleman it is not an option to have a coastguard service that works effectively; it is an absolute necessity to protect people in his coastal community. What I can say to him is that we will continue to engage with CROs. When one of his colleagues in the Westminster Hall debate asked me what information could be shared, I made a commitment that I would go back to my officials and ask that question, and that is something that I am currently working through. However, what I have derived from this process is the need to ensure—this has been my enduring objective throughout the process—that CROs feel heard and are able to share their concerns, including through their MPs, and the hon. Gentleman has rightly allowed that to happen.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points, and for enabling me to reflect on a question that has been raised by a number of Members: the question of about how engagement is to take place from now on. Let me make it absolutely clear that my expectation is for all engagement with CROs, whether through the MCA or meetings with Members of Parliament, to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible. I want CROs to feel able to share their views openly in all their complexity—and I found some of the allegations made last week by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about CROs being made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their views deeply concerning. Let me reiterate that I will be making it clear to the MCA’s leadership that that is how I want them to approach this engagement. It includes ensuring that MPs and trade unions play their full role, and I hope that my hon. Friend can do so.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that we cannot afford to lose the level of experience that we have within the MCA and the CRO community. I, too, heard the scale of concern that he so ably references and has experienced among his own coastguard volunteers. It is critical to recognise all the work that CROs undertake that lies outside the call-outs they receive. They do an enormous amount of work, which is not fully recognised and needs to be. On treating them with due respect and esteem, it is essential that we figure out a way forward that allows us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has picked up the necessity to do that, and it is certainly my intention that that will inform whatever comes next in this process.
I would be glad to speak to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and he raises an incredibly important point: very often, CROs are not only discharging the responsibilities that we would expect of coastguard rescue officers; they are increasingly filling in the gaps for other emergency blue light services that, for whatever reason, are not able to get to people in time, or are thinly stretched and require CROs to step up. That requires them to go beyond the operational requirements that we would expect of them. This process is not just about recognising the incredible service that they contribute within the envelope of what is expected of them; they go beyond that every single day. My hon. Friend explains the issue well, and I would be happy to engage with his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about the contributions that CROs make in the most tragic and emotionally traumatic circumstances. We need to do a number of things, including building a system that allows us to retain operational capacity so that we can keep people safe in our water, and granting CROs, and the MCA more broadly, the resilience to be able to carry out their meaningful work. We also need to treat CROs with the fairness, dignity and respect that they require. He is right to say that remuneration allowed us to do that. We are now dealing with the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment to process how we move forward, to make sure that fairness and due respect continue into the future. I hope that he can continue to hold me to account as we do so.
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about rural and island communities in Scotland, and about the impact that coastguard services can have. From speaking to CROs in Southampton, I am cognisant of the principle of demotivation, and I am deeply concerned about its implications. A CRO said to me that this is ultimately about fairness—the money is not anything to brag about, but it is fair recognition for what they do. I do not want any CRO to feel devalued, or to feel less motivated to turn up to a call-out, because of decisions that have been made. That is why it is so important that, with regard to the engagement that is happening next week, we take a beat, take some time to reflect on what CROs are saying, and try to find an equitable solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be part of that process.
The hon. Gentleman is a far more seasoned Member of this House than I am, so I will leave it to him to opine on whether “the law is an ass” is parliamentary language or not. It is incumbent on the Department to deal with the legal reality that has been created as a consequence of the judgment. It is also right to say that the volunteer model that exists for CROs, with hourly remuneration, is rather unique with regard to how volunteering works, and it therefore requires a bespoke response. I can assure him that I am weighing up options for the long-term future of CROs to ensure that recognition can take place. There is a potential primary legislative route that I want to explore, which involves a carve-out, but it would take a lot of time to do; it is very legally complex, and it has other implications that go beyond the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I very much respect and thank the hon. Gentleman for his urgency, but I have to take these decisions dispassionately and with full cognisance of their implications.
I have already been very clear from the Dispatch Box that I do not just want, but expect, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to allow trade unions to play their full role when it comes to working with CROs to articulate their vision of what they want the future of the service to be. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to comment on negotiations between a trade union and an employer in the way that my hon. Friend expects, but I am very clear that trade unions must be allowed to play their full role in this process.
I am very happy to engage with the hon. Lady’s constituents on this matter, and I thank her for so robustly defending them in this House. She is right to say that we have spoken a lot about the importance of CROs to rural, island and coastal communities. She brings an incredibly important perspective on the implications for cities, especially as we look towards the summer period and peak tourist season. She is right to point to the fact that this will build as an issue over the summer. When the changes were originally announced, they were due to be implemented in September, but that is not to say that I am not cognisant of the fact that there could be implications if people feel demotivated and unwilling to attend a call-out before then. It is really important that we take the time to re-engage with CROs, such as those in her constituency, and to talk about the long-term options.
The safety of the public and the operational capacity of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are of the utmost importance to the Government. CROs feeling that they are respected and able to play their full part in this process will facilitate that, and that is what I am determined to achieve. My hon. Friend is right to push me on the question of trade union involvement, and my expectation is that trade unions should play their full role in representing their members.
I have been very clear from this Dispatch Box that I am tasking my officials with determining what information can be released in relation to the hon. Member’s questions. It is critical that MPs are able to engage fully in this process and hold me to account as they do so. As I said at the start, ultimately we had to comply with the judgment passed down by the Court of Appeal. That mandated the need to change the current system, because if we had carried on implementing it, we would not have been compliant with the law. The question now is what comes next and what the long-term options are, and I am committed to exploring that with Members from across the House.
Coastguard rescue officers in Bournemouth East carry out an incredible service on behalf of their local community and their country in keeping the public safe, and we thank them deeply for their service. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are looking at a range of options for what comes next. He must play his part in that process, alongside trade unions. I reiterate that I want CROs to feel they can fully and frankly contribute their views about the implications of this decision, especially now that there is more time, which allows them to properly consider the full range of how this may impact them, alongside primary employment and other considerations. I would encourage him to share that with me, and let us all collaborate in this process to make sure that the voices of CROs are heard.
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes of a CRO in his constituency is exactly what I want to avoid. He is right to point out that, like a number of the CROs I spoke to the other day, some are small business owners, and we appreciate how hard they need to work, often with small margins, to keep their businesses running. That takes us back to the point that the level of remuneration is not something to brag about, but it does allow CROs to do their job, and it is incredibly important that we are cognisant of that. I am very keen to facilitate all of us having an opportunity to play our role in engaging with what comes next. It goes back to the point I made to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about ensuring that MPs are kept up to date on all of the latest steps in this process and that they can play their full role in holding me to account, so that we get this right for CROs.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being such a champion of the CROs in his constituency, and I am very happy to engage with them if he would be willing to facilitate that. Making sure that CROs can share their views fully and frankly is incredibly important to me. I am attempting to facilitate that by making it very clear that my expectation is that the MCA leadership should give CROs the space to engage fully with me, their local Members of Parliament, their trade unions and their local leadership, so we can get a clear picture of their views about how these changes may impact on their operational ability and we can all work together to find an equitable solution to this challenge.
When I was in Southampton a few days ago, the intricacies, the difficulties and, ultimately, the horribleness of mud rescues were explained to me. The hon. Lady very powerfully makes the point that it is difficult for people who are not active CROs to understand the level of commitment required to carry out this dangerous work in the service of people they have never met. On changing the law and legislative carve-outs, I have been quite clear that, while there are options to facilitate this, they are not a quick fix. Such options will not give CROs certainty in the moment, but they have been considered. On operational risk, I can confirm to the hon. Member and reassure her that impact modelling based on data was carried out by the MCA to inform the recommendation. Robust contingency plans do exist across the search-and-rescue capability of the coastguard and other services to enable them to respond to people in distress across the United Kingdom. We do not want to get into such a situation, however, and that is exactly why I have said what I have said to the House today.
We need to work through this process strategically and methodically to ensure we are taking the right decision based on data and the lived experience of CROs. I have paused the engagement this week to allow us to more clearly get a better read of this situation, and that will inform my approach.
The hon. Gentleman points to the important fact that the MCA CROs conduct their work alongside other emergency services and full-time employees of the MCA, and we need to take all those operational impacts into account. In response to another question, I said that I have instructed officials to determine what can be shared in relation to this process, and I will have more to say on that in due course.
The hon. Gentleman will know that my constituents and I are no strangers to Bridlington—a wonderful place to visit—and the CROs who work there to protect us must be given the tools they need to carry out their vital work. The broader review of the MCA will look at exactly the questions the hon. Gentleman raises. I will ensure he plays his part in that process, so that we come to the right answers.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that there are a number of operative models for volunteers. I can assure him that I am looking at the long-term options to ensure that the CRO volunteering model is respected. We had an exchange in Westminster Hall about how the retained fire service model creates implications, but I understand that he is just pushing me to have a broad lens on what the solutions might be and I thank him for doing so.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the tragic case of Grace, Sarah and Mark. My condolences to their families. He is right to say that this is not a theoretical question. We have an urgent need to address this issue now to ensure that CROs can do what we need them to do, which is carry out this phenomenal public service, and to retain safety and operational capacity across the country. He encourages me to go further and faster, and I have heard his call.
I have no doubt about the contribution that CROs in Selsey make, and I would be happy to engage with the hon. Lady’s constituents on this issue. She raises the particular issue that for rural communities the impacts might be felt especially keenly. That is why it is critical, as we continue to engage with CROs—I will continue to do so across the country—that we do so with the geographic lens she describes to make sure we can pick up all the operational complexities about what future options could mean.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his robust defence of CROs in his constituency and their incredible contribution to his local area. I have already confirmed to the House that I have instructed officials to determine what can be shared to make sure that he is able to carry out his role of holding me to account and representing CROs. In the meantime, I continue to the thank the CROs in his constituency, who he is such a powerful advocate for, for carrying out their essential work.
The hon. Lady is right to identify the fact that for CROs, remuneration is not the reason they volunteer, but it allows them to do that volunteering work. She points to a number of options around future models. I can confirm to her that a range of options has been considered. I have paused the meetings that are happening this week to create the space to allow CROs’ voices to be heard and for that conversation to continue.
The full impact on search and rescue capability and operational capacity has been considered through this process, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the fact that it is critical that we continue to interpret what CROs are telling us about what the impact will be, and that we rationalise that with how we project demand to flow over the summer and into September. I missed something in the previous question. On the very serious issue of whistleblowing, may I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) to please write to me about that specific instance? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who I am currently answering, is right to raise these very important issues.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026.