partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   Businesses trading with unlawful settlements can be under no illusion that the settlements are unlawful and that the majority of Members of this House view them as utterly morally repugnant. Nor can they be under any illusion that the UK Government’s position is that people should not trade with unlawful settlements. I urge the Minister to act swiftly on this and to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that clever legal arguments around retrospectivity—because any measures will come in after the Minister’s clear statement—are closed off. Will the Minister consider primary legislation to ensure that those engaging in this morally repugnant trade are closed off, even if they enter into contracts today and legislation is passed in two months’ time?

   Hansard source
2. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Johanna Baxter

   Women in Tech Taskforce

   6. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the women in tech taskforce on levels of diversity in the technology sector.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Johanna Baxter

   Women in Tech Taskforce

   Evidence suggests that AI tools used in recruitment often favour male names almost five times more than female names, and AI models built to prevent liver disease are twice as likely to miss the disease in women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless we have women shaping this technology, it will continue not to deliver for women? Can she outline Government plans to address those biases while encouraging more women in Paisley and Renfrewshire South to join the sector?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Powell

   Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

   I welcome the focus on supporting low and middle-income households. The Minister will know that after the July 2021 floods in central London, denial of flood insurance or punitive excesses for people living in blocks of four or more flats has been a serious problem. That is a big chunk of my constituents. They cannot access Flood Re, because those properties are treated as commercial premises. What plans does the Minister have to address this issue?

   Hansard source
5. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   I echo the concerns of colleagues from all parts of the House on the E1 settlements. If they go ahead, they will clearly destroy the viability of a Palestinian state. That is not a commentary; as has been said, it is a stated aim. To build on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), may I encourage the Minister to do whatever he can to emphasise to the business community not just in this country, but across the world, that involvement with these settlements is morally bankrupt? The public will not tolerate it, and we need to do everything we can to stop British business being involved in this morally repugnant trade.

   Hansard source
6. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jenny Riddell-Carpenter

   Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

   I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for her work. She has rightly observed that people are more likely to be at risk of flooding because of climate change, and that also brings with it a greater risk from coastal erosion. As she will know, my constituency lost 11 homes over the winter because of coastal erosion, which is set to put even more homes at risk over the years and decades ahead. In our report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended the extension of Flood Re to Coastal Re. Will the Minister comment on that recommendation, and commit herself to looking at it further?

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   Coming from Falmouth in Cornwall, I know that coastguards and the brilliant work they do are crucial. May I suggest a potential solution for the Minister to consider, whereby HMRC agrees some sort of disturbance or disruption allowance that volunteers can claim? We have to ensure that coastguard volunteers can continue doing this vital work.

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   I thank my hon. Friend for his response on Israel breaking international law, and for opposing and denouncing illegal settlements on the west bank. Recently, the International Development Committee heard about some of the atrocities that are taking place; in one instance, gunshot was fired through a car, killing a 7-month-old baby and their parents. The community has no legal protections; they are not safe. What more are the Government doing, or considering, to give legal protections to this desperate community?

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   I was proud last year to be part of the Government who finally recognised the state of Palestine. However, the very idea of statehood is illusory when such activities are happening. After four rounds of sanctions, what is being done with international partners to hold individuals to account for forced displacement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), as we know that that constitutes a war crime under international humanitarian law?

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The statutory instrument makes a series of technical but important amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and associated regulations. Its purpose is to ensure that legal aid legislation remains consistent and aligned with wider changes to the law around anti-social behaviour orders and national security measures. The instrument makes changes in three main areas. First, it updates the scope of civil legal aid to reflect the reforms to measures tackling anti-social behaviour introduced by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the legal aid framework for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, otherwise known as TPIMs. Thirdly, it aligns the legal aid framework for state threats prevention and investigation measures, or STPIMs, with the framework for TPIMs. Taken together, the changes ensure that legal aid will continue to support the vital principle of access to justice while maintaining a coherent and accessible system. I will briefly discuss each of the main changes, starting with measures that tackle anti-social behaviour. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions. Those measures replace or reform much of the existing anti-social behaviour injunction regime. Civil legal aid is already available for current anti-social behaviour injunctions. The instrument simply ensures that legal aid continues to be available for the new orders and injunctions.

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

    That is certainly something we can look into. As my hon. Friend knows from his previous life before becoming a parliamentarian, legal aid is vital for access to justice, especially for those vulnerable groups. Although we are talking about antisocial behaviour measures and terrorism prevention orders, that still applies across the civil and criminal order regime. He is absolutely right, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister comes back to him with the details in due course. Civil behaviour orders can have significant consequences for those subject to them, which is why legal aid access is so important. The change will make sure that individuals facing an order can continue to access civil legal aid, subject to the usual means and merits tests. I turn to the amendments relating to national security. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary to prevent an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activities. STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt hostile state threat activity. Both place significant restrictions on an individual’s daily life, including where they can go, who they can meet and who they can speak to. Given the seriousness of those powers, it is right that the legal aid framework around them is coherent, clear and fair. Civil legal aid is already available for those who are subject to TPIMs and STPIMs, and that will not change. The instrument ensures consistency in legal aid availability for those two measures and fixes some ambiguities in the current drafting. Legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, but the legislative framework is complex and has some ambiguity. The instrument clarifies the position and ensures that the legislation matches how the scheme already operates in practice. It confirms that legal aid is not subject to a means test, ensuring that individuals can obtain immediate access to legal advice to understand the restrictions on their rights, regardless of their finances. However, legal representation for proceedings is means-tested. That reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases. As with all JR proceedings, the legal aid means test applies. Finally, the instrument aligns the legal aid framework for STPIMs with the framework already in place for TPIMs. The amendments to national security measures do not change the underlying legal aid policy. Instead, they ensure that legislation reflects how legal aid operates in practice, and that there is a consistent approach across the two comparable national security measures. To conclude, this statutory instrument will help to maintain a coherent and effective legal aid framework. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available as anti-social behaviour powers are reformed, clarifies the position in relation to TPIMs and ensures consistency with STPIMs. The changes provide greater clarity, support access to justice and ensure that the legal aid system continues to operate fairly and consistently. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

    I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. I appreciate the uncharacteristically constructive tone from the official Opposition—there was a party-political barb in there, but none the less, it was a welcome contribution. I greatly respect the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle’s previous career in the police; I know he comes to these issues with some expertise. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, is absolutely right: there is no point having access to legal aid if there are no legal aid lawyers. The Government have taken huge steps to try to ensure that there are no legal aid deserts, including a huge upgrade in legal aid investment, but there is a lot more work to be done, and we will get on and do that. With that, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this issue. We are joined in the Public Gallery by GMB glassmakers—I declare an interest as a GMB member—who are at risk of losing their jobs if the measure goes ahead in its current form. Will my hon. Friend recognise the human impacts that could come if we do not see a change in policy, and pay tribute to those workers in the sector and GMB for their campaigning?

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jack Abbott

    Topical Questions

    T6.   I recently visited Northgate high school in Ipswich with the Children’s Commissioner. As ever, the pupils were thoughtful and articulate about what they needed for the future, but the subject of digital and AI came up a lot. They said that they need greater access to public services and skilling up for future employment. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that pupils can access those public services as well as the important digital and AI skills that they desperately need?

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Irene Campbell

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for opening this debate and for bringing attention to this important matter. I will keep this brief, as most points have already been raised. CROs have contacted me on this matter, and there was a real strength of feeling about how they have been treated. In my constituency we have members of the coastguard rescue service across Ardrossan, Cumbrae and Largs, and it is a very busy service. CROs told me that they take pride in their vital role for the community, and feel that they should be able to continue to claim an hourly remuneration. I will just add that coastguard rescue officers perform safety checks and maintain equipment, as well as supporting the emergency services, searching for missing people, rescuing people who may be trapped on cliffs or drowning, and often dealing with people in difficult and distressing situations. It is only right that all that should be reviewed.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Astronomy and Space Science: Funding

    I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud that this Labour Government have committed a record £86 billion towards R&D, including on astronomy, space science and others, to supercharge innovation. Within that, UK Research and Innovation’s Science and Technology Facilities Council—the main funder of particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics—has a stable budget with increasing investment in research areas that lead to and underpin discovery.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Astronomy and Space Science: Funding

    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and everyone at the Harwell campus, which hosts over £1 billion of world-leading research infrastructure. A lot of concerns have been raised by the physics community about this issue. I can confirm that funding for STFC has not been cut. UKRI has decided that STFC’s core budget should be maintained over the spending review period. Of course, we understand the cost pressures through inflation, foreign exchange and the ambitious commitments that were made from the previous spending review. No final decisions are being made, but STFC is working through that with the community.

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Astronomy and Space Science: Funding

    I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the policy. We are putting £86 billion into research and development, including astronomy and space science, including a record £38 billion for UK Research and Innovation. Of that, £14.5 billion is for curiosity-driven research because we know that there is no route to stronger growth in this country than through significant investment in science, innovation and tech.

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for bringing this really important issue to the House. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Listen, it is not my intention to mention gold bullion dealers or Members who are making £22,500 an hour. It is not my intention to mention MPs who do Cameos. It is not my intention to discuss cryptocurrency dealers or mention TV presenters. It is not my intention to mention shady donations, which stain our politics—the real problem is that when our politics are stained, all MPs in this place are tarred with the same brush. Perhaps I should have mentioned all that—I would love to raise some of the shady dealings that happen in this place—but I have not notified the individuals concerned. What is this about? Is it about money? Is it about transparency? Is it about accountability? Is it about all of that? I am perplexed. I am an MP in the north-east of England. I love the place—born and bred—and I see how people are struggling. How can MPs have second jobs? I forget the figure, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about thousands of hours being spent on second jobs—one, two, three, four, five and more second jobs. How can this be the case? I need somebody to tell us, because I am working my socks off for my constituents, and rightly so—that is what I was elected for, and it is what everybody elected to this place should be here to do. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) —he is no longer in his seat—talked about MPs’ wages, but £96,500 as an MP? I feel like a millionaire, man! I’m so rich it’s unbelievable! But I am representing my residents. People on the national minimum wage of £12.71 an hour, working a 40-hour week, are on roughly £26,416. That is what stress is. That is why we need to be looking after people. We hear from various MPs here, “We’re under lots of stress.” I will tell you what stress is: when you cannot feed the kids or put clothes on them. That is stress, and that is certainly not what I see here. Forty-five per cent of people say that they almost never trust any Government, and 68% say that second jobs should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. I agree with that. I think the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East is fantastic and it has my full support. How can individuals go to the jungle in Australia to do “I’m a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!”? Many MPs might feel when they are sitting in Parliament on a Thursday, “Get me out of here,” but seriously, how can any MP do that without any sanctions? It is absolutely disgraceful. It is a huge disrespect to the people we represent. They need to understand that we are on their side. They need to understand that not everybody is on this gravy train because, quite frankly, that is simply not the case. I have not even started on my speech, but I will conclude simply by saying that we need to build trust with the general public. It is lost—it is gone. We cannot blame members of the public for that, given the amounts of money people have mentioned. We need to focus on the immense issues facing our priority—our constituents.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Byrne

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this hugely important debate and for his leadership on this issue over a long period. At its heart, this debate is about public service, trust, standards and whether being a Member of Parliament is a full-time duty to the people, or a platform for private enrichment and personal gain. Let us say plainly what people across this country already know: being an MP is not a side hustle, a brand or a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model; it is a privilege. We are sent here by our constituents and we are paid by the public. Our first, last and every loyalty must be to the people we represent. Since the 2024 general election there have been welcome reforms, but they are only small steps. Members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate-linked interest. The public have every right to ask why. In Liverpool West Derby, people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between eating and heating. In the last six months, I have been across the country with the Right to Food Commission, and I have heard exactly the same stories: children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading their next bill and workers taking second jobs not to get rich, but simply to survive and keep afloat. That is the reality that too many in this House are oblivious to. People are not living; they are surviving. Imagine what people think when they see Members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP’s salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours’ work, yet that is exactly what this House permits. People are sick of Parliament being treated like a marketplace, sick of influence following money, sick of politicians speaking the language of working people while living by rules that working people could never access. That is not public service; it is grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), claims to stand with left-behind communities while accepting a reported £5 million gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate. That is not anti-establishment—it is the establishment. It is money privilege wearing a different badge, and people can see that. It is not just the hon. Member for Clacton. Across this house there are Members, including some who represent the poorest communities in Britain, who have chosen to follow the same path. They use public office to pursue private financial gain. That is exactly the culture that the public have lost faith in. In Clacton and in Liverpool, people know the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleaner starting before dawn, the care worker finishing another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether they have enough hours in the week, the nurse staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without so her children can eat and the dad skipping meals so the lights stay on. That is graft, not grift. Every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking, “Who are they working for?” should really shame this House. When somebody writes to their MP, it is usually because they are desperate. They need help: they need advocacy, pensions, HM Revenue and Customs or child maintenance service; they are disabled, they are ill or they are struggling to navigate an inhumane benefits system. They deserve to know that their Member’s attention belongs to them—not to a corporate boardroom or a private client, but to them as individuals. This job is a privilege and a vocation; it is not an entitlement, and it is certainly not a commercial opportunity. Let us finish the job. Let us ban second paid jobs, with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions, strengthen transparency and enforce the rules: no loopholes, no excuses and no more cashing in on public office. This debate comes down to one simple question. Whose side are we on—the side of the people who graft, work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who treat public office as a route to private wealth? I know where I stand. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who graft, not the people who grift. Public office is a privilege, not a business opportunity. This House belongs to the public. We are sent here for one reason and one reason only: to serve our constituents who put us in this place—nothing more, nothing less.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helena Dollimore

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    My constituency neighbour and I share a coastline, and we know the important work that CROs do. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that they must be valued as the emergency service that they are, especially as more extreme weather events mean that they are more needed than ever?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Graham Stringer

    Astronomy and Space Science: Funding

    Particle physics and astronomy have had a rough deal since the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—was abolished about 19 years ago. I understand that the justification being put out by the Science Minister and other Ministers is that there has been a change to mission-driven research as opposed to fundamental blue-skies research. This is a mistake: most practical applications of science have come from scientists asking fundamental questions that had no relevance at the time. Does the Minister agree that the policy is a mistake?

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I will be brief, because I know something else is happening this evening that others want to engage in. I am not entirely sure what that is, but apparently it is quite popular. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate. I know about the glass industry and she has rehearsed some of the arguments in particular for producers of beer. I have had similar correspondence from various agencies about the perversity of a weight-based system that precludes the use of a product that is infinitely usable and moves manufacturers towards plastic and thinner aluminium products because it is cheaper. I am sure the Minister will comment on that. I want to talk about two things. I must first declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on packaging in the circular economy, which is chaired excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I think it is quite clear that this is a good policy and a good system but that it has had some unintended consequences. We are trying to iron them out for the benefit of all. In my constituency I have one of Premier Foods’ Mr Kipling factories. It has done a considerable amount of work on reformulating its plastic from red trays so that it can be recycled. It has also looked at how it can use cardboard better. It has looked at the use of its plastic film, which is really important for the freshness of its products, but that is obviously a product that it is trying to phase out. The high cost of looking at using the newer systems, particularly those that are too small for registration, such as biodegradable or organic films, means that there is an incentive to stick with the plastic manufacturing, which is a challenge. I also wanted to touch briefly on the ceramics industry—of course, no debate in this place is complete without mention of ceramics. I say that in jest, but one of the things that the ceramics sector is dependent on, particularly the giftware sector, is people buying a product that is often shipped around the country. Most of those organisations will have a turnover that means that their products and packaging are registerable under the scheme. If I go online and buy a product from the European Union—something of appreciable aesthetics but of a much lower quality—and it is brought into the UK, there is a price differential, because of the cost of the packaging that it is shipped in. It becomes a disincentive for the UK purchaser to buy a British product. If companies are shipping certain products, such as ceramics or glass, they need to be absolutely certain that the packaging is sufficiently robust, due to the fragility of the product being shipped. There are not that many alternatives. I know that some in the sector have looked at cardboard, but cardboard is a move away from polystyrene, and polystyrene is cheaper by weight, so they stick with the product that is actually more damaging to the environment. Finally, because I know Members will want to go and watch association football—I believe that is what is on right now—there is also an issue for small innovative packaging firms that are looking at new material. I know that the Minister is scheduled to meet, or may have already met, an organisation from Staffordshire called WoolCool. They are using wool as a packaging product, and it is entirely reusable. People can use it in their garden, and the birds can take it away to make nests and so on. It can be used for all sorts of lovely things, even as a thermal insulator. It is completely reusable. However, the company is so small that it was rated “red” until recently, which means that no one really knows what is going on with the costings arrangements. They end up not knowing what costs they might be faced with later on and, therefore, they do not know what costs they have to build into their business models. WoolCool is a small business that is trying to do something really ethical, and it is of real value to the local economy in Staffordshire. It is also trying to move away from those much more damaging products, but it is currently not sure what to do. Can the Minister touch on how we will better engage with new manufacturers that are producing new materials such as wool? They have a real place in the future of our packaging industry and will create jobs in places such as Staffordshire. We need to ensure that they have an opportunity to grow and take away some of those damaging plastics, which is what we all want. I would be very grateful if the Minister could reflect on how we will make sure that the EPR weightings for those good, consumable products that we want the British public to buy, such as ceramics, are not disproportionately outpriced by foreign competitors because of our packaging rules in this country.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I genuinely thank the Minister for being generous with her time. On the idea of a post-implementation review, is there a way of looking at the time that businesses have to spend interacting with the scheme? The Titanic brewery in Stoke-on-Trent—very good beer, by the way—has told me that it took three weeks of one employee’s time to complete the assessment for the first year’s fees. I am sure that that is not by design, but in the review, will the Department look at how to make interaction with the scheme easier for small businesses that do not have much capacity?

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I am sorry to detain the House. I am not sure if a try has been scored yet, but I am sure somebody will find out—

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    The Minister mentioned the super-charger scheme and the impact for glass manufacturers. I know the super-charger scheme is not her Department, but it is only for frontier industries. Can she say whether or not glass bottle manufacturers that go into the hospitality sector benefit from that? My understanding was that they do not because they are not considered one of the glass fibres or the industrial glass needed for the frontier industries.

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fleur Anderson

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    I have joined other MPs in visiting the west bank and East Jerusalem. This mega-development, this zonal occupation, is huge in scale. It involves a massive city, a dual carriageway, universities and hospitals, and it is absolutely undermining the peace of the two nations. I ask the Minister: what more can be done at international level? What is being done by our mission in the United Nations to bring in international sanctions, working together? Can he also tell us more about what is being done with America? This is being done with its blessing, support and money. What more can be done to get a change of pace, and to ensure that a different envoy goes in from America to sort out peace in the middle east?

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the reforms that Flood Re is announcing today, with the support of this Government. The changes will ensure that Flood Re remains fair, sustainable and focused on those who need it most, while supporting a transition to a more resilient insurance market by 2039. Flood risk unites Members across this House. We all recognise the devastating impact that flooding has on people and communities and the importance of having access to affordable insurance. That is why this Government have put a record amount of investment into flood protections and simplified the funding rules. This year alone, we have unlocked £1.4 billion to enhance flood resilience across England, funding more than 600 projects and better protecting more than 70,000 properties from the devastating impacts of flooding. Despite that record investment, flooding is an ever-increasing risk. Flood Re was established to manage a transition to prices that better reflect underlying flood risk and promote the affordability and availability of insurance. Since its launch, Flood Re has been a big success, and it is a strong example of Government and industry working together to address systemic risk—a partnership that started to be strengthened under a Labour Government after the 2007 floods. Flood Re works by receiving a subsidy paid for by households that buy insurance. That money is used to purchase insurance so that households that would not be able to get insurance in an open market have affordable premiums. However, the context in which Flood Re operates has changed; rising claims, higher reinsurance costs and more properties being identified as at risk are placing increased pressure on the scheme. We now have a perverse system in which money collected from all insurance customers, from all parts of the country and all income brackets, is flowing to the richest households in the country. That is not fair and needs to change. In three of the last four years, Flood Re has spent more on repairing homes in the most expensive council tax bands of G and H, which make up less than 4% of UK homes, than it has spent on repairing homes in council tax bands A and B, which make up around 45% of homes. Let me give an example that shows why change is necessary. In 2025 a property near a river was flooded, resulting in a claim cost to Flood Re of more than £3 million. The property had very limited flood resilience measures in place, and the claim covered extensive restoration costs, including a quad garage, an indoor swimming pool, a jacuzzi and gym, a music room and den, a machinery storage unit, an outdoor astroturf padel court, and a five-a-side football pitch. It is right that all properties are insured, but without reform of Flood Re, we will continue to have a system in which average-income and low-income households are subsidising flood insurance for the richest households in the country. That is why reform of Flood Re is needed—not to set a new policy direction, but to restore it to its original purpose. That is what we are doing. First, Flood Re will work with insurers to reform its premium model so that support is better targeted. It will aim to make premiums as fair as possible across different council tax bands, regions and areas. Secondly, Flood Re will introduce a cap on the claims that insurers can pass to it, limiting payouts to an agreed level, with insurance companies covering the remainder. That will be worked out with Flood Re and insurers. Thirdly, I have spoken to people who have lost everything through flooding and have been unable to afford contents insurance, so I am delighted that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges to insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year from April 2027. This Government are restoring fairness. We are making insurance affordable and helping with cost of living pressure. Finally, Flood Re will improve efficiency, make better use of its resources and reduce reliance on costly reinsurance while maintaining financial resilience. However, to protect all homes from ongoing flood risk, we need more than just floor insurance and large flood defences; we need individual homes to become more flood resilient. That is why Flood Re will work with insurers and lenders to introduce flood performance certificates, helping households to better understand their flood risk and ensuring that if they take actions to make their homes more resilient, that is reflected in the cost of their premiums. That builds on the work of the recommendations in the “FloodReady” report. Flood Re will also strengthen incentives for Build Back Better, a UK home insurance sector initiative that, instead of simply restoring a home to a condition exactly as it was before, allows an additional £10,000 as part of the insurance claim to improve the flood resilience of the home. These reforms will be implemented from 2028, with the reduction in contents premiums for council tax bands A and B taking effect from April 2027. Flood Re will keep the scheme’s eligibility criteria under review, including how it applies to leaseholders. Under this Government, more homes are better protected from flooding than they were when we came into government. Our country will become more resilient to flooding as homes are incentivised to take action with flood performance certificates, and the 45% of people living in average-income and low-income households will be able to afford to protect their homes from the devastation of flooding. That is the difference that a Labour Government make, and I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I recognise his commitment to flood protection. He referenced our meeting, at which we discussed the £50 million that we are putting into Somerset because of its particular landscape and challenges. He is right to highlight the accounts that Flood Re has produced; without reform or change, we would be in a poor situation. Flood Re has been an amazing success, but to continue for the next 10 years, it needs to change. That is why we are introducing the changes that I have mentioned: targeting those who most need support by introducing a cap, making contents cover cheaper for lower council tax bands, and the work on the premium model. One of the other changes, which is probably not as eye-catching, is allowing Flood Re access to some of its trapped capital to make reinsurance costs cheaper. All of the reforms that Flood Re is introducing are intended to ensure that it is sustainable and keeps going. Turning to continued support for flood protection, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have put the most money into flood protection of any Government ever, with £10.5 billion committed for the next 10 years. There are no current plans to include businesses because, as I said, Flood Re works by levying every insurance company; if we were to include businesses, we would be levying every business in the country to pay for it. For people in the top council tax bands, we are looking at flood performance certificates, so that if they can take action to improve the resilience of their home, that will be reflected in their premiums. We are doing some pilots, and I have been pushing insurance companies and others to get those pilots out the door as quickly as possible. We are not just looking at the top council tax bands; we are also looking at people in social housing to see how flood performance certificates could work. As for when these changes are going to take place, contents insurance changes will take effect from 2027, but the cap will be from 2028. Up until that period, Flood Re will be carrying out extensive engagement with insurers and other people to make sure they are setting affordable limits. This is all about ensuring that Flood Re is there for the next 10 years.

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    My hon. Friend is right to highlight how difficult it is for people to continually have to take action, especially elderly people, as well as the mental health impact of thinking they are going to have to do something to try to protect their home every time it rains. I would be happy to help convene a meeting with all the relevant parties.

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    The hon. Lady is quite right to say that we need to take action on the risk of flooding. That is why this Government are putting the most money into flood protection and taking action against flooding of any Government ever. In our first year in government, we delivered 151 flood schemes, better protecting more than 24,000 homes; that was after we put £108 million into maintenance to restore and repair our flood defences, many of which were in a poor condition. We are also putting £300 million into natural flood management—again, the most money any Government have ever put in. We have put in another £30 million for coastal adaption, and we have reformed the flood funding formula to ensure that it gives proper weight to deprivation, so that the communities that are most affected by flooding and least able to recover have more support. Total funding for internal drainage boards is £91 million, so I think we have ticked the box for “Have this Government put their money where their mouth is when it comes to protecting our country from flooding?” We have not only done that; we are also looking at sustainable urban drainage systems and at introducing flood performance certificates, so that we can reward homes that have become more resilient to flooding. We are also looking at a fundamental change to how we address resilience and flooding as a country. When flooding happens, the people who go out there and do the work in the communities—whether local people, the Environment Agency or all the emergency services—deserve our absolute support, because the only thing I cannot protect this country against is climate change.

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue. Indeed, we have visited some of the areas in his constituency that have been flooded. I remember the devastating loss in his constituency prior to the election; he was out there on the frontline, helping to lead some of the flood recovery work. On the impact of this change, we need to work carefully with insurers on Flood Re. We have said we will introduce the cap by 2028 to enable them to have the time to work through things carefully and properly. It is about fairness. Council tax bands G and H represent 4% of properties, yet they make up 20% of claims on Flood Re. We want to make this change in conjunction with insurers. Piloting the flood performance certificates will be so important, and that has to be done hand in hand with people. We want to incentivise people by saying, “If you take action to improve your home and make it more resilient to flooding, you will be rewarded with lower premiums.” We are trying to encourage people to do the right thing where they can, while recognising that there are people at other end of the scale—some of the people we have seen in my hon. Friend’s constituency—who are simply unable, for various reasons, to take action to improve the resilience of their own property. It is all about keeping things in balance.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I am pleased to be responding to the hon. Lady, because I think that the very first Adjournment debate I had as a Minister was with her and it was about flooding. It is nice that whenever I make a statement about flooding, I already know who will be in the room. I commend her on her tireless campaigning on this issue and the commitment she has shown to her constituents. I have been pleased to go and see those property flood resilience measures and the difference they have made to communities. Flood performance certificates will be piloted, and those communities are an example of where householders have taken measures—albeit in this case through the Environment Agency—to better protect their homes from flooding. When people do that, it should be reflected in their premiums, and there is not currently a way to do that. The system looks at postcodes and areas, and gives people a premium on that basis, but we want to make it more intelligent, so that it can recognise if someone has made their home more resilient to flooding—that should mean that they have cheaper premiums.

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because before he was elected as a Member of Parliament, he was running part of the Living With Water project in my constituency, which looked at bringing together the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and the council to create more sustainable urban drainage to improve resilience to flooding. He played a tremendous role and has made a real difference to many people’s lives. I share his delight that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year. That will make a real difference to people’s lives, making insurance more affordable for everybody.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    The original purpose of Flood Re was to make flood insurance affordable for people who otherwise would not be able to access affordable insurance on the free market. This is not new policy, but returning Flood Re to the purpose for which it was created.

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are continuing to work with the Government, the regulator and industry to review the scheme eligibility criteria, including considering options to better support leaseholders.

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I thank the hon. Gentleman and the EFRA Committee for their work. He will have heard our commitment to the £30 million coastal fund, which is looking at what we should do about managing coastal erosion and the risks of coastal flooding.

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    My hon. Friend knows that I share his love of nature-based solutions and natural flood management, so he will be as delighted as I am that we are putting a minimum of £300 million into natural flood management under our current plans.

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    The hon. Lady is quite right. People should not only check their insurance to make sure that it covers everything, but check to ensure that they are covered for Build Back Better, because not every insurance company offers that cover at this moment. We will be piloting flood performance certificates as soon as possible, and as soon as they are ready I will be more than happy to update the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee with more details of exactly how this will work and where.

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I well remember very well my hon. Friend raising the issue affecting his constituency. Let me reassure him. The flood performance certificate pilots will include social housing and lower-income communities, as we recognise that some will need support to increase their resilience. We are piloting the certificates across a range of different homes so that we can gather that intelligence before we decide what further steps to take.

    Hansard source