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·Blair McDougall

   Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters. Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency. Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise—not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place—that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that. On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Hodge, which looks at the wider issue of economic crime and our approach to transparency. Having responded to those questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
2. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Becky Gittins

   Online Safety: Children

   During the Government’s consultation on online safety, I met students from Ysgol Maes Garmon in my constituency to hear about their lived experience online. They raised concerns about harmful online content, addictive algorithms and the impact of a lack of scrolling limits. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the voices of our young people are heard in any decisions about how to keep them safe online?

   Hansard source
3. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anneliese Dodds

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   I will not ask the Minister to comment on future sanctions designations—I understand he cannot do that. I want to ask him about something different: the scope of the multilateral statement. He will be well aware that the statement did not specify just one type of firm—for example, construction firms; it talks about involvement. Can he confirm that it is the UK Government’s view that the scope of that statement, following its wording, is not restricted to construction firms, but could cover, for example, firms financing this? Can he confirm that there is no prima facie restriction within that statement?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

   It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to reassure you before I begin that I have notified the Members I will be mentioning today. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for a really important debate and for his long-standing, committed and passionate campaigning on such an important issue. I look forward to seeing his Bill. The time for these changes has come—a time that is long overdue. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s important and timely debate. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to returning to a politics of service—something that we have heard a lot about from many hon. Members today. We want to ensure that public office holders are held to the highest standards, as the public rightly expect. Hon. Members remember the damage caused by scandal after scandal in the last Parliament, including the lobbying scandals of Matt Hancock, Owen Paterson and Scott Benton, which undermined the trust that people place in us to lead by example. On top of our commitment to further tighten the rules on second jobs, I am really proud of the work that the Labour Government have undertaken so far. As per our manifesto pledge, we have established the independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, which has an independent chair and an expanded and ambitious remit to promote the highest standards in public life. I thank its members for the dedicated work that they have already completed to strengthen standards in public life. Let me turn to the topic of this important debate. Our manifesto also said: “The absence of rules on second jobs…means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step, Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work”— in the context of this debate, I stress that it will be urgent— “on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents”. We can be a bit frustrated at the pace of progress on the second part of that manifesto commitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) described as glacial. To put some urgency behind this, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), stated in February: “The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 567.] The Government’s view is that MPs must prioritise their duty to Parliament and their constituents. The public would expect nothing less from us all. That is a very clear indication from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that the Government’s view is that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions. I am pleased that, on taking office in 2024, we immediately instructed officials to work with House authorities on tightening the rules about MPs and second jobs, in line with our promises. Just a month after the 2024 election, we put a motion before the House that closed two loopholes, which had allowed MPs to provide paid parliamentary advice on public policy and current affairs, and advice in general terms on how Parliament works. Frankly, I was shocked that that was possible before we came to power. Those rules clearly did not meet the public’s expectations of what MPs should focus on during their time in Parliament. Following that, the previous Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, wrote to the Committee on Standards to invite it to consider whether MPs’ ability to hold outside interests should be further restricted. The Leader of the House of Commons has worked closely with the Committee since it started its inquiry. I thank the current Leader of the House and his predecessor for their diligent work in this space and the support they have offered to the House as the inquiry has proceeded. The Leader of the House wrote to the Committee again in June to set out the Government’s expectations. It is right that the Committee on Standards is at the heart of looking at the future rules governing the behaviour of MPs, given its deep expertise and the proven ability for its members to work together on a cross-party basis to promote high standards in public life. Again—I will come back to this later in my speech—I encourage it to heed the very clear words of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who said that second jobs should be banned “outside very limited exceptions”. We will urge it to increase the pace of its review. As this debate has highlighted, there is some discussion about what constitutes a second job or outside interests, which can be varied. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) saw my jaw hit the desk when she talked about social media income—I had not seen that. It is absolutely astonishing that MPs can profit from clickbait and from driving hits and likes. The public can clearly see the contradiction and the conflict with representing constituents that could ensue from that, so I thank her for raising the issue. Based on the letter that the Leader of the House sent to the Committee on Standards in June, I want to set out what the Government want to achieve and what we want the Committee to focus on. We believe that there are three core areas that need to be considered when determining whether an MP should be able to undertake an additional role: time, money and influence. I believe—and I hope all Members agree—that being an MP is an enormous privilege. I know from having lost and come back that nothing will ever eclipse the privilege that we get in this role; it is precious to all of us. It would not be right for the focus of anybody elected to this place to be diverted from delivering in the best interests of their constituents. The fact that it remains open to MPs to treat their parliamentary and constituency responsibilities as secondary to other work is outdated—Victorian, as others have said today. In the view of the Government, it has to change now. How can it be right, for example, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has 16 jobs, as we have heard? Just yesterday it was revealed that he is paid £22,500 per hour. Let us think about that: he is paid £22,500 per hour, as a brand ambassador for gold trading. That blows my mind. The same Member has taken £2 million on top of his parliamentary salary. He receives £400,000 for presenting shows on GB News. Up until March of this year, he was filmed doing Cameo clips, including offering best wishes to a far-right rioter and being paid to say, “Up the Ra!” As of March 2026, he has spent the equivalent of 140 working days on his second job, according to Byline Times. I am not sure how anyone can see that as compatible with his obligations to the people of Clacton. Those are just the things we know about. Journalists uncovered a £5 million donation from a Thai crypto billionaire, which was not declared to Parliament.

   Hansard source
5. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Turley

   MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

   I appreciate the Chair’s reflection, thank you. I will simply say that it is nice for some Members of Parliament to see a safe and secure future, which I am sure many of our constituents would dearly love for themselves. My concern about the examples I gave is not just that it diminishes the individual Member in the eyes of the public. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the shadow Minster, said that the onus is on the public to make a judgment. I completely appreciate that; it is true that the public will make a judgment. Such actions, however, do not just diminish the individual Member of Parliament. They diminish this place and our democracy, and they do a great disservice not just to the people of Clacton but the people of Britain. The Government believe there is a clear difference, as the shadow Minister mentioned, between a second job and a ministerial or parliamentary role, such as being the Chair of a Select Committee, not least because, in performing those roles, Members are accountable to Parliament and are acting on behalf of the House to scrutinise the work of Government. As I have said, the Government do not believe MPs should have a second job that poses a distraction from an MP’s primary duty to Parliament and constituents. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said they should not be able to compromise, which is a similar approach. It should not be a distraction or compromise an MP’s ability to do their duty. Put simply, being an MP is a full-time job—more than a full-time job, as many of us know. Members should spend their time doing the best possible job, representing their constituents who put their trust in them in the general election. The second principle is that any earnings from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is the MP’s primary source of income. MPs should decide whether they are brand ambassadors for gold bullion or ambassadors for the people they represent. Thirdly, a job must not have an influence, or be perceived as having an influence, on an MP’s behaviour and the way they undertake their parliamentary duties. I hope hon. Members across the House feel they can get behind those three reasonable tests and standards, and that they will reach out to the Committee on Standards to ensure their views are properly reflected in its considerations. I appreciate, as others have said, that we also have to be pragmatic and recognise that colleagues have had careers outside politics and many will need them again. The House is enriched by the experience of those roles—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) mentioned as a nurse, in the NHS. Individuals are required to maintain professional qualifications, which is why changes must include qualifying exemptions, so the House can retain the expertise brought to it by those with successful careers before they came to this place. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that this cannot be a loophole that is exploited. It is also important that some professions are not more equal than others. Everybody ought to have the ability to have a successful career after they leave Parliament, but that cannot be used as an excuse to justify earning a second income that could be detrimental their role as an MP. This Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to change how our politics is conducted and bring an end to the lobbying scandals that defined the previous Government’s time in office. We are committed to returning to a politics of service and to upholding the standards in public life that our constituents demand we maintain. This Government remain committed to the promise we made to the country at the last general election. I am proud that we implemented immediate changes to lobbying, but as we have heard today, there is so much more to be done. I welcome the ongoing work of the Modernisation Committee and look forward to the recommendations the Committee on Standards will make to the House. However—I will say this carefully, deliberately and as clearly as I can, perhaps in the hope of catching the ear of the next Prime Minister—this Government have the ability to draft and propose legislation and a big majority in the House. As I mentioned, parliamentarians here today and the Government have both the power and, crucially, the responsibility to protect this place and the privilege of being MP, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after. I very much look forward to seeing the Bill drafted my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East. I look forward to all of us using our collective voice and working with the Committees to sort this matter now, because it is long overdue. I thank hon. Members for taking part in this debate and for ensuring that their constituents’ views on this important issue have been heard in this place.

   Hansard source
6. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna McMorrin

   Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this draft order today. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to work in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh fiscal framework delivers value for money. It was as a result of joint working between both Governments that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, as part of the autumn Budget last year, some fiscal flexibilities for the Welsh Government’s budget to enable them to better support businesses and public services in Wales. That included increasing the Welsh Government’s annual and cumulative capital borrowing limits, their overall reserve limit and their annual RDEL and CDEL drawdown limits by 10% this year. From next year, each of those limits will be uprated annually in line with inflation. Only one of those limits has a legislative basis: the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit. Section 122A(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 currently sets this limit at £1 billion. Section 122A(2) of that Act enables the Secretary of State to vary this limit with the consent of the Treasury. The order before the Committee this afternoon, made under section 122A(2), will increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit by £100 million, in line with that autumn Budget commitment. The Welsh Government remain accountable to the Senedd for how they use these increased borrowing powers. The Wales Office will bring forward further orders annually to further increase this limit in line with inflation, as is the current process in respect of the Scottish Government’s borrowing limits. In summary, this order will increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit to £1.1 billion, in line with the commitment made at the autumn Budget last year. The changes to the fiscal framework, together with additional funding through Barnett consequentials and the largest settlement in the history of devolution, mean that the UK Government are providing the Welsh Government with nearly £6.5 billion in additional spending power.

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna McMorrin

   Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

   To be clear, that accountability is with the Senedd; its Members will be holding the Welsh Government to account. I commend this draft order to the Committee.

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna McMorrin

   Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

   I thank the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield for her contribution. The draft order delivers the Government’s autumn Budget commitment to increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative borrowing limit by 10%. I mentioned in my opening remarks how we got to that. To be clear, this order gives the Welsh Government additional flexibility to manage their own budget; it does not change the overall funding settlement or the Barnett formula. It was agreed at the last Budget and announced by the Chancellor then. The Welsh Government are accountable to the Senedd for how they use these borrowing powers. From Westminster, we will be looking to our colleagues in the Senedd to scrutinise how the Welsh Government use the additional powers. The Welsh Government are accountable for ensuring that this extra borrowing—indeed, the whole borrowing—delivers value for money for the people of Wales and all our constituents. I am very proud to be part of a UK Labour Government who have delivered the biggest settlement in the history of devolution. It will be a game changer, and it will make a difference to people on the ground. I am aware that many Members are trying to get to the football. If there is anything further that the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield would like to raise, I am very willing to have that conversation, but it is the Senedd that scrutinises the Welsh Government. I am proud of the UK Labour Government’s work in enhancing these powers.

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna McMorrin

   Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

   I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. Absolutely; this is about ensuring that all the people of Wales feel the value of these additional spending and borrowing powers. Equally, this Labour Government are proud to ensure that the huge devolution settlement is felt by the people of Wales and in the communities of Wales, not just in one part of the country but across the whole of Wales. As a Wales Office Minister, I am committed to working with my counterparts in the Welsh Government, and with colleagues right across the House, to make sure that happens. I thank the shadow Minister for her productive approach to the debate, and I am grateful for the way in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together very closely to produce the draft order. I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Gelderd

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, as we debate an issue that matters so deeply to communities in South East Cornwall. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. Truthfully, this debate is about people. It is about those dedicated coastguard rescue officers who leave family dinners, children’s birthdays, Christmas day celebrations and their homes in the middle of the night to respond when somebody else is in danger. They are often the first on the scene when someone is trapped on the coastline, caught in mud, stranded on a cliff or at risk of rising tides. They do not consider whether it is a convenient time; they simply respond. Some descriptions of their role simply do not reflect that reality. I have heard the role publicly described as being only a few hours a week in a volunteer capacity, which does not speak to the sleepless nights and multiple call-outs. Officers have talked to me about the hours spent at incidents in really difficult conditions, including in my own village very recently. They talk about mandatory weekly training, travelling at their own expense and giving up significant personal time to maintain the skills that save lives. They are highly trained emergency responders carrying out category 1 response work. They understand the spirit of volunteering and public service and many are proud to give their time in that spirit, but they also carry legal responsibilities; they wear the uniform of a Government agency and they respond as part of our blue light emergency response system. The appropriate measure to deal with that must be engaged with. I want to address remuneration. Officers question why training can be unpaid, why they often travel at their own expense and the impact that might have on family finances. They want to do this job in the spirit of volunteering but they must be recognised. I ask the Minister not to view the issue through just one lens but to engage with them, perhaps visit me in South East Cornwall and undertake discussions in that spirit, which is so important for our communities.

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    Advice to UK businesses and complaints to Israeli Ministers are not just inadequate but create ambiguities, because they suggest that the UK Government are prepared to speak but not to act. When Netanyahu previously threatened the annexation of parts of the west bank, we made it clear what the consequences would be. Will the Minister do the same now, and say that in the event of any move towards E1, there will be a comprehensive trade and investment ban?

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy McDonald

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    The Government have said that they advise British businesses against involvement in illegal settlements, and this week they warned companies not to bid for the E1 contracts. Given that settlement expansion continues unbated, with properties recently promoted in London, over and above sending in the Advertising Standards Authority, will the Government confirm that they are working with UK regulatory bodies and will ensure that existing sanctions and anti-money laundering and proceeds of crime powers are used to prevent and to punish UK financial and commercial support for and involvement in illegal settlements? We have the criminal powers, so if the Minister wants to take action, will he explain why they are not being used?

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Martin

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Portsmouth coastguard rescue officers responded to 171 incidents last year, and I rise to express my admiration of them and of the coastguard rescue officers in the right hon. Member’s constituency. Does she agree with me and my constituents that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency had a number of options available to it, but it chose to blatantly ignore those options and instead put the burden on the shoulders of the CROs and their families, which is just not good enough?

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Davies-Jones

    Engagements

    This afternoon we are joined in the Gallery by Lisa Phillips, a British survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific and despicable trafficking and abuse. Lisa’s bravery is to be commended, and her determination for justice and accountability on behalf of all UK survivors should be put on record. I want to place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for meeting Lisa this week; your solidarity means more than you will ever know. In that vein, will the Prime Minister please commit to meet Lisa and the other British survivors, and commit to what is needed: a full public inquiry, so that we can have truth, justice and accountability?

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Ballinger

    Engagements

    Q4.   I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments on the legacy of Jo Cox.I know that all of us in this place have been following the contest for No. 10 quite closely in recent weeks, but amid the north versus south debate, I think it is about time we had someone from the midlands who was ready to step into this important position for our country. [Laughter.] So I am delighted to say we have two fantastic Black Country lads—Jude Bellingham from Stourbridge and Morgan Rogers from Halesowen, who have both been doing us proud in the contested England No. 10 role—for our game against Congo this evening. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we should congratulate England on their progress out of the group stage so far, and does he also agree with me that we need to do more to support—

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry. It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Alec. The rich fishing and coastal heritage of my constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is second to none. My constituency is home to Europe’s largest whitefish port at Peterhead and Europe’s largest shellfish port at Fraserburgh—the largest is not Bridlington, as some people claim. My constituency’s corner of the north-east of Scotland is a key part of our nation’s fishing industry, and a significant part of the industry in these islands. That is why I was so keen to invite the Minister’s colleague—the former Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—to Scotland and to extend that invitation to my constituency. I hope that you, too, can accept that invitation when your diary allows, so you can then see this historic industry with your own eyes and meet the experts who nurture and maintain it against myriad challenges during these volatile geopolitical and economic times. I hope, too, that such a visit will be valuable in understanding why there is such disappointment and anger at how the fishing and coastal growth fund has been allocated in Scotland, which has less than 8% of it—£28 million out of a £360 million pot. Let us put things into perspective. The Scottish fishing sector represents over 60% of the UK’s total fishing capacity, contributes over 60% of the UK’s seafood exports and lands more than 75% of all UK quota species. If the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), otherwise known as the presumptive Prime Minister, is really serious about the devolution of power and decision making, seeing growth in every postcode and putting hope in every heart, let him look at this issue. Let him listen to Councillor Ann Bell, chair of the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership, when she says: “A fair allocation would, at minimum, be consistent with the 46% share Scotland previously received” from European Union funds. Why is there still so much anger about all this in Scotland and in my constituency? Because this Westminster Government tried to blame the Scottish Government for the Barnettisation of the fund. So we submitted a freedom of information request asking the Scotland Office to show us where in its discussions that had been asked for. This is what we got—and I have six pages of this.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    Thank you for that clarification, Chair. I have six pages of almost entirely redacted correspondence, so it is clear that somebody does not want us to see these things. In subsequent correspondence between the Scotland Office and the chair of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, it is admitted that this was a Treasury decision in 2024, not a Scottish Government decision. It is admitted that the allocation in no way reflects the size and strength of the industry in the north-east of Scotland, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says she is too busy to meet the chair of the SWFPA, Jimmy Buchan—too busy. Perhaps in the forthcoming reshuffle she might find herself less busy. Adding insult to injury, allocating this paltry pocket money to Scotland over 12 years means that Scotland will receive only around £2.3 million per year in additional investment. To say that that falls short of what is needed is to put it mildly. If the UK Government had engaged fully with the industry in Scotland, as well as with the Scottish Government, they might have been made more aware of that. The Minister here today now has the opportunity to put this right. Another expert in the industry, Mike Park, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, has also called the allocation unfair and indefensible. He adds: “Scottish waters are bearing the brunt of the 12-year EU fisheries access extension”, which was negotiated by the UK Government, and that “the use of the population-based Barnett formula fails to reflect this reality…with communities left carrying the burden with only a fraction of the support they deserve.” This is not about tribal politics; nor it is about scoring points in this Chamber. This is about fairness and the lack of it in terms of support for our fishing industry in Scotland. I was pleased to note the excellent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Resetting the relationship with fishing communities”, which was critical of how the fund had been allocated and recommended that the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on the design and allocation of the fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year 2. In common with my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, I look forward to the forthcoming sectoral action plan being co-ordinated by the former Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I would like to add my own recommendation that the ideal way to ensure better engagement in Scotland would be to support reinstating the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group, as suggested by former Scottish Government Fishing Minister Mairi Gougeon, something which the Scotland Office endorsed. Collaboration with those in this sector will be invaluable in resetting relationships and an opportunity to understand a further pressing problem on how one size most definitely does not fit all when it comes to fishing’s labour shortages. That brings me to the UK Government’s reluctance to have a Scottish bespoke visa for our catching and processing sector. Fishing in the north-east is affected by major labour shortages. The knock-on impact to growth and building a successful and prosperous future is very negative. I am currently in an unsatisfactory game of email ping-pong with the Department for Work and Pensions about its insistence that skilling up domestic labour is the answer to these shortages. Let me share some reality with the DWP and the Home Office. The north-east fishing industry cannot get local people to apply for these posts or, when they do, to stay in post for more than one shift, despite strong financial and career incentives. The flip side is that international workers are commonly keener to stay the distance once they are trained up—a costly endeavour for already stretched businesses. This is not just a Scottish issue; just ask my colleagues from other parties. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows exactly what I am speaking about in relation to Northern Ireland. On another front, Ian Gatt, the chief executive of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association points out that the ongoing situation with quota shares of mackerel between coastal states is yet to be resolved, despite efforts by UK and Scottish Governments to secure an agreement with the four coastal states. That is crucial, because mackerel is the most valuable to Scottish fisheries in terms of tonnage. The autumn negotiations are therefore crucial for Scotland. All those issues point to the need for the UK Government to play a far more supportive role with the Scottish fishing industry. To do that, they need to listen to industry concerns, rebuild trust and boost economic growth, and they need to do so with policies that rise to the challenges outlined and that reflect solutions to the realities that they face. It is just not good enough to bypass the sector, override the Scottish Government and play funding games with invaluable investment. The time for a more positive reset is well past due. The Scottish Government’s support for our fishing industry is extensive. Since the launch of marine fund Scotland, £70 million has been awarded to almost 400 projects across Scotland, enabling total investment of £154 million—everything from supporting new entrants, the onboard observers programme, the promotion of Scottish seafood, safety training, covid-19 recovery funding for 855 vessels, emergency harbour repairs and much more. Targeted economic link measures have, for example, led to an additional £58 million-worth of mackerel and herring being landed in Scotland, helping to drive record landed values at Peterhead port. There is much more to be done, not least in terms of harbour renewal and expansion at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Those are the kinds of capital projects that need co-operation between our two Governments in the interests of both Scotland and the UK. I should be grateful if the Minister could address the following four questions, either in his closing remarks or in correspondence at a later date. First, can our fish processing industry colleagues be included in the energy-intensive industry scheme? The former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), was pressing hard on that point; I lobbied her strongly on it, and she understood. Secondly, does the Minister understand that the current Home Office approach to immigration is creating unintended consequences for our fishing industry, and will he lobby for a bespoke visa scheme that provides solutions, not problems? Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the Scottish industry that the European Union will not use the forthcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export?

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    I have no brief to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. Of course, our policy is very clear: we want to rejoin the European Union, because Brexit has been a disaster for the Scottish economy. However, I do not believe that we want any of the worst effects of the common fisheries policy. Finally, can the Minister support the re-establishment of the Scottish seafood industry action group and actively investigate doing so?

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister to his place earlier, and I formally do so now. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. We have had a small number of speakers, but it is not about volume; it is about quality. There were lots of references to broken promises; there have been too many broken promises, I am afraid, but let us hope that the future will result in promises kept, and I wish the Minister well in his endeavours in that regard. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), asked some very searching questions; I agree with him that we need to know what outcomes will flow from the fishing and coastal growth fund. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in relation to immigration, and it sounds very much as if there might be some productive dialogue in the future—let us hope so. I was also very heartened to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes great pride in this industry and that he has a heritage there to draw on; that is wonderful. I endorse the remarks that were made about the impact of fuel costs on the industry and about the dangers that our fishermen and women face when they go to sea—it is a very dangerous occupation. Finally, I want to take issue with one part of the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird): she claimed to have the best fish and chip shop in the world in her constituency. Many Members in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber will have laid claim to that title, but I assure her that there are many fish and chip shops in my constituency that believe they have that title, not least Findlay’s in Fraserburgh. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Lara Bird

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. It is important to me that this is my first contribution in this place, having arrived only last week, because the first email I ever had from a constituent was on this very matter. I have been inundated with similar emails since. That demonstrates the importance of this issue to so many of our constituents, which many others have mentioned. In my coastal constituency, a coastguard station in Arbroath proudly serves the stretch of coast between Montrose and Dundee; it is fundamental to the safety and protection of those in peril all the way to St Andrews. It is a busy corridor, and the coastguard works closely with RNLI stations in Arbroath and in Broughty Ferry to save hundreds of lives every year. The volunteers who dedicate their time and lives are so much more than volunteers. They are members of our community—mine and everyone else’s—who work day in, day out and deserve to be respected for that. Coastguard teams not only respond to traditional maritime emergencies but, as many have said, are increasingly called to incidents involving, for example, people experiencing severe mental health distress, including vulnerable individuals at risk near coastal areas, bridges, cliffs and waterways, which my constituency has in abundance. This very real decision has very real consequences for people’s lives, and constituents who have spoken to me do not feel it has been handled with adequate respect or seriousness. At a time when communities, including mine, are facing pressures on mental health services, reductions in community outreach provision and increased demands on emergency services, the coastguard is becoming an essential part of the crisis response service. Does the Minister accept that highly trained responders who are being relied on to undertake complex, distressing and lifesaving interventions cannot simply be viewed as casual volunteers? In coastal communities such as Angus, losing experienced CROs will affect not just rescue capacity, but the wider safety nets available to people in their darkest moments. Morale in my CRO team in Arbroath is exceptionally low. My constituents have conveyed to me that they feel this process has been done to them, not with them or for them. The two questionnaires circulated—“badly drafted” questionnaires, as they put it—were the only basis on which they were able to convey their concerns. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that changing the status may have on recruitment, retention and the resilience of the coastal emergency response? Those are the key questions that my constituents have.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Lara Bird

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a tough act to follow, as always. Thank you, Sir Alec, for chairing this debate; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing it. Many Members across the House have spoken out in support of the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland—I know that because I followed the issue closely before I came to this House—but I must pay tribute specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for being such a consistent champion and for ensuring that the difficulties and challenges that fishermen and women face in Scotland, in his constituency and mine, continue to be raised in this place. My coastal constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has a proud fishing history, as do the constituencies of many Members in this Chamber. In its heyday, it was one of Scotland’s busiest fishing ports, with 40 boats landing white fish and shellfish in the late 19th century. Overfishing led to fishing quotas, however, and from the 1970s that led to a steep decline. That has had an impact on the town of Arbroath: not just on the fishermen and women and their families, but deeper into the economy, the businesses and the surrounding industries that rely on fishermen and women. That is something that we are still really feeling today in Arbroath: the last boat to catch haddock or cod, which was once the town’s prize catch, stopped sailing in 2013, so most of the famous Arbroath smokies are now made with haddock landed 90 miles north in Peterhead. This is a theme that many of my constituents have raised with me—not just those who do the fishing themselves, but other businesses that rely on the fishers in Arbroath. As well as being a core fishing industry in Arbroath, we are also a deeply proud fish and chip community. The impact on that industry and the hospitality industry of the lack of UK Government support for the fishing industry is deeply felt in my constituency. In this debate, I want to briefly address that side of the impact on the fishing industry in Scotland, because we cannot separate the experiences of the fishing sector from the experiences of the hospitality sector. In my constituency, they are one and the same. I feel compelled to say, in my second debate today, that I am proud that Arbroath has what I believe to be the best fish and chips in Scotland and therefore the world, but the experiences of my constituents who are trying to run viable businesses that rely on the fishing industry have been very challenging. Even in the past week since being elected to this place, I have had so many emails and letters from people in my constituency who rely on the fishing industry and who say that they are absolutely at a loss. They are so concerned about what was once a proud industry in Arbroath and its future, not least because of the lack of support that they feel is coming from this Labour Government.

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Lara Bird

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    As the hon. Member is undoubtedly aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is not able to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government, and neither am I. But the hon. Member will be aware that our policy is very much to rejoin the EU, and that rejoining the EU will mean support for the fishing industry that is currently unavailable because of the Conservatives’ policy of pulling out of it. One thing my constituents have raised to me is that they face challenges with exports and support for their industry that would not be felt if it were not for the damaging consequences of Brexit. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to the hon. Member to hear me say that. I will continue by explaining the recent experience of one of the businesses in my constituency. The Bellrock is famous for its fish, not just in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry but across Scotland: folk come from all over to experience its fish suppers. The fish it uses used to be caught just off the coast of Arbroath, but the owner of the Bellrock told me recently that the price of the fresh fish they buy has increased by over 30%. That is mainly due to higher fuel costs—another matter that the current UK Labour Government are unwilling and unable to address and which is having detrimental impacts on the fishing industry. It is also due to fewer boats going out, as it is no longer commercially viable to do so, largely because there are no incentives or support for smaller members of the fishing industry, which used to be so profitable. The Bellrock is also paying the same price, or more, for smaller fish than it used to receive. Because of the inconsistent price and size of fish, many of the fish shops in my constituency are turning to frozen-at-sea fish, which is generally supplied by larger companies using fish from overseas. That reduces the reliance on local producers and processors.

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Lara Bird

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    I thank the hon. Member for that point, which highlights how deeply the issue is being felt across many different industries, not just among those who are going out and catching the fish. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned in his opening remarks, the pitiful and arguably insulting allocation of funds from the UK Government to support fishermen and women in Scotland not only fails to reflect their contribution to the fishing sector, but fails to hold up other businesses and industries that rely on it. That is just an example—the tax on jobs is another—of the destructive Labour policies that mean that businesses in my constituency are really struggling. A historic, integral fishing industry on an island nation cannot be allowed to struggle and decline while the UK Government sit back and do nothing. From my experience of speaking to my constituents, it is not about a lack of will or demand for fish in Scotland. As my hon. Friend outlined, the situation we are in is purely about the lack of engagement from the UK Government to experience what is happening to the fishing industry in Scotland and provide adequate policies to support it.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Dave Doogan

    Engagements

    I am gravely concerned that time after time this Prime Minister, in response to the abject and honest criticism of his defence investment plan, cites recent trends in defence spending, when he should be calibrating it against the chronic and very real threat the people on these islands face. In his limited time left in No. 10, will he get a grip of his paper-thin plan?

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Brendan O'Hara

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for how he opened it. With 23 inhabited islands, innumerable uninhabited islands and an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency has 22 coastguard stations—more, I believe, than any other constituency in the UK. On behalf of everyone in the House, I want to say a sincere thank you to those dedicated, highly skilled and incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives at sea working out of Kilchoan, Kames, Salen, Coll, Tiree, Tobermory, Craignure, the Ross of Mull, Colonsay, Jura, Port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crinan, Tarbert, Gigha, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh. Across my vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of those coastguard stations are already understaffed. They have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is, because of the low availability of suitable candidates. The MCA’s plan to strip these vital volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will be another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in these rural areas. I add my voice to those of the growing number of people not just protesting against the MCA’s decision but calling on the UK Government to become directly involved in the dispute and to use their influence to force the decision to be paused, to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place, so that a fair and equitable solution can be found. Whether they like it or not, the UK Government have a hugely important role to play. Although the decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department for Transport and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Should the Government not intervene and pause the MCA’s plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place, they will have to accept that serious consequences will inevitably follow—not just for morale or recruitment and retention, but for public safety.

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Brendan O'Hara

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·SNP·Brendan O'Hara

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    The expansion is yet another egregious violation of international law, and as expected, the UK Government have unequivocally condemned it, but the problem is that, as Tel Aviv understands it, condemnation from the United Kingdom is pretty meaningless and largely consequence-free. That is a position that simply cannot hold. Will the Minister lay out what the consequences will be for the state of Israel of its actions, and for any UK company that seeks to involve itself in the illegal expansion into the E1 zone?

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Reform·Sarah Pochin

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    In my constituency, I also have a phenomenal glass manufacturer, called Encirc. It has three sites across the UK, employing over 2,000 people. It is unfairly penalised by this tax, because it is about weight. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, this is encouraging manufacturers of things like tonic to switch to aluminium and plastic, which are infinitely less recyclable than glass. It is also competing against imports from countries like Turkey, so not only are we facing the increased carbon emissions from shipping over the glass, but the glass is less pure and is therefore not as recyclable. I would ask the Minister urgently to look at this tax—I have already asked for that—and very quickly to bring in a 75% reduction while she considers its overall implications.

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Reform·Robert Jenrick

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    The hon. Member is being very generous in giving way, and she is making an excellent speech. I think we would say that the cost of food right now is the No. 1 issue for all our constituents and that household budgets are very tight. Does she agree that this is a bad time to be implementing this tax, whatever its merits may or may not be? The Bank of England estimates that it will add 0.5% to food price inflation, and that food prices could rise by 7% over the next 12 months. Households on very tight incomes are going to be squeezed as a result. Would it not be better either to cancel this measure, or at the very least not to implement it at a tough time like this?

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Reform·Lee Anderson

    Engagements

    Q13.   In Ashfield, four workers, including two nurses, were kicked out of their HMO, only for Serco to put four illegal migrants in their place. One of those illegal migrants was a Pakistani national who went on to rape a vulnerable young girl in a park in Ashfield. He is now doing 14 years in prison. That monster was allowed into this country by this awful Government. If the Prime Minister is really serious about protecting young women and girls, does he agree with me and Reform UK that every single illegal migrant coming to this country should be detained, not allowed to claim asylum and then deported?

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Diolch o galon i holl wylwyr y glannau am eu gwaith. [Translation: Heartfelt thanks to all the coastguards for their work.] The economy of Gwynedd is highly dependent on tourism, especially our coastal communities in the Llŷn peninsula and on the Meirionnydd coast, as well as in the uplands of Eryri. To give a snapshot of the impact on population numbers, the year-round population of Abersoch in Llŷn is 600, but that increases to 50,000 in the summer. The volunteer rescue services and the salaried blue light teams are under immense pressure to deal with these numbers, even as things stand. Keeping the public safe under such pressures requires a close-knit response from people who know their local coast and country like the back of their hand, who are prepared to turn out at short notice and who are fully trained to bring a professional response to an ever-changing environment and hazardous challenges. Gwynedd has eight coastguard stations at Aberdaron, Abersoch, Bangor, Barmouth, Criccieth, Landwrog, Porthdinllaen and Tywyn, and there are at least 80 volunteer coastguard rescue officers in the county. The coastguard rescue teams at these stations provide essential emergency response capability along the Welsh coastline, including search and rescue, missing person operations, flood response, and cliff and mud rescues. They co-ordinate with North Wales police and transport police, North Wales fire and rescue service and the Welsh ambulance service, and with volunteers from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and mountain and cave rescue teams. They even attended the Talerddig train accident in 2024, where there was a fatality. The public do not distinguish between the services. They see emergency responders, they see uniforms and kit, and they trust them—sometimes with their lives.

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I agree entirely. A CRO suggested to me that we should look at the model for retained firefighters. I wonder whether that is something the Minister might consider. Obviously, there will be issues with that model, but other models have been suggested by the CROs. I have already cited the evidence showing that we need CROs. Now, let me pass on what they have told me about the proposed changes. Teams will be put under extra pressure when—not if—some members cannot attend incidents because they will be out of pocket, whether they are working or for another reason. The exact same issue will arise in respect of essential training sessions. We risk losing officers with decades of experience, skills and local knowledge. Emergency response times will increase when neighbouring teams are called in because local officers are not available; we already know that that happens with the fire service on occasion. Recruitment will be hit as new team members are required to do 10 days’ training without remuneration. This will reduce the pool of people who can afford and are willing to do this work. CROs already feel isolated and ignored; their morale will fall even further. I will also quote what one CRO told me, and I have been careful here because CROs do not want their names to be put on the record. We have already heard that they are being threatened by their management, which is frankly appalling, although it gives us a role here as MPs to say the words that really should be coming from their own mouths. This CRO told me their work involved “People sacrificing time that could be spent with family to go out in all weather, at any time of day or night, to carry out all manner of rescues, from a dog on a cliff to recovering dead bodies.” That is what these people do. I have already tabled written questions about whether the Government have assessed how many CROs are likely to leave the service, the impact on public safety and the long-term sustainability of the coastguard if it were to operate on a wholly volunteer model. The Government have not provided any answers to those questions. I therefore ask them again to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his response. Diolch yn fawr.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Liz Saville Roberts

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    The E1 zone expansion is a deliberate attempt to do away with any hope of a two-state solution. The FCDO’s unit tracking the Israeli Government’s breaches of international law was closed earlier this year, in April. I am glad, of course, that the Government recognise the state of Palestine and for the moves they have taken so far, but surely the very least this Government’s watching brief can do is to be willing and able to track atrocities of their own initiative and to come to their own conclusions.

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ben Lake

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the way that he has outlined the issue at hand. I also commend him on the Bill that he brought forward. Does he agree that in the interim, as the Bill progressed through Parliament, there other steps that we could be take, such as changing Standing Orders and the code of conduct, and particularly in political parties? My own party has prohibited MPs from taking any other occupation.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

    Social Media: Dangerous Content

    I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their positive engagement with me and colleagues across the House who have been working with bereaved families and the Molly Rose Foundation on the devastating impact of suicide forums. On the new crisis response protocol, my understanding is that it is primarily designed for large-scale public safety events. Can the Secretary of State advise on whether Ofcom will consider rapid response arrangements being expanded to cover cases where compelling evidence shows that content presents a risk for suicide, so that platforms are expected to act with the same urgency to protect individual lives?

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. We Liberal Democrats support the Flood Re scheme and the protection it provides, but we are concerned that the package still risks falling short in a few ways. We agree that it cannot be right for lower-income households to subsidise the most expensive properties. Targeting support more fairly is overdue, but fairness must also mean reducing costs at source, which means a far stronger focus on prevention. We are still spending billions reacting to floods rather than systematically reducing risk. Flood Re’s future must be tied more clearly to resilient homes, sustainable drainage, and a planning system that stops putting people in harm’s way in the first place. That includes progressing schemes such as Guildford’s flood alleviation scheme more quickly through greater Government support, which would protect homes and unlock sustainable brownfield development. Without doing this, we are merely rearranging who pays for failure. The proposals on flood performance certificates and Build Back Better are welcome, but they remain incremental. We need a step change—embedding resilience upgrades as standard, ensuring that insurers reward households that act, and bringing lenders fully into the framework. Serious gaps also remain: millions are excluded from Flood Re, including many leaseholders and those in homes built after 2009. If we are serious about fairness, those gaps must be addressed. Finally, the transition to a risk-reflective market by 2039 cannot simply mean a cliff edge and higher premiums for those most exposed. Reform is needed, but it must be matched by ambition. Fairness, resilience and prevention must go hand in hand.

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    Yesterday, a group of us met with non-governmental organisations and heard about how the settlers are physically surrounding Palestinian homes and schools, with properties built on every side of homes, schools and sports pitches, making it impossible for children to get to and from school. In one case, we were told that the only way to reach a school was via the back stairs of a residential property. All the settlements are illegal and we must focus on the building of E1 to prevent expansion. In an election year, the UK has an additional influence on Israelis who also abhor this illegality and violence, so will the Minister consider a full travel ban on all settlers to show that there are real consequences for illegal activity?

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    Walford Mill Crafts and Little Pickle at the Mill, the café, in Wimborne were under water in the aftermath of storm Chandra, but although it was a named storm, no flood recovery grants were available. Flood Re does not cover them, and flooding is excluded from their policies. Will the Minister consider action for commercial buildings such as Walford Mill so that they can continue their education work, protect the creators who work there and support their community—if not through Flood Re, by extending flood recovery grants to all named storms?

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Victoria Collins

    Online Safety: Children

    This might be the last time we face this ministerial team, but I hope that they will stay, because I know they have done a lot of hard work on online safety. With that in mind, I have recently spoken to students in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who passionately shared their fears and hopes around AI chatbots. With the Labour leadership transition putting any major announcements on hold, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that, alongside the support of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the Prime Minister in waiting—there will be an announcement in July about AI online safety, and vital protections will not be sidelined?

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steff Aquarone

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He truly is a champion that coastal communities like mine can rely on to stand up for them. In terms of miles of coastline per square mile of constituency, he is surely in the top three most qualified Members to speak on this topic. I begin by expressing my gratitude and admiration for the work of the volunteer coastguard in North Norfolk and across the country. These brave teams go out to situations many of us could not dream of handling and save lives on a regular basis. As the weather improves and tourist season approaches, there will no doubt be more and more call-outs in the coming weeks. Because of their hard work, those enjoying our coast are much safer. It is also worth making clear that, whatever the outcome of these new changes, we will still have a coastguard; there will be people willing to protect us, and this issue should not scare people away from visiting our coastline. Ahead of this debate, I did something that I fear is too rare in politics; I went out yesterday to speak to the people to whom this issue matters the most. I had several back-to-back phone calls with coastguard rescue officers based in some of North Norfolk’s five coastguard rescue teams. Our coastguards have a fascinating range of backgrounds and experiences. They have a fantastic diversity of skills and careers that contributes to their excellent teamwork. What was striking, and I think this has to be at the heart of our consideration, was that one chap said to me, “I’ll be honest with you, Steff, I didn’t even know that we got paid when I first applied”. I heard that again and again, and I have also heard it from right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The motivation for being in the coastguard is so far from financial that many did not even know that they would be remunerated. Even so, having financial support to cover lost hours of work means that coastguards have the confidence to volunteer more and attend more call-outs. Remuneration supports lost working time, but also the cost of those missed meals with the family because the pager went off and the plans cancelled so that they can spring into action. It is far from huge recompense—about £30 for a call-out of three hours or less—but it helps. It makes it viable for more people, it enables people to give up more of their time to volunteer and it makes the service more resilient. We desperately need people to attend call-outs. One coastguard told me that when he started volunteering, his team received around 30 call-outs. Last year, it was 150. Another team told me that they had had just shy of 200 call-outs and were well on track to beat that this year. The coastguard is a vital service to my area and at this peak season it handles multiple call-outs a day. A gentleman I spoke to told me he was called out three times on Saturday; after a full week at work, he then sacrificed much of a day off with his family to save lives on our coast. It is also not just lifesaving rescuing that the coastguard carries out. The coastguards I spoke to told me that their role often includes keeping the public safe from unexploded bombs uncovered on our beaches. It is a wait of many hours for the bomb squad to arrive in my constituency from Colchester, during which time it is our coastguard who protect and secure the scene. It is an arduous task and not a glamorous or thrilling one—but would any Member prefer it if we just left bombs sitting on the beach and hoped for the best, or drew down on limited rural police resources instead? I am not showing up just to complain at the Minister; I have a lot of time for him. Without having explored other avenues first, I too have spoken to the chief exec of the MCA, as have colleagues, and I do not feel reassured by what I heard. I asked the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, for answers when she came before the Transport Committee last week, and I was equally not reassured. It is worrying when those at the highest level behind such a decision simply cannot provide adequate answers or reasons that make someone like me, who lives in and represents a coastal community, truly believe that the future of our service is as safe as it needs to be. I have some asks for the Minister and I hope he can oblige. From my discussions with coastguards, I understand that two questionnaires or surveys were put before them around the time of the court case on potential changes in remuneration. Can he place copies of them both in the Library of the House, along with the summarised results? The MCA has relied on legal opinions for its claim that the court decision means it has no choice but to take this approach. Will he publish those also? The Government say that there will be a transition period to assess the changes. Could they assess the changes before launching into that period? Otherwise, it feels rather like a fait accompli for those volunteers. The plans seem half-baked at best and penny-pinching at worst. The coastguard is a vital emergency service that the Government seem to think is not worth investing in, and that is wrong. In my community, most people are more likely to call on a coastguard than a copper, but the Government would be seen as barmy if they suggested any pay for police by their mileage. I have seen some poor choices from the Government in my couple of years here, but this one has made me the most worried. I truly think that the MCA and the Government have not realised what they are doing. They have heard some legal advice and listened to some Treasury bean counters, and decided that our service cannot be supported. As they have heard today, that is just not good enough. There is time left in the Prime Minister’s reign for one more U-turn; I urge the Government to make it this one.

    Hansard source