What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Might I gently suggest that it would be easier for colleagues to understand the Government’s conclusions on this advice if we were able to see it? Would the Minister consider placing a copy in the House of Commons Library, along with the two surveys that I believe were undertaken?
Flood Re does need change. However, the Minister has not announced a key change that would make a difference for thousands of households in my North Norfolk constituency: establishing a “Coast Re” scheme for those homes at threat of erosion. They find themselves at huge risk and have no financial backing if the worst happens and they lose their home. My call is supported by the cross-party report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There is not much coastal erosion in Manchester, but can the Minister please make a pitch for “Coast Re” with her new boss in the coming weeks?
For coastguard rescue officers, remuneration provides recognition of the sacrifices that they and their families make: the nights away from home, the cancelled plans, the annual leave taken for training and the loss of income as a result of having to go out and answer calls. These coastguard teams are not built overnight; skills in search and rescue, casualty care and water navigation take years to acquire. Local knowledge, local experience and team cohesion are impossible to replace. If experienced coastguard rescue officers leave, those capabilities cannot simply be replaced. I am particularly concerned about the impact on smaller and more remote coastal communities, where recruitment is already challenging. For the Jurassic coast, that might mean the team at Beer having to become dependent on teams at Exmouth and Lyme Regis. When an emergency occurs, the public do not distinguish between those organisations and others.
In June last year, the UK sanctioned Israeli far-right Minister Bezalel Smotrich for inciting violence against Palestinian communities. In recent weeks, Smotrich has issued an order to displace the Palestinian Bedouin community. The UK position on sanctions against Smotrich was part of a joint statement last year with Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Canada. What talks have the Government had with those same partners about further united sanctions against other Israeli Ministers?
A Government consultation on changes to the planning system closed on 10 March. It included consulting on weakening flood protection in planning guidance, which could lead to greater house building on land prone to flooding. To avoid the need for new insurance schemes such as Flood Re, which supports people after their homes have been flooded, the Government should seek to prevent house building in areas subject to flooding in the first place. When will the Government respond to the consultation that closed on 10 March?
We are a proud seafaring nation—as John Evelyn put it, the “sea is England’s element”—and the coastguard stands as the nation’s eyes and ears along our shore. The west Somerset coast runs along the north of my constituency and, in the Bristol channel, we have the second highest tidal range in the world. I ask the Minister, on behalf of my constituents who now face greater vulnerability as a direct result, on what basis the decision was made. It looks like negligence, but I fear that the blame lies squarely with the MCA. These CROs show extraordinary courage in the line of duty, and, as we all know, “With courage, nothing is impossible”.
5. What steps her Department is taking to maintain levels of funding for astronomy and space science.
I thank the Minister for his answer. My Oxfordshire constituency is home to Harwell campus, the UK’s largest concentration of space and science organisations. Despite what the Minister said about the budget, the need for £162 million of savings by 2030 that was imposed on the Science and Technology Facilities Council risks jobs and critical research equipment, undermining our global science leadership. Does the Minister share those concerns, and what steps will he take to protect scientific jobs and facilities?
I wanted to give the hon. Lady a chance to get back into the swing of things before intervening, but as she is talking about a valuable business in her constituency, let me say that the pub and brewery sector in Woking represents £100 million and 1,800 jobs to our local economy; those numbers used to be higher but, sadly our small brewery, Thurstons, had to close. The EPR was one of several factors that hit that brewery. Does she agree that we need a change from the Government on the EPR, as well as wider support for the sector?
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. I remember her making the same points in her Westminster Hall debate on the EPR back in May 2025. I made similar points in my Westminster Hall debate on beer tax—draught duty—in which we also talked about the EPR. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really disappointing that a year on, the Government, and DEFRA in particular, have not listened to our concerns?
I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I am sure she can probably understand why I, Asahi, which is based in Woking, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and others are not satisfied with her answers today. I have heard nothing of the double taxation, which is what EPR is. Will she agree to meet me, the hon. Member, other MPs and, more importantly, the businesses impacted to fully understand the impact and to work out a way forward?
I might have been distracted in the last eight minutes—I do not know why. I remember hearing that the Minister said she has held a roundtable. I do remember that it was last year, and I am keen for her to meet the stakeholders again before this wider consultation and what happens next—hence my request.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Tackling economic crime and financial secrecy is vital for our economic and national security. The registration of overseas entities is an important step in improving ownership transparency, and we welcome any measures that make it work better in practice. However, I note with concern the temporary removal of the LLP address reporting requirements. The Government have stated that the reason is that Companies House systems are not yet equipped to receive and process that information, but that raises broader questions about pace and resourcing in Companies House more generally. We have known for a significant period of time that it has been underperforming, under-resourced and not doing what it should be in the appropriate manner. Having some transparency and clarity from the Minister would be beneficial. The Government must set out a clear and binding timetable for when the LLP reporting requirements will be reinstated, and ensure that Companies House receives the investment that it needs to deliver the reforms that Parliament has already passed. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.
Q12. Yesterday the Prime Minister visited Maidenhead to announce his new defence investment plan. However, we now know that he is leaving it to his successor to decide how to fund the majority of it. We cannot fund our armed forces without growth, and we cannot get growth in Britain without dismantling the red tape that businesses face and trading closer with our closest neighbours. Does the Prime Minister agree we can properly fund our forces with a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, and will he urge his successor to drop Labour’s red lines to get it done?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. This weekend, I watched the coastguard rescue a kayaker very close to my house. I spoke to the coastguard, who brought me up to date on the situation. There are two things to say. First, it is clear that the MCA management has made a right mess of this. It should listen to the petitioners and put its plans on hold. Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether he has discussed the volunteer fire service’s terms and remuneration with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and whether, for example, an honorarium, a stipend or another of its policies could be adapted?
I beg to move, That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Shelbrooke. I welcome the Minister to his place. This debate is timely, because I am angry and offended by what the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is doing to our coastguard rescue officers. I believe that the changes being introduced, following the recent Court of Appeal judgment, risk hollowing out a crucial emergency service that is relied on by people in my constituency and other coastal and island communities around the country. I believe that the changes should be paused so that a proper and meaningful consultation can be held, and then brought back in a shape that respects the contribution and service given by coastguard rescue officers and secures the future of that service. I want the Minister to understand just why this matters as much as it does, so let me take the House back to 8 December 1963, some 20 months before I was born. At 3 am on that date, the trawler Margaret Wicks, of Fleetwood, ran aground off the coast of the Mull of Oa, on the island of Islay. The report of that grounding from the time recorded: “The Margaret Wicks went ashore on the Mull of Oa, a wild isolated part of Islay where there are few roads”— one, in fact— “at 3 a.m. on 8th December. Within…hours, the Mull of Oa company, who live in a small isolated community about three miles away, were on the scene. Shortly afterwards the Port Ellen company arrived, having carried their life-saving gear for two miles across very rough, boggy terrain from the road where they had left their lorry. The trawler was hard ashore, close in under a steeply sloping cliff 250 feet high; and the Volunteer-in-Charge, Mr. John Lockhead, took his men down the cliff to a point about 20 feet above the bows of the stranded vessel, from which they carried out the rescue. A whip and breeches buoy was used, and within half an hour the first survivor was landed. The other 14 were brought ashore uninjured within the next hour. The Islay life-boat and H.M.S. Hampshire were both lying off shore, unable to help because of the rocks which surrounded the wreck.” One of the men who was part of the Mull of Oa company was my father. He and his friends and neighbours were awarded the Minister of Transport’s shield for best wreck service of the year for 1963-64, jointly with the Lerwick station in Shetland—for obvious reasons, I am relieved that it was called a draw. The rescue of the Margaret Wicks is part of my family’s story. My father will celebrate his 95th birthday next month. I spoke to him about the rescue last night; he recalled it with total clarity and in great detail. He told the story not boastfully, but with a pride rooted in an understanding that this is part of what it means to be an islander or to live in a coastal community. Our communities produce fishermen and other seafarers, so coastguards and lifeboat volunteers go to those who are in difficulty and distress on our shores because, if it were necessary, we would want the same to be done for those about whom we care. Of course, the modern coastguard service is very different from the one that my father was part of in 1963. Now, the crew of the Margaret Wicks would most probably be lifted by helicopter rather than by a breeches buoy, but the same sense of pride and duty motivates coastguard volunteers today as it did my father and his neighbours six decades ago. I heard that same sense of pride and duty when I met CROs in my office in Orkney on Saturday—incidentally, we were in my office because I was not allowed to meet them in the coastguard station. I heard about the four days that they spent searching the coastline for a young monk who had gone missing from the monastery on Papa Stronsay. I heard from CROs in Shetland about the role that they played a few years ago when a winter storm brough catastrophic failure to the local electricity network, leaving parts of our community with no power for over a week.
I know of no CRO who gives their time and skills for the money, but the way in which they have received financial recognition in recent years has enabled them to make their contribution. That is especially true for the self-employed: many paid by the hour in their day jobs will lose out financially. They knew that system when they signed up, but now it is being changed and they are expected to carry on as they did previously. That is not reasonable and does not respect the contribution that the CROs make.
I have spoken to you about taking interventions today, Mr Shelbrooke. So many people are in the Chamber that I am afraid I have agreed to take just one—from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who is running the drop-in session. I hope that somebody has been counting and listing the people in the Chamber, to highlight the importance that we all attach to this issue. It is critical that the Minister should understand what that sense of pride and duty means. I am afraid that the senior management of the MCA apparently have no understanding of it at all; their handling of the issue has been heavy-handed to the point of being disgraceful. Instead of engaging and consulting, they have produced a scheme that fundamentally rewrites the contract between the agency and the CROs. As a result, we risk seeing CROs walking away from the rescue service, to the point of losing the critical mass of people needed to provide the service.
Possibly the least surprising thing that the House will hear today is that I agree with every word of that. In my view, what is being proposed is so fundamentally disrespectful of CROs. Despite that sense of pride and duty and the importance of the service that CROs provide to coastal and island communities, we risk losing many who currently give service. Senior management in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—here, I single out the chief executive for particular criticism—are so removed from the service that CROs provide to communities that they are prepared to see it destroyed. Either they do not understand the people they are paid to manage or they do but are indifferent to the consequences of their actions. Either way, it is apparent to me that there is a crisis of leadership within the agency. That is what makes the issue a problem for the Minister. The people who do understand the CROs are those whose job it is to recruit, train and manage them. Go back 10 or 12 years: the MCA made a strategic shift of resource away from coastguard stations to put extra into the training of CROs. Money was spent on better equipment and training for the volunteers. That took time, but it worked. I give the agency credit for what it did then. I have watched Dave Sweeney, my local coastguard operations manager in Shetland and Orkney, as he has built and shaped a network of teams across the northern isles. That has not been quick or easy, but it has worked. It is the coastguard operations managers and their other full-time colleagues who have been charged by the senior management of the MCA with communicating and driving the changes now being proposed. Since this debate was announced, I have been contacted by a number of them who have told me how the issue has been handled within the agency. That has been truly shocking and displays an organisation with serious cultural and management issues to address. The representations have come to me in confidence and I shall share them, suitably anonymised, with the Minister after this debate. Suffice it to say that they lay bare a truly shocking approach to management that is based on a culture of bullying and a lack of respect for the people on the frontline. One in particular describes the manner in which the issue has been handled within the agency: “Every full time coastal officer in the UK has this week been called to a meeting led by the Assistant Chief Coastguards from Southampton. These meetings were non-negotiable, all FTOs”— full-time officers— “must attend. These meetings have taken place in secret, in hotel meeting rooms or MCA business suites. On entering the meeting room, FTOs are informed that under no circumstances should any information be leaked from the meeting until July or we risk losing our careers. FTOs are informed that they may not record or take pictures of PowerPoint slides nor take any notes on the shared information as this will all be sent out in due course. Delegates at the meeting are demanded that they must and I mean ‘MUST’ toe the agency line that we are in support of the withdrawal of remuneration even if we do not believe in it or have moral issues with it. FTOs are told that we must deliver the message to all Coastguard Teams in the UK and must not deviate from the message. We were told that if we did not agree with the policy then we must get over it or risk losing our jobs…One Assistant Chief Coastguard stated ‘you can get on the bus or join the party, or you can get off and leave the service’ thus insinuating that our full-time jobs are at risk if we do not do as we are told…We raised a concern that we will need to work extra, we were told to ‘just suck it up’ by one Assistant Chief Coastguard. We asked if extra hours and evenings incurred overtime and were told absolutely not. We are working over our 37 hours for free all because the UK Government have made a decision and we need to deal with the consequences. Another Assistant Chief Coastguard shouted at delegates because we all asked too many questions”. That is the position in which these changes are being driven. For as long as I have known it, the MCA has been a body with challenges, but the situation that has been described to me is on another level altogether. To undertake changes of this nature and scale in this way is unacceptable for any public body. To risk leaving coastal and island communities with no resilience in moments of crisis is not just unacceptable but unconscionable. That is why I make this earnest plea to the Minister to intervene. Pause what is being done, bring in someone from outside the service to examine in short order the way in which these changes have been made and communicated, look at the culture within the service, and work out how to recognise the work that CROs do in a way that is compliant with the law and respects their efforts. It cannot be beyond the wit of man. The chief executive has failed to engage with volunteers since the remuneration announcements, and appears to be having leadership struggles at the top with other senior officers. This is an issue that matters beyond measure to communities such as ours. I hope the Minister will hear our simple ask. I hope he understands from the sheer number of people here today the importance that we attach to it and acts accordingly.
I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition; I am sure that his words will have been heard and appreciated. Some 17% of CROs are now members of the GMB. The threshold for voluntary recognition by the agency would be 10%. As a Labour Minister, does he agree with me, a Liberal Democrat, that this would be a good moment for the MCA to recognise the GMB as a union for CROs?
Apologies for de-knighting you earlier, Sir Alec. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate and recognise in particular the contribution from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird). We welcome her to the community of Westminster Hall. I did not remember to count early enough, but I think that we had at least 32 Members of Parliament in this Chamber at the start. In addition, I had indications from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that they would have been here also.
I am bereft, Sir Alec. I do hope that nobody goes back and looks at the footage of me when I was inadvertently leaving my jacket open in that manner. As I was saying, a number of other Members wanted to be here. I listened to the Minister. He is telling me—telling us all, in fact—that the problem is the law, and I am thinking to myself, “My goodness, if only there were something that the Government could do about the law.” I do not honestly know what the answer is—I am not without sympathy for the position in which the Minister finds himself—but I do know what it is not. It is not to take away the terms and conditions that people have served under up until now and to treat them with the utter disregard that the chief executive and the senior management of the MCA are displaying. I again suggest to the Minister that we need to pause this, work it again, properly, talk to the CROs in a respectful and engaging manner, and then come back with something that focuses not on the process argument that we have heard and that we understand, but on the outcomes, because the outcomes for our communities, if we do not get this right, will be catastrophic and I do not want that to be happening on my watch. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers.
Well, here we are again. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine, which we have long called for. We have welcomed more recent statements of intent, including just 10 days ago in this House, but such statements are utterly hollow without action, especially when we know that the Israeli security cabinet’s stated aim is to make a future Palestinian state unviable. We have asked these questions before, but we will ask them again. When will the Government put forward a clear plan to halt and reverse the illegal expansion into East Jerusalem and the west bank? When will they respond to the 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice? When will they introduce a package of sanctions including fines for any UK firms that bid for contracts for settlement construction in E1 or anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Will they expand that to cover any UK financial institution that finances or facilitates UK companies’ involvement in construction or other services? When will the UK move fast to ban all UK trade in goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements?
I think I heard the Minister say a few moments ago that he hoped the outcome of the Israeli election would be a policy more amenable to British Government policy. May I just clarify that he, as a Minister of the Crown, is suggesting that the British Government would like Netanyahu to lose that election?
Might the Minister be able to say a few words about the increased number of flooding episodes in urban areas, especially those containing basement flats? My constituent Jackie ended up being done by her insurance company because its representatives could not make up their minds whether it was a storm or a flood. There was too much small print. The ombudsman could not stand up for Jackie, and she ended up £2,500 in the hole. I wonder whether Ministers could remind insurance companies of their duty not to lead people up the garden path, and to pay out when they should.
Briefly, the Liberal Democrats are supportive of this statutory instrument. We wanted to make the case that having fairness in the system through legal means is all very well, but the problem is that if there are not enough duty providers to provide legal advice, it is almost pointless; we are not actually serving justice because we are not allowing people to get the support that they need, even though they are legally entitled to it. We need to ensure that the wider system is fair and that people have the ability to access the support that they are legally entitled to.
Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns. Yesterday we heard Baroness Amos’s review state: “Poorly maintained buildings…affect how safe people feel, how effectively staff can work, and whether care can be delivered in a way that is private, respectful and reliable.”It has been reported today that the Department of Health and Social Care’s capital budget will be cut by more than half a billion pounds over this Parliament to fund the DIP, which puts the new hospital programme timeline in doubt. Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western, and I really congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important and very timely debate, which he opened very well. Being a Member of Parliament for my constituents in Hazel Grove is an enormous privilege, but it goes beyond that; it is a full-time job, with knobs on. I must declare that early in my time here, I was also an elected councillor, representing the wonderful people of Bredbury Green and Romiley. That was classed as a second job under our current rules, so I declared the allowance that I received for the couple of months before I stood down as a councillor, and the details can be seen in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The people who voted us here did not do so just so we can use Parliament as a launchpad into a media career, a consultancy or corporate boardroom; voters send us here to work for them. Yet in this Parliament we have seen some Members treat their responsibilities to their constituents as, at best, a part-time concern. Other Members have already given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have indeed let the hon. Member know in advance, Mr Weston, that I planned to mention him and his grifting. The hon. Member for Clacton has been here for 300 sitting days since those of us in the 2024 intake were elected. When I was preparing this speech, I realised that if I added together the hours that he has declared as having worked elsewhere, he has spent more than 140 days on various other jobs since he was first elected. That might be understandable if, like many other Members, he had spent the time when he is not here on constituency work, or on fighting for those who elected him. However, there were reports in the Daily Mirror earlier this year flagging up how many of his constituents felt that he was not around enough. He has spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB News and taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms such as Blockworks.
I welcome your advice and guidance, Chair. I will move on to talk about those Members who receive payments for posting on social media. Members of the UK Parliament should not receive payments from platforms such as X. I also note the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have also advised him that I will mention him in this debate. The details of his most recent donation show that he has received over £70,000 from X since his election to this place. Given the international nature of social media companies’ revenue streams, the role that Elon Musk has attempted to play in US politics and the views that he has increasingly expressed about UK politics, we should ensure that there are limitations in place to prevent potential income from social media platforms from unduly influencing politicians. We know the way that the algorithms that these platforms use push content that evokes more feeling, because it drives engagement. Therefore, the more divisive and hate-filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill that would address that issue and I would really welcome Government support for them. It is also worth noting the number of times that various Members who have already been mentioned today have spoken in this place in their role as an MP. For the hon. Member for Clacton, it is fewer than 50 times in two years, including points of order and supplementary questions—considerably fewer than any other party leader. As others have already mentioned today, some MPs have a second job related to a previous career. Within these walls, there are people with vastly different career backgrounds, from veterinarians to police officers. There is a vast difference between being an MP who maintains a medical licence, continues to practise at the Bar or keeps up their professional registration in nursing or social work, and being an MP who treats this Chamber as little more than a platform for personal enrichment. We should be honest about that difference, because members of the public already are. The Lib Dems do not feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs; we do not believe that that would be the right answer. It would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament—that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians. However, the people of Hazel Grove did not elect me to pop in here occasionally while moonlighting for a string of corporate sponsors. Many of my constituents rightly expect high standards and some of them have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians. Most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove wrote to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign-based billionaire. My constituents elected me to do things such as fighting for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted, pressing for better rail services, and holding this Government—any Government—to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch. We saw scandal after scandal under the last Conservative Government, from the resignation of Owen Paterson to partygate. Public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we are still paying the price for that failure. Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they do not go far enough—for example, MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, That clearly recognises that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs, but it is not a full solution. The Liberal Democrats have long supported broader reform to the rules for MPs’ conduct. We should not end up in a situation where MPs are marking their own homework. I welcome the aims of the Modernisation Committee, but it was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in a debate on the motion that established it, yet the Government have so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including in relation to second jobs. I welcome any update from the Minister on when we might expect some progress. Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our areas and our constituents. This is not a part-time role, and that is the standard that this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.
I am delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting rightful attention in this place. Does the hon. Member agree that it is genuinely disappointing that although the Government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and have overall, Stockport has been short-changed? He will know, because it is in his constituency, that Stockport is the least well-off part of Greater Manchester, yet because we missed out on extra funding by 0.1%, services will have to be cut. That was a decision of this Labour Government.
I strongly agree with the Minister’s point about local leaders being best placed to make decisions. However, does she agree that when £3 of every £4 of Stockport council’s revenue spending goes on social care for children or adults, the number of choices that the council can make is far too limited?
Build E1, kill the prospect of Palestine. It is that simple, and that is not a conspiracy theory; it is Israel’s stated aim. We have a small window to affect what happens next because the Israeli elections are happening soon, as the Minister said. If we are going to make any difference to the ordinary Israeli politic about who they decide to elect, we need to act now and turn this on its head. He talks about the technicalities in banning trade with the illegal settlements. I have laid a Bill that makes it quite simple: prohibit it now, put the onus on the Israeli Government to sort it out, and if they change their policy, we will change ours.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Beachy Head in my constituency is, regrettably, one of the most visited suicide spots in the world. Every year, brave coastguards such as Mark Francis in Eastbourne recover bodies from those cliffs and intervene at the cliff edge. Their presence is often the difference between intervention and inquest. That is why I am outraged at the proposed changes that threaten to decimate our coastguard service and threaten lives. I urge the Minister, on behalf of not only our brave CROs, but the bereaved Beachy Head families, to pause the changes, to object to the MCA’s short-sightedness and to ensure that our CROs get the support that they deserve and that our communities need.
At the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I chair, we often hear from mobile network operators that one reason they do not serve rural areas properly is that they cannot get planning permission. In Shropshire, the council has given planning permission to a passive infrastructure provider for three specific sites but it still cannot get the mobile network operators to put their equipment on their masts. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure mobile network operators give my constituents the coverage that they are paying for?
1. What discussions she has had with Ofcom on the potential merits of updating the crisis response protocol measures to include a uniform set of standards.
The limits in the Online Safety Act only cover misinformation that meets the threshold for illegal content. The riots in Epsom and Ewell highlighted a need for a clear crisis protocol, because false information was viewed over 2 million times and it was trending on X two days after that information had been clarified by the police. Will the Minister commit to directing Ofcom to establish a single set of mandatory crisis response standards for platforms so that we have clear accountability and rapid action following such incidents?
The makers of the Louis Theroux documentary “Inside the Manosphere” showed the all-party parliamentary group on fatherhood, which I chair, that within 15 minutes of looking at YouTube, young boys could be shown misogynistic content when they are simply trying to search for gym content. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ban on social media will include platforms that do not require an account, so that children can be protected from that as well?
The Minister has rightly spoken of the flood resilience grant scheme, which is an important scheme, but residents of Wheatley in my constituency found out in September 2024 that they were ineligible for grants, because 2,000 homes need to be flooded before payments are triggered. That fundamentally disadvantages rural areas, because many villages will never reach the threshold, even if the entire village is flooded. That is really unfair and advantages urban areas over rural areas. Will the Minister look at that with Cabinet colleagues, so that we can better support rural areas?
Thank you, Sir Alec. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this important debate on what is, frankly, an outrageous and insulting decision by the MCA. I also pay tribute to the amazing work of the coastguard rescue officers in Lyme Regis, West Bay and across the country. I recognise the extraordinary sacrifice they make when they drop everything to respond to emergencies and save lives. As has been said, no one joins the coastguard for the money, but that small, modest payment helps to soften the substantial financial impacts that they incur. My CROs tell me that it helps cover the cost of a family meal to say thank you for sacrificing time together; it replaces the sunglasses broken while performing CPR; it helps to compensate the children for an abandoned cinema trip; it helps to recognise the Christmases, birthdays and family gatherings that are missed because they are out on a cliff or in the sea, in the middle of a rescue, when the rest of us are at home. It is not a salary; it is recognition. I believe this Government must find a way to square the circle of the court’s judgment with properly recognising the sacrifice that these heroes make.
Can I not associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about my party, but can I associate myself with all his remarks about the earthquake and humanitarian catastrophe in Venezuela? May I commend the Scottish team and the Scottish fans for the joy they brought to the world cup? They did the whole of Scotland proud. May I wish England well against DR Congo later today? But with Reece James and Jarell Quansah in doubt, I know the Prime Minister is not the only one struggling for a solid defence plan. [Laughter.] The wars in Ukraine and Iran show us how seriously we must take the threat of missiles and drones hitting our country. Our national security requires the best possible missile defence system, including Royal Navy destroyers, but the funding in the Prime Minister’s plan for this falls dangerously short. Yet he has rejected our proposals for defence bonds, which were used in the past to rearm our country. So why has the Prime Minister chosen to leave our country so vulnerable to missile attack?