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·Lib Dem·Ed Davey

   Engagements

   The Prime Minister knows that our defence bonds are within his own fiscal rules and that he has had advice from his own team that he should adopt them, and I hope the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will listen. I have another concern that I think the Prime Minister will share: the rising tide of racist violence and hate that we are seeing in our country, and the way it is being incited and normalised, including, I am afraid, by some Members of this House. I was talking to a British friend of Indian ancestry who told me how Reform activists came to her door and said that, if they get into power, she and her family will have their passports seized and their citizenship revoked. Does the Prime Minister agree that racism has no place in our country, and will he join me in condemning anyone who is stoking it?

   Hansard source
2. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

   Engagements

   Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 July.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

   Engagements

   I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condolences and his birthday good wishes to the NHS. Everyone in my constituency of Surrey Heath wants a new Frimley Park hospital, but the chosen site—the last remaining fragment of the ancient Frimley common—is wholly inappropriate. It is inaccessible, behind multiple schools, and environmentally devastating. Worse, over recent weeks, I have received deeply troubling evidence that the preferred relocation site was known and being openly discussed by local political figures in 2023, before the official site selection process had even begun. The entirely reasonable conclusion is that this project has been compromised from the outset and the site predetermined. I think the Prime Minister would agree that this is no way to begin a multibillion-pound public procurement process, so will he please step in, commission an urgent independent review—

   Hansard source
4. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

   We Liberal Democrats support all three measures in the Bill. We recognise that the electricity generator levy is intended to encourage legacy renewable generators to move away from volatile wholesale electricity prices and on to contracts for difference. As the only party to put in its manifesto a commitment to decoupling gas and electricity, the Liberal Democrats support the Government’s objective. If it succeeds, consumers will benefit from greater protection against future gas price shocks and the volatility that we have seen in recent years. However, if the measure does not achieve that behavioural change, and instead primarily generates additional revenue, I believe that Parliament and the public deserve clarity on how that money will be used. As the Bill progresses through the House, I hope Ministers will say how they intend to report to Parliament the amount of money the levy raises, and how they intend to spend it. We have consistently argued for an emergency transport package to help Britain keep moving, emergency home insulation schemes, and low-interest loans to support households to adopt energy security measures—something I proposed last autumn that the Government are now consulting on. There are many ways in which the Government could be helping households and businesses with the rising cost of living. The change to income tax mileage allowance payments is another measure that Liberal Democrats are pleased to support. However, Ministers will be aware that there are many carers who drive their own cars, often hundreds of miles a week, who do not benefit from mileage allowances. Again, I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House, Ministers will say what measures will be taken to ensure that all of our valued and professional care workers can benefit. The 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for HGVs is a sensible measure and one that we welcome, but we must also recognise the unprecedented pressures facing the haulage sector. As international instability continues, and global energy markets remain uncertain, we urge Ministers to remain vigilant and responsive to the impact that those pressures are having on households and businesses, as well as industry and haulage.

   Hansard source
5. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

   I rise to speak to new clauses 1 to 3. New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to publish a report on the use of additional receipts arising from the increase in the electricity generator levy from 45% to 55%. New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to review the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under clause 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the combined impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty rates for goods vehicles. As I indicated on Second Reading, we support what the Government are trying to do with these measures. However, it is really important for trust in politics that when Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the intention is to use the levy to supporting households and businesses with the cost of living, there is a report to demonstrate to the public that the money does, in fact, go towards measures that do just that, rather than the money disappearing into Treasury coffers. I urge the Exchequer Secretary to accept new clause 1, which would provide transparency to Parliament and the public. Let me turn to new clause 2. Some Members will know that I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the extraordinary work carried out by our care workers. The salary of our care workers, and the status they are given, is nowhere near big enough to recognise the extraordinary work that they do. I have spent several hours with Abbots Care in my constituency, watching how their care workers work. They have an enormous emotional investment in every single client; they observe their habits and personality, and they know when something is slightly out of whack or not quite right. A care worker’s routine can suddenly change if there an emergency with another client. There may be something wrong with the client’s medication and they have to make phone calls that they had not expected to make. They are experts on their client and on people, but they are not experts on tax. I was very heartened that the Exchequer Secretary said on Second Reading that employees who do not receive the mileage allowance can claim back an equivalent amount. I was also heartened to hear him say that he would look into ways to make it easier for care workers. Could he outline what those measures might look like? We owe care workers so much thanks for the work that they do. It is diligent, hard work to make sure that our loved ones are cared for and can live with dignity. We should make the system as simple as possible for them. It might be a case of care organisations and providers sending letters to care workers to tell them what they are entitled to, or it might be a case of requiring HMRC to proactively write to them, but we must bend over backwards to make sure that care workers can benefit from this particular measure. As I said on Second Reading, we welcome the measure, but we urge Ministers to think very carefully and to go as far as they can to make sure that every care worker who is entitled to this benefit understands that it is there for them. It must be made as simple as possible for care workers, and we must make it clear that it will not end up in a drawn-out dispute with HMRC; I urge the Exchequer Secretary to think about a dedicated hotline for care workers, in case we need one down the line. Finally, new clause 3 requires a report on this particular measure. Our three new clauses are all transparency measures, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on them.

   Hansard source
6. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

   We Liberal Democrats support the Bill and the three measures in it. We tabled our three new clauses in Committee, and I was grateful that the Minister gave assurances from the Dispatch Box that he would look at every single opportunity to ensure that care workers are aware of the ways in which they can benefit from these measures. We are happy to see the Bill fast-tracked, but I believe the Minister said that he would look for opportunities to come back and report to this House—if not at the Budget, perhaps before—on how that is going. I am glad that is on the record. I hope that care agencies see that on the record and act on it to inform their staff, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that. I will try to hold his feet to the fire so that we do everything we can to ensure that care workers are aware that they will benefit from this measure.

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   The hon. Member talks about the responsibilities. Does he agree with what the coastguard in South Queensferry, in my area, has said—that at the stroke of a pen, the MCA has dispensed with all responsibilities to the CROs and put them in a vulnerable position?

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Calum Miller

   Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

   In September 2024, my constituency experienced a month’s worth of rainfall in 36 hours, which led to the inundation of many homes. A constituent in Woodstock has described how her house and her annexe—into which she had poured her pension to convert it to a holiday let—were inundated. She is now unable to obtain any kind of insurance, including Flood Re insurance. She wrote this to me: “ I am terrified to think about any rainfall that could damage my home and business again.” Will the Minister look at that case, and at Flood Re eligibility for those at risk of surface flooding—as distinct from river flooding—and those whose business premises abut their homes?

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   I thank my hon. Friend and Cornish neighbour for giving way and join him in commending the Cornish coastguard agencies, particularly Boscastle, Bude and Padstow in my constituency. Boscastle had its fair share of disasters in 2024. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are other options, such as statutory retainers, and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency did not consult on those?

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    I will be brief. My local fishermen in North Cornwall have been waiting three years for the inshore fisheries and conservation authority and DEFRA to implement a byelaw to restrict vessels above 12 metres in the inshore Cornish waters within 6 nautical miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is urgently needed and would do exactly what he has been calling for by restricting those larger vessels and helping to manage the stocks that he is talking about?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Medical Services (Rural Areas)

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy for expanding the provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the implementation of the strategy; and for connected purposes. Since my election as North Cornwall’s MP almost two years ago, I have worked on far too many cases with constituents who face huge barriers in accessing healthcare. The first is the issue of getting to hospitals and healthcare centres. Bus services in my constituency are few and far between, to put it mildly, and the transport network lacks direct bus services from every single one of my major towns to their nearest district hospitals. Bude to Barnstable hospital is a five to six-hour round trip involving three buses. Bodmin to Treliske is a four-hour round trip involving two buses and a lengthy train journey. Launceston to Plymouth is a four-hour round trip involving three buses. Wadebridge to Treliske is a five-hour round trip, and Camelford to Treliske is a six-hour round trip. That is not to mention the many villages across North Cornwall that have even worse bus connectivity. To access her 20-minute chemotherapy appointment, one constituent was forced to travel from Bude to Derriford hospital, which is a three-hour round trip, even by car. She did that journey every day for three weeks. Another constituent undertook a 120-mile round trip to Tiverton last week, only to be told that the appointment had been cancelled when she got there. The hospital told her that this was down to staff shortages due to sickness, but why was there no adequate cover in place for vital appointments?  Staff shortages due to sickness caused major problems for my constituents in Launceston last summer when, during the peak tourist season, those shortages caused the town’s minor injuries unit to close its doors. The “shortages” were just one staff member being off sick. The remaining staff were then distributed to other MIUs, none of which I would describe as being nearby, leaving my constituents and North Cornwall’s visitors travelling much further to access minor injury treatment—that is, if they were able to travel at all. Many told me that during that time, they had vital aid administered at home, instead of being seen by a healthcare professional. My constituents have also urged me to raise the issue of the lack of dementia care. Despite having one of the oldest populations in the UK, Cornwall sadly ranks among those with the lowest capacity for dementia care, due to its lack of specialist care home beds and community support. Despite being one of the worst affected areas, Cornwall has less than half as many specialist care home beds per 100,000 people as Surrey, even though about one in three people in Cornwall are over the age of 70. On a personal note, my grandmother suffered from dementia towards the end of her life, and my father and I shared her care in her final years. Through this experience, I saw at first hand how dedicated the care home and medical staff were, but also how dangerously overstretched they were. Had I not gone in to feed her every evening, she would not have eaten. For dementia patients interacting with the rest of our creaking health system, the situation gets even worse. One constituent with advanced dementia fell and sustained a head injury. After an hour-long journey to the nearest major hospital, he was forced to wait outside in an ambulance for over eight hours. During this time, he was brought in for an assessment and then taken back outside again. As night fell, he became more confused and more agitated, and his family had no choice but to take him home to Launceston, without blood tests, and without confirming the suspected brain bleeding, and with no testing and no treatment. On the subject of waiting times, those suffering from mental health issues in Cornwall can be stuck on referral waiting lists for months and months. When they reach crisis point, their options are limited. Some attend their local urgent treatment centre or MIU. In rural areas like mine, people can be extremely isolated, and their mental health can really suffer. Our farmers in particular face a mental health epidemic. In Cornwall, mental health patients can be sent from one end of the duchy to the other, or even to the other end of the country. They are often driven miles and miles from their family and support systems, and are isolated even further. One constituent who attended my surgery just last week had waited 313 days for accommodation back near his family. I urge the Government to ensure that rurality is factored into their ongoing mental health consultation, as part of the 10-year health plan commitment. I come to one of the most pressing issues for my constituents of all ages: the total lack of NHS dentists in North Cornwall. This massive issue puts huge strain on our major hospitals, but it also has a serious knock-on effect; patients visit their local MIU with serious dental problems. That is not to mention the huge pressure on A&Es, if patients can get to one. In the strategy required by this Bill, I would ask the Government to address the chronic lack of NHS dentistry in rural areas. We know that the NHS dental contract needs urgent reform, but will the Government also look at stopping integrated care boards handing back unused ringfenced funding, such as the unspent £1.2 million recently handed back by the Cornwall ICB? All the issues that I have raised affect thousands of my constituents. They have paid their taxes and national insurance contributions for decades, and they have put their faith in a national health service, but they have been very badly let down when they most needed support. What I have described sounds like the sort of access to healthcare that would shock us if we were looking at a third-world country, but sadly this is the reality that my constituents face, and there is seemingly no help on the way on healthcare transport. Both the Government and Cornwall council regularly tell me that there is no money available for any more buses, even if routes are a matter of life or death. Of course, I recognise the absolutely incredible and tireless work of our nurses, doctors and other staff at our hospitals and medical facilities; I want to make that clear. They work in incredibly stressful environments, and with stretched resources, dealing with patients who have been let down by the system. However, this Government must put in more effort on the recruitment and retention of MIU staff. That must include expanding the provision of key worker housing for MIU nurses. The lack of that housing seems to be a key reason why Cornwall is failing to attract a workforce, and it further exacerbates our problem of closure due to constant short-staffing. Our local GP surgeries also experience enormous pressure during MIU closures. The Minister for Secondary Care, who is in her place, has helped me and my constituents to finally secure a desperately needed new GP surgery building in Bodmin, but unfortunately the battle continues, and I will come back to her for further assistance with that. We have needed help, funding and more support in North Cornwall for decades, but we have not just sat by and waited for it. Our amazing volunteers and their excellent initiatives have demonstrated that we can offer real value for money and great healthcare outcomes, even compared with more urban areas. Barry Cornelius runs a pioneering healthcare transport system, and Cym Downing and many others run amazing memory cafés. The mental health charity Man Down provides excellent mental health services, and countless other charities, staffed by incredible volunteers, fill in the service gaps. To end, I would ask the Government to set out for my constituents in writing how they plan to ensure minimum staffing levels at MIUs and urgent treatment centres in rural areas like North Cornwall. I ask the Government to let my constituents know exactly how they will expand the provision of medical facilities in the rural areas that need them most. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ben Maguire, Andrew George, Steff Aquarone, Mr Joshua Reynolds, Ian Roome, Edward Morello, Rachel Gilmour, Dr Danny Chambers, Layla Moran, David Chadwick, Freddie van Mierlo and Charlie Maynard present the Bill. Ben Maguire accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 108). Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill (Business of the House) Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill— Timetable (1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order. (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (d) This paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put (2) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put. (4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply: (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision; (d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any Motion described in paragraph (10)(a) of this Order. (5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. (6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions. (7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out. Miscellaneous (8) Standing Order No. 15(1)(Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill. (9)Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies. (10) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (11) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (12) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies. (13) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. (14) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Mark Ferguson.)

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I wanted to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about the complexity of the scheme, on top of the additional costs for small businesses. I have a fantastic vineyard in my constituency called Camel Valley, which has talked about spreadsheets being almost matrix-like—branded, non-branded and so on. It is so complicated for businesses to understand. Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as the punitive costs on our fantastic local breweries, vineyards and other businesses that she has described, it is the complexity of the scheme that is really holding back so many amazing businesses?

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), not only on securing the debate and making a first-class case, but on managing to contain his deep irritation at the way this matter has been handled.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I do know my right hon. Friend too well. I also warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an excellent first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate. The coastguard service is clearly critical to a constituency like mine, with more than 150 miles of coastline across west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There is a lot of heritage. The National Coastwatch Institution was established in 1994, following the tragic deaths of two local fishermen whose boat sank off the coast of the Lizard peninsula, within sight of the recently closed coastguard station at Bass Point. Although the National Coastwatch Institution provides a vital volunteer service, it does not in any way replace the coastguard.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    My hon. Friend is right, and I will come to that in a second. I want to share quotes from some of many CROs who have been in contact we me. One said, “Many CROs…make considerable personal financial sacrifices in order to respond to incidents. Whilst nobody joins the coastguard for financial gain, the current remuneration helps offset the real costs associated with responding, including loss of earnings, disruption to employment, interrupted family life, loss of sleep and the wider impacts that emergency responses can have.” Needless to say, many of the CROs in my area are self-employed. Others say that on this occasion the bosses have “made us all redundant and re-employed us as volunteers.” The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about using the model of retained firefighters, who are recompensed through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call-outs, and specific disturbance fees. That is a good model for the MCA to look at seriously. I gave the Minister advance notice of a large number of questions, so I will summarise some of them. What level of consultation was undertaken with CROs prior to this announcement? What alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI, have been considered? What workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact on retention and availability? What operational safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experience, skills and leadership capability? What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels? In terms of viability, how has HM Coastguard satisfied itself on public safety? What impact assessment has been undertaken of the resilience of the future of coastguard rescue teams as a category one emergency call-out?

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    All the Minister’s points apply to retained firefighters. He cannot say that we cannot appropriately transpose that framework agreement between the MCA and CROs simply because they have to be called out within five to seven minutes. Those kinds of details can be altered simply by using the framework. If it is possible in the case of retained firefighters, there is no reason why it cannot be transposed to the CROs.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing the debate and making a strong case on behalf of his region in Scotland. He focused on the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is £360 million over 12 years, as he understands, so it is spread over a very long period. When one looks at it across the whole UK on an annual basis, it is spread very thinly. Coastal communities in particular have been left behind following Brexit, as the hon. Member mentioned. In Cornwall, for example, we were entitled to objective 1 aid from the EU. Following Brexit, we were promised equivalent funds from the Treasury to make up for the loss of EU aid; it was equivalent to £100 million a year coming into Cornwall, which is one of the most deprived regions not just in the UK, but in Europe. It is now 2026 and there are no funds at all: over the years, that replacement has simply not happened. A paltry amount is available through the fisheries and coastal growth fund, but it is being spread around the country and, as the hon. Member rightly says, it is a relatively small fund. It is welcome, of course—one should not decry the Government for making the offer—and I entirely understand that the purpose of the fund is to modernise the fishing industry and the seafood sector, build resilience and support coastal communities. However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the funds go to those areas that need it most, rather than simply allocating it on a flatline basis across the country, based on the size of the existing fishing industry. Not all communities are doing as well as one another. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on adding to what must be a world record for Westminster Hall debate contributions. I thank him for emphasising the social and cultural as well as economic consequences of the fishing industry in his part of Northern Ireland. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), who is already proving hyperactive: this is her second debate in Westminster Hall today. She made a very telling contribution that illustrated brilliantly the impact of changes in recent years, the demise of the haddock fishery and its consequences on the community. On the future of the fishing industry, we must recognise and acknowledge that the best type of fishing policy is one in which politicians do not need to get involved. It is one in which scientists, fishermen and marine conservationists work together in a framework created by politicians in which they can come to an agreement on the future management of stocks. In my early days in Parliament, I was a member of what was then the Agriculture Committee. We visited a number of countries, including Spain and Iceland, where it was quite evident that the relationship between scientists and fishermen was much better established than in this country, where—at that stage, at least—scientists were seen in the industry as some kind of enemy. The presumption, wrongly, was that they were working to shut the commercial fisheries down. Now those relationships have significantly improved. Recently, in April this year, on the initiative of the fishing industry itself, the Cornwall fisheries science board was established. We need to see a great deal more of those kinds of positive initiatives. We have just had the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, so it is appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on that, as it has been mentioned on a number of occasions. As someone who campaigned to remain, I had to acknowledge in the debates we had at the time that the one sector in which one could easily identify potential to thrive and improve in Brexit circumstances was the fishing industry, if there were an opportunity to regain control out to the 12-mile limit.

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Had we secured control between the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, as was promised at the time but has not been delivered, one could see circumstances in which local IFCAs, local management and indeed the Government would agree that there would be an opportunity to achieve that within the 6-mile limit. It is telling that, after the flotillas up the Thames and certain campaigners using the fishing industry as the poster boy of the Brexit campaign, on occasions like this debate, when they should come along to explain what happened as a result of the promises they made, they are conspicuous by their absence. They are not here to answer for themselves and for the claims they made at the time. Where are they? They should be here to explain why the industry is still struggling post-Brexit.

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Early Years Funding: Hampshire

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the adequacy of early years funding in Hampshire. It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. A Hampshire nursery manager recently told me: “Sometimes the funding arrives so late that we are genuinely worried about making wages.” That sentence has stayed with me, because it captures something that the national conversation about “free childcare” too often misses. The question is not simply whether Hampshire has enough childcare places on paper. It is also whether every family can access suitable, affordable and high-quality early education and childcare when they actually need it and whether providers have the funding and workforce to deliver that sustainably. Those are two very different questions, and today I want to address them both. Let us be clear about the scale of the pressure that the sector is under. Providers are being hammered by rising costs: increased employer national insurance contributions, rising energy costs just to keep the lights on, business rates and more. One nursery provider in my constituency of North East Hampshire told me that their liability insurance had risen by 19% this year alone, and that was on top of a 59% jump in business rates. Department for Education analysis published in May found that on average providers took in just £1.01 for every £1 that they spent in 2025, and nearly half of providers reported income that fell short of covering their costs. I am aware that one nursery in my constituency is required to subsidise the Government’s funded offer by more than £51,000 in this academic year alone. It cannot be right that a sector that is already operating on wafer-thin margins is left to absorb more and more tax rises.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Early Years Funding: Hampshire

    Yes, I absolutely agree; that is a precise summary of the current position. When we think of early years, most of us automatically think of nurseries, but in many areas of the country, and especially North East Hampshire, many families rely on local childminders. Earlier this month, a constituent of mine, Lorna, told me that after almost 26 years of running her childminding business, she must close it because of mounting financial pressures. She has loved the job, but the lack of any promise of a better financial future has left her with no choice. Every ambition that we hold for this system—more places, better outcomes and proper support for children with additional needs—depends on a stable, skilled and well-supported workforce. Parents do not use the language of workforce policy, but they feel its consequences all the same, including in high staff turnover, longer waiting lists, reduced flexibility and the particular difficulty of finding a place for a child with additional needs. A Hampshire nursery manager put the underlying cause to me plainly: rising costs have not come with a matched uplift in the funding rate. Staffing alone accounts for three quarters of costs in the early years sector. That leaves early years settings particularly exposed to sudden changes, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions. Providers cannot compete for the experienced senior staff necessary to deliver high-quality support, and high staff turnover leads to higher training costs. Every parent stuck on a waiting list is living with the downstream consequence of a workforce crisis that starts with underfunding, and Hampshire reflects many of the challenges in microcosm. It is a large county, spanning urban, rural and coastal communities. Hampshire county council’s childcare sufficiency assessment points to the same challenges: expanding supply to meet the extended 30-hour entitlement; tackling recruitment and retention; and ensuring that rising demand does not squeeze out children with special educational needs or from disadvantaged backgrounds—the very children who stand to gain the most from a good-quality early years setting. Free childcare makes for a great headline, but it has to be deliverable. As of September 2025, the county council projected that Hampshire would need an additional 2,100 childcare places in wards where supply is already limited just to meet the promise of 30 hours a week. This promise is not all it is made out to be. The figure of 30 hours is based on term-time care only, so for those parents who work full-time, that is spread out over 52 weeks, not 38. The rate for three and four-year-olds that is paid to settings is lower than the cost to provide the service, so those paying for additional hours are, in effect, subsidising the free provision. For those families who are barely getting by, with high living costs and stagnant wages for their own work, it is often more expensive for both parents to work. That is not good for our economy. As with any business, cash flow is key, and providers across my North East Hampshire constituency tell me that they are paid in arrears, with funding for a month’s care landing in the last three days of that same month, compared with other counties that pay before the month even starts. So Hampshire nurseries are covering an entire month of wages, rent and bills with private fees. When that is combined with low or no profit margins, it sets the scene for instability and uncertainty. Young children, working parents and childcare providers all need stability in the sector to thrive, but the circumstances are far from ideal for that. Nowhere is the funding gap starker than for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Before entering this House, I served as a school governor and ran a charity supporting children and young adults with Down’s syndrome and their families, so this is an issue I have seen up close from both sides of the school gate. Providers tell me that the pathway to secure support is long and difficult to navigate. By the time a child is identified, their needs are often already very high. What funding does arrive frequently pays for only an enhanced ratio, which is no substitute for the one-to-one specialist care that many children need, and staff often lack the specialist training required. Indeed, in my previous line of work, it was the charity that stepped in to provide the training—a service with the uncertainty of being funded solely through donations and simply not available everywhere in the country. A child’s future should not be a postcode lottery. Investing in our future generations is the best investment we can make, for them, for families and for society. That is why Liberal Democrats are calling for early years providers to be exempted from the rise in employer national insurance contributions. Hampshire’s early years providers are not asking for handouts; they are asking for the funding that was promised to arrive, to be enough and to be on time. A place on a spreadsheet is not the same as a place a family can use. A free hour that no provider can afford to deliver is not free at all. Our children’s futures, and those caring for them, deserve nothing less.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    Ilminster residents, like Krystal, who have houses on floodplains tell me that they cannot obtain insurance, although people living up the road can. The Minister has confirmed that the eligibility criteria remain under review. Will she commit to reviewing the exclusion of homes built after 2009, and will she also undertake to make the whole process fairer, so people like Krystal, throughout my constituency, can obtain affordable insurance?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate. Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full-time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more. It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents. Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public. I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    Frankly, I despair. I have lost count of the number of times that I and others across this entire House have come here to press the Minister to put in place a full ban on settlement trade and the number of times he has prevaricated. I have lost count of the number of times that he has wrung his hands, made statements of concern, expressed worry and condemnation and yet refused to do what he claims he will do, because he has talked about acting with alacrity and using all the leverage we have, and yet he does not. If E1 goes ahead, that will be the death knell for the prospect of the Palestinian state that he, all Labour MPs and so many of us are so proud of this Government for recognising last year. It is, however, worth nothing if he does not follow up with action and use every lever in this Government’s power to follow through, to put pressure on the Israeli Government and to ensure that the rights of Palestinians are upheld.

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I welcome the work of Flood Re. Later this month, I will be hosting its Floodmobile in my constituency, where 13% of properties are already at risk of flooding. However, according to experts at Flooded People UK, our capital spending on flood defences and maintenance is not at record levels; in fact, it is actually lower than the annual rates in the previous capital spend. Will the Minister commit herself to protecting households in all our constituencies, and to increasing the spending commitments above the level in the 10-year infrastructure plan?

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    I will address directly the matter of settlements in a moment, but I want to make a broader point first. Diplomacy is about rolling up our sleeves and putting in the hard yards, not just issuing condemnatory statements. I believe that if the Minister wants to have real sway with the Government of Israel, there has to be meaningful dialogue, but at the moment there is no dialogue between this Labour Government and Israel, despite the obvious importance of the bilateral relationship to Britain across so many domains. That is because of the decisions that Labour has made—from suspending export licences when Israel was burying murdered hostages to cancelling trade talks and recognising a Palestinian state when hostages were still being held in terrorist captivity. By deliberately keeping relations with Israel in a deep freeze, Labour is cutting off its ability to influence situations on the ground. None the less, settlement expansion in the west bank is not helpful for achieving the long-term peace that we all want to see. [Interruption.] That has long been my party’s position. We would also like to see Israel use its legal system to bear down on settler violence. We on the Conservative Benches do support a two-state solution: one that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us whether he has spoken to his Israeli counterparts directly on the E1 situation? Are the Government doing anything at all to help the Abraham accords expand or to unblock issues holding up a broader regional peace? Finally, will he update us on his assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s plan to hold elections in November and whether he is concerned by the PA’s lack of progress on the total overhaul of curricula and welfare policy, which is so clearly needed?

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Engagements

    Q11. Through omission or insufficient advice, injured veterans may fail to place their compensation in a trust within the one year allowed by universal credit. Can discretion be had in compassionate cases?

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and introducing it so very well. In Burnham-on-Sea, we have a fantastic coastguard team and rescue officers. They are dedicated volunteers who respond to incidents along one of the most challenging stretches of coastline in the country. The Bristol channel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the risks are very real. When people get into difficulty, it is these volunteers who respond, often within minutes. Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation that they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham-on-Sea coastguard team, who are deeply concerned about what that means for their future involvement.

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I agree with the hon. Lady: I think those volunteers have been poorly treated. The payments were never a salary, but they made it possible for people to continue volunteering. One officer of many years, who shared his thoughts with me, said: “Call Outs never come at a ‘convenient’ time. The money we earn would never replace the time lost, but it does soften the blow.” It is often said that rescue officers do not volunteer for financial reward but out of a strong sense of duty and community spirit. However, the modest compensation recognised the very real costs involved: travel, time away from work and the disruption to family life. I understand that the MCA must operate within the law, and that the Court of Appeal ruling has created a complex situation. It is, though, sad to see these committed volunteers penalised as they have been. I urge the Government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer coastguards and would be grateful if the Minister addressed these questions when he sums up. What assessment has been made of the impact on recruitment and retention? In constituencies such as mine, a reduction in volunteer numbers would have a direct impact on public safety. Is the Minister satisfied with the MCA’s engagement with volunteer coastguard teams? I end by thanking the coastguard volunteers in Burnham-on-Sea and across the country.

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate. Fishing is not just an industry; to many it is a way of life, passed from one generation to the next. It is why so many people in our fishing communities looked to the Government’s UK-EU summit in May 2025 with disbelief. At that summit, the Government agreed to grant the European Union full access to UK fishing waters until 2038—a 12-year extension of the existing arrangements. The Government said that it would be in return for British participation in the Security Action for Europe defence fund. Despite repeated questions, however, it remains unclear exactly when or indeed if they will achieve that. That is because the talks collapsed when the EU demanded billions of pounds from Britain as a condition for joining. You might think, Sir Alec, that the Government would have thought about that possibility before signing away important fishing rights. They seem to have got nothing in return. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government will renegotiate with the EU and return the fishing rights to our fishermen and women, now it is clear that the talks have failed? Or was our fishing industry just used as a bargaining chip in pursuit of the Prime Minister’s broader political objective? This House deserves answers, and so do the communities whose futures depend on those decisions. I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the fishing and coastal growth fund and will claim that it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the sector, but fishermen across the country feel very differently. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has raised serious concerns about the Government’s approach in relation to this fund. It found that Ministers had not clearly explained why the figure of £360 million was chosen, why the fund should run for 12 years or why this support is best delivered through a single integrated scheme. Crucially, the Committee also concluded that the fund lacks clear objectives against which success can be measured. That is a remarkable criticism, and I hope the Minister will address it. I ask him these questions directly. What are the objectives of this fund? How will he measure its success? What outcomes will demonstrate to fishing communities that this money has delivered meaningful change? And what happens if those objectives are not met? The previous Conservative Government had a clear record of backing our fishing industry. We secured increased fishing opportunities, allocated substantial support for the long-term future of the sector, developed new fisheries such as bluefin tuna, and began replacing the hated common fisheries policy with a bespoke framework designed around the interests of UK fisheries. On this side of the House, we support investment in fishing and coastal communities. Many stakeholders have rightly highlighted the need for better port infrastructure, improved training opportunities and investment in skills, scientific research and fleet modernisation. By contrast, this Government’s headline achievement has been to lock in EU access to UK waters for another 12 years while offering a fund that, to many, looks to be little more than a sticking plaster. Additionally, “Economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2026”, published earlier this year, shows that there has been a decrease in this year’s quota of 135,000 tonnes compared with last year’s quota. That will cost the British fishing industry £136 million. At the same time, spatial squeeze is forcing fishermen out of their traditional fishing areas, and new rules have been imposed governing trawl mesh sizes. The Iran war pushed up fuel prices, but the Chancellor’s May statement on support during the Iran war did not help fishers at all. The fishing industry is vital for our food security and deserves proper support from the Government to address the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities now face. The Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of access to our own waters and Britain’s rights as an independent, sovereign coastal state. I urge the Government to do the same.

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    The Minister is drawing to the end of his time allocation, but could he explain to fishermen the benefits, as he sees them, of his Government signing away to the EU 12 years of access to our fishing waters?

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for our recent conversations about flooding in Somerset. Flooding is a huge challenge for areas across the country. Some 6.3 million properties in England are currently located in areas that are at risk of flooding, including many in my constituency. When floods occur, the Environment Agency, local volunteer groups and farmers work to help people quickly, often in difficult circumstances. I was humbled and deeply proud to see the way the community pulled together in affected areas during the flooding earlier this year, particularly in Moorland and Fordgate. The Minister knows how seriously I take flooding, and has engaged with me following my requests for stronger national support, clearer local responsibilities, more dredging and improved pumping capacity. The previous Conservative Government took real action to prevent flooding and protect homes and businesses, ensuring that over 600,000 properties were better protected from flooding and coastal erosion. Between 2015 and 2024, over 900,000 acres of farmland were also protected. In 2020 the previous Government announced a doubling of capital funding for flood defences in England, which rose to £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027. Flood Re was set up under the former Conservative Government, and it remains an important scheme to promote the availability and affordability of flood insurance for eligible homes. Its recent accounts report contains serious warnings for Ministers. Flood Re is clear that “the external environment has changed materially, with higher climate-driven loss volatility, tighter global reinsurance capacity and greater pressure on affordability.” It says that the scheme is now retaining higher levels of risk and facing “increased liability exposure”. At the same time, Flood Re warns that the scheme is under structural pressure. Its board has said that improved flood mapping has led to “more properties being classified as high risk…including a growing number of higher-value homes”, and that without change, the scheme risks being asked to carry “unsustainable levels of exposure and cost.” As such, will the Minister please explain what steps she is taking to ensure that Flood Re’s growing pressures do not result in additional costs for households through higher insurance bills? Will Ministers bring forward a credible, long-term flood resilience plan? Do the Government have plans to include businesses in Flood Re? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of these changes on households that are asset-rich but income-poor, including pensioners living in higher-band homes in flood risk areas? In her statement, the Minister said that Flood Re would reform its premium model across council tax bands and regions. Will she publish the modelling behind those changes, including regional impacts, so that households can see what this means for them? Flood performance certificates may help households understand risk, but will the Minister confirm who will pay for them? Will they be mandatory, and will they affect mortgage availability? Flood Re has done valuable work, but households continue to need affordable insurance. They also need a Government who are serious about flood prevention, resilient homes, and long-term protection for communities. Conservative Members will always work with the Government to ensure that every person living in a property that is vulnerable to flooding gets the support they need.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye. Colleagues can see how many people are bobbing. We will go to the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm. I intend to start with a three-minute limit to try to get in one speaker from each of the parties. That may not be possible, but I will try to achieve that.

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. I am going to break with convention ever so slightly. The next speaker will be the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, as she is one of our new colleagues and I want to give her three minutes. After that, returning to convention, I will call Lloyd Hatton, at which point we will have a two-minute limit.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I do want to let everybody have a chance to put something on the record but, due to interventions, I have to cut to one minute. Any further interventions on speeches will reduce that further.

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. I am about to suspend the sitting due to Divisions in the House. I will aim to come back earlier than 10 minutes after the last Division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the shadow Minister, the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are here, we will start as quickly as we can, but it will be no later than 10 minutes after the last Division. I remind Members that if they have spoken, they need to come back to the Chamber. If I start slightly earlier, I will give some leeway, but I expect everybody who has spoken to be back in the Chamber 10 minutes after the start of the last Division.

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. Mr Carmichael, you have been a Member of this House an exceptionally long time. You know that you are not allowed to wear clothing with slogans on it. Please fasten your jacket.

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Early Years Funding: Hampshire

    Alex Brewer will move the motion, and then the Minister will respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    Order. I gently remind the hon. Member, first, that we do not use the word “you”—I am not responsible for any of this. You speak through the Chair so that we can maintain calmness in the Chamber. Secondly, you are not allowed to use aids and props. You may describe the aid or prop, but please do not hold it up as if it will be recognised.

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Simon Hoare

    Online Safety: Children

    Parents, teachers and young people across North Dorset welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement last month, as do I. This is clearly a fast-moving area of communication. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that this will be an iterative and evolutionary process, with Government deploying the resources so that we are well placed to meet new challenges and our young people are safe and protected?

    Hansard source