What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point—we know children will try to get around the ban, and will succeed. Our measures are as much about resetting the cultural and social norms for future generations, but we will have more highly effective age verification measures to make this work. We are looking at the issue of VPNs in particular, and I will come back to the House with more on that issue very soon.
Q9. Too many people are waiting too long for NHS mental health care, with over 6,000 adults waiting up to two years. In Sunderland, grassroots organisations like the wonderful Betsy Jenny café are providing support to our community, but they cannot substitute for timely, NHS-funded care. As the Government consult on their new mental health strategy, will the Prime Minister agree that it must include clear waiting time standards?
One of the largest employers in my constituency is Bostik, which is famous for Blu Tack. It also produces quite a lot of adhesives used in the DIY and home repairs sector. Bostik agrees with the scheme—it does not oppose the scheme in and of itself—but it does see one issue: although 95% of the company’s products go to site and are used by professionals, it will be charged the EPR on 100% of its products because it cannot trace every single item. It therefore supports the Builders Merchant Federation’s argument that commercial and industrial packaging should remain outside full cost recovery, because trade packaging waste is already covered through merchant distribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could consider that in the implementation stage, right at the beginning of the process?
The Minister will be aware that I spent most of my career supporting the most vulnerable people in communities that had been flooded, and helping them to find ways to support their mental health. It is not unknown for many of them to have post-traumatic stress disorder post floods. That can be brought on by a number of triggers, including the sound of rain on the window or the anxiety of worrying about being able to insure a house post floods. The reduction of contents-only insurance to £25 a year for bands A and B will be transformative. Does the Minister agree that it will make such a difference in helping lower-income households and in ensuring that Flood Re protects the things that matter most to people?
Israel’s illegal expansion in the E1 zone of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a clear breach of international law and makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. Does the Minister agree that that is nothing short of ethnic cleansing, and that the Government should do everything in their power to prevent that from happening by sanctioning all British companies complicit in the expansion, bringing an end to the import of settlement goods, and establishing a full arms embargo?
Q5. In this increasingly dangerous world the space domain is critical, so I welcome the £3.2 billion set out for space in the defence investment plan. The plan refers to Skynet 6A, the first military satellite to be designed, manufactured and tested completely in the UK, beginning at Airbus in my constituency of Stevenage and supporting 3,000 jobs across the country. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must develop both UK sovereign capability in space and the British jobs that already power it?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this debate to the Chamber; I am sure you agree, Sir Alec, that it has been a useful one informed by honest exchanges. I want to be clear with hon. Members and with the CROs who I know will be watching the debate about how we got to this moment and what happens next. For those observing the debate who might be wondering exactly who we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are. Put simply, they are the people who are there when we need them most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. CROs could rescue us or our loved ones if we are trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud or struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable, recovering people who it has not been possible to save in order to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I personally thank them all for their service.
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else. I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur. The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter. The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution. A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up. Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts. The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats. Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996. That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.
I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks. If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve-out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.
I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.
Those considerations and how they would affect the lives of CROs are not immaterial, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying they are. It is my understanding, although I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, that to transpose that relevant scheme into a wholly different part of the voluntary sector would have primary legislative implications. We would need to work through them; it could not be done simply by wishing to do it. I have set out why the MCA was compelled to accept the court’s judgment. Having done so, it needed to take immediate action to comply. Based on operational judgments and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model, the recommendation was to move to a pure volunteer system that paid expenses, so that CROs did not have to choose between being a CRO and their primary employment. That was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option. As that decision has been communicated to CROs, it is only natural too that it would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve, which has been powerfully articulated today. In the time since the decision was made, I have listened to and reflected on the points made by colleagues, including during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impact of this change on the operational capacity of the coastguard rescue service. I hope that I have gone some way to addressing those concerns, but it is important to recognise that the alternative—moving to a worker model—would require a fundamentally different model and would likely lead to CROs having to leave the service, which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity.
I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions; I have to get through my remarks.
I have given way plenty of times. This is a complex challenge that we must all work through together. We do not want employers to be unable to continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see CROs tangled in a mire of employment obligations that make the choice of going to a rescue a difficult one. We all understand that the court judgment changed the legal status of CROs, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems they face, and in fact could create many new ones, but we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers. We have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed, and fellow Members for their excellent points. I assure them that the debate has resonated strongly with me. I will reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised. I have heard the deep concerns of the CRO community, and I want to carry on working with them, trade unions and colleagues across the House in the future to work through these issues. I thank everybody for their contributions today.
Keeping people safe online at moments of real danger is a top priority for this Government. That is why we have asked Ofcom to expedite its work on updates to its codes of practice under the Online Safety Act 2023. All services face strict duties to deal with illegal content. Of course, it is right that platforms with a greater risk of viral content spreading must do even more to prepare for and manage periods of heightened risk.
Do we want tougher accountability? Absolutely. That is why the codes published mean stronger review mechanisms, a direct line to law enforcement and a clear crisis playbook required of risky platforms. Do we want it to be faster? Absolutely. That is exactly why we have asked Ofcom to expedite those codes in particular. On whether we take a risk-based or uniform approach, it is right that we focus our resources, in law enforcement and regulatory action, on those that are the greatest risk. We will continue to review that.
May I, as ever, thank the Chair of the Select Committee for such a depth of expertise and experience, and in particular for the report that she mentioned, which has formed the basis of a lot of our thinking? There are clear things that we have done in our engagement with Ofcom, such as ensuring we empower users, not least through the commitments made in the “Protecting What Matters” social cohesion strategy, which will follow up on a number of recommendations that the hon. Lady talked about, including empowering users of algorithms. Misinformation is very much under consideration, and I have spoken to Ofcom about categories of harm as part of the crisis playbooks. We will continue to review that.
This Government have led the world in tackling dangerous content online, including in law with illegal content duties that platforms must comply with, with our full backing for Ofcom’s enforcement of them, and by strengthening the law, with cyber-flashing, intimate image abuse and self-harm content all deemed priority offences needing to be proactively tackled, as well as political conviction in the face of non-compliance. When Grok nudified images, this Government stood up, called it out and won by being on the side of British families, not tech platforms.
I first thank my hon. Friend for championing an incredibly important cause. Content promoting eating disorders is horrific, and I have to be clear that not just at the age of 16, but under the Online Safety Act 2023, platforms must already prevent children under the age of 18 from accessing content about eating disorders or self-harm. Indeed, it is now a primary priority content offence, requiring a higher bar still to be discharged by those platforms. I will of course, as ever, be delighted to work with him and the eating disorders APPG on his further proposals.
I first pay tribute to the families that I have met who have raised the issue of suicide forums, which the hon. Member rightly raises. I have committed to them in the past that we will continue to press for quicker remedies for them when they suffer the worst tragedies imaginable. The Secretary of State and I will, of course, be delighted to look at whether there are ways we can make that a more systematic, rapid response.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical question for Britain’s creative sector. Just yesterday, on British IP Day, I met with the Alliance for Intellectual Property, including artists, authors, publishers, journalists and media organisations, to talk about how our work on digital replicas and transparency will be critical to supporting the creative sector. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the APPG.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the application of ASBIs, I noted in the equalities statement that according to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, in 2022-23, around 66% of those receiving legal aid had a disability. Some 40% had a mental health condition, and around 10% had some kind of learning disability. Those figures seem alarmingly large. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, or perhaps he could go away and look into it.
In Shrewsbury, we regularly suffer flooding along the River Severn and Rea brook, so I really welcome today’s announcement. The measures proposed reflect the common-sense and long-term solutions that my colleagues and I set out in the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on flooding resilience. We gave feedback from residents and businesses that insurance is not just unaffordable but, in some places, impossible to get. We requested that funding be prioritised for prevention, preparedness, mitigation and adaptation, rather than simply paid out each time floods hit, so it is so welcome to hear today that the long-term approach is that we will have flood performance certificates and Build Back Better, which will provide extra money not just to repair people’s homes post flooding, but to make them resilient against future floods. That is a much more effective use of public money, and provides longer-term support. It is great news for my residents, but what advice can I give to a business that has the same postcode and the same flood risk as others, but which is being quoted £40,000 for flood insurance?
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 2 to 4 stand part. New clause 2—Approved mileage allowance payments: review of rate for care workers— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a review of the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under section 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment. (2) The review under subsection (1) must consider— (a) whether the rate of 55 pence per mile adequately reflects the costs incurred by paid care workers when travelling between the homes of those for whom they provide care; (b) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who are required to transport specialist equipment, medication or mobility aids in connection with their caring responsibilities; (c) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who make three or more separate care visits in a single day; and (d) the interaction between mileage reimbursement practices in the social care sector and the effective hourly rate received by paid care workers relative to the National Living Wage. (3) In preparing the review under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult— (a) representatives of paid care workers; (b) representatives of employers in the social care sector; and (c) such other persons as the Chancellor considers appropriate. (4) In this section "care worker" means a person employed to provide personal care to individuals in their own homes, whether employed directly or through a domiciliary care agency.” This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under section 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment. New clause 3—Vehicle excise duty: assessment of impact on haulage costs and consumer prices— “(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty (VED) rates for goods vehicles provided for under section 3. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include— (a) an estimate of the reduction in annual operating costs for a typical goods vehicle operator resulting from the reduced VED rate set under section 3; (b) an assessment of the extent to which the temporary reduction in VED affects the overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators, including that arising from fuel duty; and (c) an assessment of the adequacy of the temporary reduction in VED as a measure to reduce haulage costs and consumer prices. (3) In preparing the assessment under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult representatives of the haulage industry.” This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the combined impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty (VED) rates for goods vehicles. New clause 4—Electricity Generator Levy: review of rate— “(1) The Treasury must review the impact of the increase in the Electricity Generator Levy rate to 55% under section 1. (2) The report must, in particular, assess— (a) the impact of that rate on investment in energy generation; (b) the effects of that rate on electricity prices, including consumer bills; (c) the implications of that rate for the security of energy supply; and (d) whether the Levy should continue to be charged at a rate of 55%. (3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay the report containing the findings of the review before Parliament before 31 March 2028.” This new clause would require the Treasury to review the impact of increasing the Electricity Generator Levy rate to 55% and to report to Parliament by 31 March 2028. New clause 5—Goods vehicle excise duty (VED) rates: review— (1) The Treasury must review the impact of the temporary vehicle excise duty (VED) rates for goods vehicles provided for under section 3. (2) The report must, in particular, assess— (a) the impact of the temporary VED rates on— (i) UK public finances, and (ii) the competitiveness of the UK freight and logistics sector; (b) the effects of the temporary VED rates on operating costs for goods vehicle operators; (c) the contribution of the temporary VED rates to efficient supply chains across the United Kingdom; and (d) whether it remains appropriate for the temporary VED rates on goods vehicles to continue. (3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review before Parliament before 30 June 2027. This new clause would require the Treasury to review the impact of temporary vehicle excise duty rates for goods vehicles and to report to Parliament by 30 June 2027.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that all Members of this House observe the courtesy of letting other Members know when they will be in their constituency. Last Friday, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was a keynote speaker at a Reform UK fundraiser in my constituency. I hear that tickets were selling for as much as 30p, but unfortunately he neglected to let me know that he would be in Cannock Chase. I am sure that Members who have served in this House for as long as he has will be well aware of that courtesy, but I seek your advice on how he might be reminded.
I thank the Minister for her statement and for her ongoing commitment to flood defences—both the natural flood management in which organisations such as Slow the Flow in my constituency specialise, and the more traditional types that have just been signed off for the town of Hebden Bridge. More than half the homes in Calder Valley are in council tax bands A and B, and many of their residents live with the risk of flooding. In my community, the memory of the devastating Boxing Day floods in 2015, followed by those in February 2020, still loom large in people’s minds, and cause a great deal of anxiety. The lowering of the flooding element of their household insurance to just £25 will make a real difference to families with modest incomes. What practical steps will the Government take to encourage people to take up that offer, and to ensure that they understand what changes have been made?
Building on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), what more can we in this House and this Government, and other Governments around the world, do to make it clear to those many Israelis who are appalled by the behaviour of this Israeli Government that a two-state solution and a viable Palestinian state are very clearly in their interests, and furthermore that we will do everything in our power to ensure that that state becomes a reality and is safe and secure, just as we want Israel to be safe and secure?
I echo the frustration that we all have, and I want to live long enough to see Netanyahu before a criminal court. When we raise individual cases, it is frustrating to not know whether it will have any effect, but sometimes it can have the effect of letting people know that they are not forgotten. Part of the annexation of the west bank has been about the arrests of individuals, and one of them is Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known as the doctor of the poor. Can I ask the Minister to raise his case with the Israelis? Could he also raise another case that we mentioned some time ago—that of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who has been in isolation for 500 days? If we could raise those cases, at least their families would know that they are not forgotten.
3. What steps she is taking to keep children safe online.
People across Glasgow East welcome the proposed ban on social media for under-16s. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for AI and Online Safety for their excellent work, which means that young people across Glasgow and Scotland will be much safer. However, kids will get round the ban and young people aged 16 and over also need to be protected—in fact, we all do. May I encourage the Secretary of State to pursue with utter conviction further regulation to crack down on misinformation, secure the clear labelling of AI-generated content and ensure transparency of algorithms?
Businesses trading with unlawful settlements can be under no illusion that the settlements are unlawful and that the majority of Members of this House view them as utterly morally repugnant. Nor can they be under any illusion that the UK Government’s position is that people should not trade with unlawful settlements. I urge the Minister to act swiftly on this and to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that clever legal arguments around retrospectivity—because any measures will come in after the Minister’s clear statement—are closed off. Will the Minister consider primary legislation to ensure that those engaging in this morally repugnant trade are closed off, even if they enter into contracts today and legislation is passed in two months’ time?
6. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the women in tech taskforce on levels of diversity in the technology sector.
Evidence suggests that AI tools used in recruitment often favour male names almost five times more than female names, and AI models built to prevent liver disease are twice as likely to miss the disease in women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless we have women shaping this technology, it will continue not to deliver for women? Can she outline Government plans to address those biases while encouraging more women in Paisley and Renfrewshire South to join the sector?
I welcome the focus on supporting low and middle-income households. The Minister will know that after the July 2021 floods in central London, denial of flood insurance or punitive excesses for people living in blocks of four or more flats has been a serious problem. That is a big chunk of my constituents. They cannot access Flood Re, because those properties are treated as commercial premises. What plans does the Minister have to address this issue?
I echo the concerns of colleagues from all parts of the House on the E1 settlements. If they go ahead, they will clearly destroy the viability of a Palestinian state. That is not a commentary; as has been said, it is a stated aim. To build on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), may I encourage the Minister to do whatever he can to emphasise to the business community not just in this country, but across the world, that involvement with these settlements is morally bankrupt? The public will not tolerate it, and we need to do everything we can to stop British business being involved in this morally repugnant trade.
I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for her work. She has rightly observed that people are more likely to be at risk of flooding because of climate change, and that also brings with it a greater risk from coastal erosion. As she will know, my constituency lost 11 homes over the winter because of coastal erosion, which is set to put even more homes at risk over the years and decades ahead. In our report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended the extension of Flood Re to Coastal Re. Will the Minister comment on that recommendation, and commit herself to looking at it further?
Coming from Falmouth in Cornwall, I know that coastguards and the brilliant work they do are crucial. May I suggest a potential solution for the Minister to consider, whereby HMRC agrees some sort of disturbance or disruption allowance that volunteers can claim? We have to ensure that coastguard volunteers can continue doing this vital work.
I thank my hon. Friend for his response on Israel breaking international law, and for opposing and denouncing illegal settlements on the west bank. Recently, the International Development Committee heard about some of the atrocities that are taking place; in one instance, gunshot was fired through a car, killing a 7-month-old baby and their parents. The community has no legal protections; they are not safe. What more are the Government doing, or considering, to give legal protections to this desperate community?