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. Lady raises an important point, and I absolutely recognise the impact that flooding has on businesses. Through the floods resilience taskforce, we have been looking at the various grants that are available. As she will know, that sits within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but conversations are happening across Departments.
I recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done on this issue through the Environmental Audit Committee. Although businesses are not eligible for Flood Re, the record amount of money that we are putting into flood defences should help to make flood insurance more affordable right across the country. Exactly as she says, building resilience and preparedness is what makes a difference, as well as insurance companies paying out every time there is a flood. We need to make our country more resilient, and that is a huge focus of the work I am doing.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, that particular scheme is supported by MHCLG. However, we have been having conversations about the best way that we can support people collectively as a Government in the floods resilience taskforce.
I would be delighted to pay tribute to Woodborough Flood Action Group for tirelessly working to protect the local community. My hon. Friend is a formidable champion of his area, and I commend him for raising this issue with me again. It is a very exciting project, and I hope to be able to visit it at some point.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a question for MHCLG, not DEFRA. However, we work closely with MHCLG to make sure that the homes that we desperately need in this country are built in areas that are not prone to flooding, and do not contribute to flooding elsewhere.
I recently read an interesting letter from the Dutch Foreign Minister to the Speaker of their Parliament. In it, he said that his Government had carefully weighed the efficiency, the effectiveness, the proportionality, the enforceability and the administrative burden of introducing a full trade ban on Israeli goods coming from the illegal settlements in the west bank. He said that, having looked at all of that, the Netherlands had decided that the right thing to do and the legal thing to do was to push for a full trade ban with the settlements—and so has Ireland, and Norway, and Spain, and Slovenia, and Belgium, and Luxembourg, and Portugal, and Finland and Poland. My question is: when are we going to join them?
I hope I am not alone in knowing that the vast majority of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis want peace. As an optimist, I hope that they vote for it when they get the chance later this year in both Palestine and Israel. It is clear that the consensus here is that this expansion would be a bad idea—it would be illegal and bad for any hope of peace in the future—but what about the existing settlements? How do we consider them? I know that the Minister has talked about trade, but what about their actual existence as a barrier to peace? Are the Government raising that with Netanyahu’s Government?
First, may I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement? His is not an easy task. Eileen and Catherine from Bury St Edmunds lobbied me here in Parliament yesterday, for they feel very deeply about the plight of the Palestinians, as do we all. They asked me what we in this House could do to influence the Government of Israel. I believe that we must support progressive voices in Israel, for this is an election year. Does the Minister agree with me?
I am concerned that the small allowance for coastguards, to which my hon. Friend refers, is what prevents public service from becoming a personal financial penalty; by removing that, we risk making it significantly harder to recruit and retain volunteers, particularly for new teams such as the Clydebank coastguard rescue team—a new station in my constituency. This sets a worrying precedent and threatens the frontline capability of our search and rescue team. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look at the changes before September?
As co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and I have written to over 43 organisations that have, or are suspected to have, previously been involved in unlawful expansion in the occupied territories. That was to warn them of the potential issues should they try to bid for these tenders. We have also been in contact with counterparts in Europe and Australia who will be doing a similar thing, and we hope that Members in the New Zealand and Canadian Parliaments will follow suit. On what the Government can do, the Minister has mentioned monitoring. Have the Government written to these entities, not just made a statement, to make them aware of their responsibilities? What will the Government do if they are found to bid for these tenders?
These settlements are not “unhelpful”, as the Opposition have claimed today; they are illegal. My constituents and I are horrified by the ongoing settler violence and the expansion of these illegal settlements. In that context, I welcome the Minister’s clear condemnation and the further actions he has committed to today. Will he assure me and my constituents that his Department is working with Treasury colleagues to fully map and understand the exposure of UK financial institutions to the financing of illegal settlements, their expansion and trade within them? When his Department and the Treasury understand that, are they committed to taking action against those institutions?
There were serious floods in Ruislip Gardens in 2024, which I have discussed with the Minister before; 100 homes were flooded, and access to ongoing affordable insurance was a major concern for many residents. Part of the flooding review recommended improved individual householder resilience measures, and I welcome some of the measures announced today to incentivise that—such as the flood performance certificates—but according to feedback that I have received, it can still be very expensive for cash-poor individuals to fund them up front. What options are being explored for access to affordable finance, and what other measures are being considered that might make this possible?
Today’s debate is progressing rapidly—so rapidly, in fact, that I am yet to turn to the speech in my folder. It is a privilege to close this rapid debate on behalf of the Government, and I thank Members for their contributions, as well as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for opening the Government’s arguments. She was right to point out that the conflict in the middle east has imposed additional costs on the British people, which is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been careful throughout the conflict—from the beginning, when other parties took a different approach—to tread carefully, be cautious and not rush to entangle ourselves in a foreign conflict, risking national security and potentially further harming our economic security. The measures we are considering are an example of how the Government have responded in a proactive and positive way to the impact of the conflict in the middle east on households, families and businesses. Reasonable people can disagree about how the Government could have best responded to the conflict as it played out. It is this Government’s judgment that we have taken the right approach to ensure that we support those families and businesses that most need it. We have been there for them with the changes in this Bill and others—either already passed or making their way through the House via instruments of some form—such as continuing the freeze in fuel duty. We wanted to ensure that our response was proportionate and targeted so that we could continue on the path that this Government have set out to bring down the deficit and bring down borrowing sustainably over the course of this Parliament. This year, for the first time since the 2000s, we have a lower deficit than the G7 average—something that the Conservatives never managed to achieve, despite all their talk about wanting to manage the public finances well. I will not run through the measures in detail, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already done so. Instead, I will take the chance to respond to the questions asked by Opposition spokespeople. I can confirm that the consultation on the electricity generator levy will come before the end of this year. It is being worked on at the moment by officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We will ensure that we consult on this at the end of the year. Questions such as auction allocation and details of the way the wholesale contracts for difference will work will, I am sure, be raised in the consultation or elsewhere in engagement.
No. If prices are slightly above the threshold set in the electricity generator levy, as they are at the moment, I believe, those taxes will be due now, from 1 July, whether or not businesses make decisions down the line after the consultation, after engagement and after the detail of the wholesale contract for difference policy has been set out by the DESNZ Secretary of State. Both the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked how much revenue will be raised by this and other measures. It is a good tradition—a tradition set in place, in fact, by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—that the Office for Budget Responsibility set out the costings of policy decisions when they are made. That is important. This Government and this Chancellor have been keen to protect the independence and integrity of the OBR, rather than throwing it under the bus and causing market turmoil, as Liz Truss did. At the Budget later this year, the OBR will, in the usual way, confirm the costings of the changes announced by the Chancellor and included in the Bill. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that the costings the OBR put out initially on the EGL ended up being very different from the revenue that it has pulled in. That is why it is right that we have an independent forecaster, so that even if things materialise differently than was forecast, we have forecasts that are robust to the information at the time and can be relied on by all. The hon. Gentleman questions whether the Government have provided sufficient support more broadly. I would just mention that we have taken the decision to extend the fuel duty freeze. Going into the general election, the previous Government’s plan, as set out by the OBR, which we have already talked about, was for fuel duty to continue to rise and for the 5p cut to unwind. I believe that motorists would be paying a further 11p of fuel duty if it was not for their choice in 2024 to elect a Labour Government and not go ahead with the plans that the Conservatives set out. A couple more points have been raised. The shadow Minister mentions a review of indexation. We will, of course, keep the mileage rates under review. The Chancellor announced a few weeks back that we will have a review. We have somewhat pre-empted that with this 10p increase, because we wanted to respond to the conflict in the middle east and the impact on households, but that review is still ongoing and will report if further changes are to be made to the policy at the Budget. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made the important point that many care workers and people who drive for work may be working for an employer who does not provide a mileage rate. It is not compulsory for employers to set the rate at the HMRC rates. We have increased rates from 45p per mile to 55p per mile up to 10,000 miles, and I encourage employers across the country to adopt that higher rate. For employees who work for an employer who does not do so or who persists in having a significantly lower rate, as I am aware that some do, it is possible to claim back marginal tax up to that amount, so 55p per mile now. A basic rate taxpayer can in effect get 20% back on that. It was a pleasure to meet care workers and members of Unison, the trade union, a couple of weeks ago at No. 11 Downing Street. Some questions were raised about whether that process could be made any easier for workers to navigate, and that is something I certainly want to look at with my officials. This is a complex area of policy. I encourage Members to inform care workers and others who drive for work and who do not have mileage rates provided by their employer that they can claim the tax back from HMRC. I hope that responds to many of the points made.
There is a very sensible policy rationale when it comes to the electricity generator levy, which I think is the clause the hon. Member is referring to. We want to ensure that the ending of the EGL and the future decisions made on it are made in the light of the decisions that will be made on the wholesale contracts for difference, which, as I have said, are coming forward. It would not have been the right decision to pick a future end date without considering how it would interact with the decisions that the Government will make and will be consulting on later this year on the detail of the wholesale contracts for difference. I hope that that has responded to many, if not all, of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. I encourage Members to support the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.
I will open this debate in Committee of the whole House by reminding the House—though I am sure Members know what is in this Bill—of the purpose of the Bill, which is to respond to increases in costs for families and businesses in the UK because of the conflict in the middle east. Even though we have just completed Second Reading, as we are now in Committee, I will address the clauses of the Bill in turn—Members will be relieved to know that there are only four clauses, so it should not take too long. I will address the amendments that have been tabled in my closing speech, which, with the leave of the House, I intend to make. Clause 1 makes changes to ensure that the electricity generator levy rate will rise from 45% to 55% from today, 1 July. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out, in the UK the majority of our electricity is generated from renewables. Despite that, when the crisis in the middle east pushed up international gas prices, the cost of electricity, and so the cost of living, rose too, because electricity prices are still largely set by the price of gas. The changes made by this clause will ensure that a greater proportion of any exceptional revenue that many non-gas generators may receive because of the conflict in the middle east is available to Government to support businesses and households where appropriate. As we have discussed, the Government also announced back in April that we are acting to de-link electricity prices from gas prices through new voluntary long-term fixed contracts being offered to existing low-carbon generators. As we have discussed, these are known as wholesale contracts for difference, and the changes made by clause 1, increasing the rate from 45% to 55%, will encourage participation at a competitive price in these WCfDs. Clause 2 makes changes to increase the generosity of mileage rates for 2026-27 for employees and self-employed individuals who use their car or van for work from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026. I forgot to respond to the shadow Exchequer Secretary asking me earlier why we have not increased the rates above 10,000 miles. I did respond to that point in the Ways and Means debate last week and think the Government have got the balance right here. We are supporting all drivers, noting that of course for a driver who drives 10,001 miles, almost all of their miles will be covered by the higher rates, and it is still open to employers with employees who drive many more miles to set their own rates if they wish. I would just note that the Conservative party had many opportunities to uprate these mileage rates after 2011, when they did do so, but they demurred from that choice for 13 years in a row, and I am very glad to be part of a Government who have introduced the largest increase in a very long time, if not ever. The changes made by clause 2 will provide immediate support for both employees and the self-employed, and this is on top of the universal support announced in May, including the freeze on fuel duty, which will save motorists 11p per litre compared to previous plans, or £120 for the average car, or £250 for the average van. This clause represents the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles. Clause 3 reduces the vehicle excise duty liability for the majority of heavy goods vehicles to £1 for 12 months for licences taken out from today until 30 June 2027. The changes made by this clause are in recognition of the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help prevent cost pressures from the conflict in the middle east from spreading across the economy. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that this measure on its own is not a silver bullet in helping the haulage sector, but I hope that it will provide some assistance, and it does show very clearly by our reducing this rate down to £1, saving HGVs £600 a year, that this is a sector that we do want to support and see grow and weather the storm from the conflicts in the middle east. We also want to do all we can to reduce costs in the supply chain, to keep prices in the shops for everyday families as low as possible. The decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save the average HGV over £2,000. With that, having taken the Committee through the three clauses, I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Members.
I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for their scrutiny and attention to the measures contained in this short Bill. I am proud that, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary said, we removed three taxes, and I am glad to say that, on a temporary basis at least, one tax is being put down to £1 as a result of the legislative changes that the House is about to vote on. It is a privilege to close this brief debate on behalf of the Government. Let me turn to each amendment. New clause 2 would require a report to the House of Commons on the approved mileage allowance payments system, including the adequacy of the rate for care workers. The hon. Member for St Albans spoke powerfully about the work done by care workers in her constituency, who she has the honour of representing. I think that all Members will know—from personal experience of family members who have either worked in the sector or been cared for by those who work in the sector—just how valuable care workers’ time, effort and care is. I am glad that the hon. Lady is now aware that care workers can claim back the tax. They cannot claim back the whole amount—it is not fully equivalent—but they can claim back the tax relief, as it were, on the amount. I want to look at whether we can make that process simpler and easier to use. As the Department does so, I would be happy to provide further updates—if not at the Budget, then beforehand. We have said that the Government’s review of the rates is not over. We came forward with the 10p increase, and we are continuing the review and will update the House further at the Budget. I therefore urge Members to reject this new clause. New clause 3 would require a report to the House on the impact of haulage costs and consumer prices, including the operating costs for and overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators. As I am sure the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will know, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note setting out the expected impact of the measure. The costing for it will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility and set out at a future fiscal event. It is therefore the Government’s view that the new clause is unnecessary. New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the EGL rate rise, including on investment, electricity prices and energy security, and to report to Parliament by 31 March 2028. The EGL was carefully designed to avoid disincentivising renewable generation, which means that since its introduction in 2023 it has had no adverse effect on energy security or new investment; in fact, we are having record levels of new investment in renewables under this Government. It is worth noting that new investments made since 2023 are exempt from the EGL and will continue to be so. The Government have published a tax information and impact note on this measure, too, which sets out clearly that the Government’s view is that this rate rise is not expected to have an impact on electricity prices or investment in renewable generation going forward. The note also explains the rationale for the new EGL, which we have discussed. I will be consistent in reminding the Committee that, of course, the Government keep all taxes under review and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis, and that, unless responding to international conflict, in order to be there for households and businesses, tax policy decisions are usually best made by Chancellors at the Budget in the usual way.
I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for that. As I said, we are consulting on that policy before the end of the year. It was the Chancellor’s and this Government’s decision that the better thing to do for the country—for businesses and for households—was to respond to the conflict in the middle east with pace and appropriate responsiveness rather than waiting until the next fiscal event, which is scheduled for the autumn. I turn to new clause 5, which would require a report to the House of Commons on the impact of the measure on UK public finances, the competitiveness of the UK freight and logistics sector and the contribution of the temporary VED rate to efficient supply chains, and whether the measure remains appropriate beyond the next 12 months. As always, taxes and reliefs will be looked at ahead of the next fiscal event in the context of the public finances. Consistent with the Chancellor’s approach, this is a targeted and time-limited intervention in response to the conflict in the middle east, in recognition of the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods—including food—across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider further action as and if that may be necessary. As on other measures, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note, and the costing for the measure will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Finally, the shadow Exchequer Secretary talked of this measure as a short-term fix. I hope he is aware of and has seen the impact of the long-term decisions that the Government have made over our time in office to ensure that we can have higher economic growth, as we have had, and higher living standards—rather than their falling by 2%, as they did in the previous Parliament, they have already risen so far by 2% in this Parliament—in part because we have brought back economic stability and had wages rising faster than inflation in every single month since we took office. That has supported stability in the economy which has delivered six interest rate cuts. We have made sure that we are increasing capital investment and that we work with the private sector to get growth up and to invest in our public services and important infrastructure. We have done that in a way, along with investing in our NHS, that has enabled us to manage the public finances well and get borrowing falling in every year of this forecast, with the deficit lower than the G7 average, which the previous Conservative Government never achieved, despite how much they talked about it. They talked a good game on the public finances, but they were never able to deliver that. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clause. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition. I commend the clauses in this short and well-formed Bill to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 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.”—(Daisy Cooper.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am grateful for the discussion that we have had today on a Bill that responds directly to the pressures placed on people and businesses across the UK by the conflict in the middle east. In respect of energy, rising gas prices have driven up electricity prices, and non-gas generators stand to benefit significantly as a result. The electricity generator levy ensures that a share of this exceptional revenue is redirected to the public, and we are increasing that share by raising the rate of the levy from 45% to 55%. As for fuel costs, we are uprating mileage rates for the first time in 15 years, providing relief for millions. We are also introducing a 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for the majority of heavy goods vehicles, supporting those who drive for work and the transport of goods across the UK. Those three measures are the right measures at the right time, and I commend the Bill to the House.
I ask that the House gives the Bill its Third Reading. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
I will try to keep to your limit, Sir Alec. The work of the Burry Port coastguards is absolutely vital to my constituency, which is surrounded on three sides by water. It has a long coastline, treacherous estuaries, constantly shifting sands and a huge tidal range, as well as very attractive miles of beaches and coastal paths, which draw locals and visitors to the waterside. There is significant local seashore activity and a tradition of cockle pickers and fishermen. Burry Port harbour has lots of small boat activity, and there is a small boat that goes from Ferryside to Llansteffan. Many holiday visitors enjoy the beaches and the sea, often unaware of the dangers. The coastguard station is very busy. It covers not just the immediate area but helps out across the Gower, all the way from Llansteffan to Port Talbot. I was horrified to hear the news that, from September, HM Coastguard will cut even the small financial token of appreciation given to the volunteer coastguard rescue officers for their amazing dedication and work, which amounts to a mere £11 per hour during call-outs—not even the national living wage.
Indeed I do. Sir Alec, just think how much time and effort our volunteer coastguard rescue officers put into ensuring that they can provide the very best service and dovetail with the other emergency services. They are real multitaskers and trained to a very high standard. They have to be multiskilled. They are trained in search skills up to police search adviser standard and trained to medical critical care standard. They have the mud rescue fitness of a fire officer, do water rescue—entering the water in full personal protective equipment, including steel-toed boots—and are trained for cliff rescues and working with rescue helicopters. In other words, they have to be really versatile and ready to go out in the most appalling rain, risking their lives. CROs give up their own time to do the training, but it is no good just doing the training. They have to maintain the skills through practice sessions, because lives depend on it. They get £11 an hour for some training sessions, but they have to do the practice sessions every week just as volunteers. Of course, many of them have been extremely loyal, given many years of service and even had awards from the King for their service. No one is pretending that volunteer coastguards do it for the money, but a little something towards the costs and inconvenience that they incur is welcome in a cost of living crisis. Yes, they get some costs and mileage, but there are, even there, serious legal matters like having to pay business insurance for their own cars. Stopping the payments in September looks exceedingly cynical: as if to say, “We will make the most of your skills and dedication over the summer, when we are expecting loads of visitors”—perhaps more than ever, because of the jet-fuel fears—“but come September, we will make the cut that we know might make some of you resign.” I can tell the House that CROs feel so insulted and angry, to put it mildly. Who can blame them? If His Majesty’s Coastguard thinks that it will be able to get new recruits, it is living in cloud cuckoo land. No one is going to volunteer after this treatment. Plus, it takes a very special person to be able to do this type of work, and gone are the days when big employers could release people. It is much more difficult now, given that far more people are self-employed. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, first, pause the current cuts plan for September to give time for a rethink and then, importantly, find a way for volunteer coastguards to be at least as well rewarded financially as they are now? I do not want any hiding behind legal issues. There must be ways of doing that. Could the Minister also clarify what is happening about death in service for those who pass away while they are still volunteer CROs? That would greatly benefit the families of the deceased. We simply cannot allow our dedicated volunteer coastguard rescue officers, with all the service that they have given and continue to give, to be kicked in the teeth like this. Lives depend on their good will and expertise, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they are properly respected and rewarded—
It is almost exactly a year since my Select Committee published its report on “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” in the wake of the Southport riots. It was truly distressing and disturbing to see misinformation playing such a role in the Belfast riots, and my thoughts are with all those affected. Will the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Ofcom about misinformation being included in its crisis response protocol, as recommended by my Committee?
With every expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements and with every horrendous act of settler violence, the prospect of a two-state solution recedes, and my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West lose faith in the capacity or the will of the rules-based international order to deliver some measure of justice for Palestinians. The Minister and I have corresponded about what we could actually do in this country, so does he agree that regardless of the technical issues that he has outlined, as a matter of principle, goods from Israel’s illegal settlements should not be traded with the United Kingdom?
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Does she agree that the coastguard is essential to the safety of our coastal communities—both residents and tourists—and that we must ensure it continues to deliver this vital service?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for packaging in the circular economy. Like her, I have engaged extensively with manufacturers across the supply chain. They support the EPR in principle but raise concerns about its implementation. Businesses need predictability, transparency and confidence. The current plan for annual adjustments to the recyclability assessment and methodology provides concerns about the long-term capital certainty that our factories need in order to reinvest. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Government would commit to periodic, rather than annual, methodological changes and a comprehensive post-implementation review covering manufacturing, employment investment and material inflation?
Q7. I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and authoritative leadership in international affairs. I also thank the UK missions abroad, who have enormous respect for the Prime Minister. May I ask him to put on record his thanks to the security, diplomatic and international aid workforce, who work day and night on behalf of the UK abroad? Closer to home and despite the heatwaves, as a fellow north Londoner let me also say: north London forever, regardless of the weather.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this timely and important debate. I know how hard he has worked on this issue over a number of years. Before the general election, Labour wanted to ban second jobs for MPs. It seems that ambition has now been placed on the “too difficult” pile to deal with another time, but the issue has not gone away. Public trust in politicians and institutions is at an all-time low, and we are duty-bound as elected Members to change that for the sake of democracy itself. Being an MP is a full-time job. In fact, it can and often does become a way of life. We never truly switch off, even on a rare free day. Before coming to this place, I worked for over 20 years as an operating department practitioner in the NHS. Long days, staying late and overtime were the norm, but I could leave my work at the door. I must admit, I would not want to do surgery working at home—it is not particularly suited to it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made exceptions for people like me who have a professional registration to maintain. Doctors, lawyers, nurses and allied health professionals work hard to gain their qualifications and registrations, and regular practice is required to maintain them. I also served as a local councillor for Wollaston and Stourbridge Town before coming to this place. My term was due to end in 2028, but I always said I would stand down at the next electoral cycle as it would not be feasible or fair to my residents for me to hold both roles. I stood down in May this year, having served without taking an allowance. However, that is not what we mean when we talk about second jobs. We mean paid consultancy and advisory work, often with conflicts of interest and lobbying expectations; paid roles as TV presenters; and people being paid for giving speeches and attending events. It all adds fuel to the fire of public commentary about elected politicians having noses in the trough and being on the gravy train—and let us not forget those brown envelopes. I believe that most hon. Members come to this place in earnest to serve their constituents and communities and to make people’s lives better, but those who seek to use it as an opportunity to bolster their bank accounts have not come here in good faith, and they damage public trust in all of us. We are not here to serve big businesses and corporate interests, or to facilitate contracts with Government and make introductions to important people. A clear line needs to be drawn under scandalous second jobs, and it is in our gift as Government to do so. Even during the covid lockdowns, when the rest of us were staying at home to prevent infection spreading—I was working as an operating department practitioner in emergency maternity theatres—some MPs saw it as a golden opportunity to cash in, with second jobs and dodgy contracts totalling nearly £5 million. While we are debating corruption and trust, I must also mention ongoing concerns about companies lobbying hon. Members, offering them hospitality or gifts. Those companies then appear in Hansard or in communications with the Government down the line. None of that is about what we know; it is all about who we know. Members should always have their eyes wide open to possible corruption and influence from outside bodies. An MP’s time is best spent prioritising their constituencies and the people they serve. If any Member feels their remuneration is not adequate, perhaps they should consider a different job. My current salary is nearly three and half times higher than what I have earned at any point in my career and I recognise the enormous privilege that has been bestowed on me, especially in the context of the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is also a huge privilege to represent my hometown of Stourbridge and the wonderful people who sent me here. They are the top of my agenda. This is an opportunity to show that MPs are not just out for themselves and to begin restoring public trust. Let us ban second jobs and start transforming our democracy with transparency, accountability and integrity.
Does the shadow Minister recognise that this is not necessarily about the amount of remuneration, but the risk of corruption and the types of employment that have been mentioned by many Members in this debate?
Since we rightly recognised the state of Palestine, I put it to the Minister that actually nothing has changed. The settlement expansions are ongoing, as are the land grabs and ultimately the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. The cultural, economic and educational genocide inflicted on Palestinians carries on regardless. For years, we have seen what drives Benjamin Netanyahu—what his ultimate goal and ambition is—and that is the eradication of Palestinian people and of Palestine. My fear is that diplomacy once again will fail. What will the UK Government do to stop the eradication of Palestine and the Palestinian people?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. These regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 1 June 2026, make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the transparency and operation of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE or the register from here. They also correct a separate technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. Hon. Members will be aware that the ROE was introduced in 2022 as part of the Government’s efforts to increase transparency in land ownership and combat economic crime. It is a public register maintained by Companies House that requires overseas entities that own or acquire land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers. The register plays an important role in shedding light on complex ownership structures and in supporting action against illicit activity. Information on the register has been used by law enforcement, journalists and other parties examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals. Appropriate safeguards are in place through a protection regime that includes the ability to apply to Companies House to have a home address removed from the register. As part of the application, individuals are required to provide supporting evidence to confirm that the address on the register is indeed their residential address. However, in most cases, the registrar is able to identify and verify that information internally. Furthermore, there is currently no requirement for applicants to provide a replacement correspondence address. This results in a gap in the information available on the public register.
Yes, I will come on to that. The hon. Gentleman will hopefully find reassurance shortly that that information will still be gathered. Part 2 of these regulations streamlines the application process; applicants will no longer be required to provide supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address that appears on the public ROE. This removes an unnecessary administrative burden for applicants. The regulations also introduce a requirement for applicants to provide a replacement service address to be displayed on the public register, except in very limited circumstances. Taken together, these changes bring the ROE protection regime more closely in line with the approach taken with UK companies. Part 3 of the regulations includes changes to the ROE’s trust disclosure service, which enables members of the public to apply to Companies House to access unpublished trust information held on the register. Under the current application process, individuals must provide their own details, as well as the overseas entity’s name and ID number. These details relating to the entity are publicly available on the register. However, applicants must also provide the name of the trust that they are requesting information on. The name of the trust is not publicly available on the register, and many applicants are therefore unlikely to have this information, which leads to rejected applications. In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This is demonstrated by evidencing that the applicant is investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. However, currently, when that is not demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults, so those requirements can act as a barrier to accessing trust information and limit the effectiveness of the service. The instrument therefore makes two targeted changes to the trust disclosure service to improve public access while maintaining appropriate safeguards. First, it removes the requirement for all applicants to provide the name of the trust when requesting access to trust information. This addresses a key barrier for making a successful application. Secondly, the instrument makes a further change where trust information involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, the regulations enable Companies House to disclose trust information related to any individual over 18 years old. This ensures that access to information is not unnecessarily restricted because an individual under 18 years old is associated with the trust. Access to trust information relating to those aged under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest. Together these changes improve the transparency of trust information on the register and enable more effective scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protection for minors. Finally, part 4 of the instrument makes a limited and technical correction to the LLP framework. The requirement to provide additional address information in certain circumstances was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule. The instrument therefore removes the requirement for LLPs to provide additional address information. However, this requirement will be reinstated once appropriate systems are in place to collect the information for companies and LLPs, and work is ongoing to achieve that. In the meantime, other address information is available on the public register for all LLPs. Taken together, these measures improve the transparency and practical operation of the ROE while resolving a small but necessary technical issue relating to LLPs. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters. Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency. Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise—not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place—that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that. On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Hodge, which looks at the wider issue of economic crime and our approach to transparency. Having responded to those questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
2. What steps she is taking to keep children safe online.
During the Government’s consultation on online safety, I met students from Ysgol Maes Garmon in my constituency to hear about their lived experience online. They raised concerns about harmful online content, addictive algorithms and the impact of a lack of scrolling limits. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the voices of our young people are heard in any decisions about how to keep them safe online?
I will not ask the Minister to comment on future sanctions designations—I understand he cannot do that. I want to ask him about something different: the scope of the multilateral statement. He will be well aware that the statement did not specify just one type of firm—for example, construction firms; it talks about involvement. Can he confirm that it is the UK Government’s view that the scope of that statement, following its wording, is not restricted to construction firms, but could cover, for example, firms financing this? Can he confirm that there is no prima facie restriction within that statement?
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to reassure you before I begin that I have notified the Members I will be mentioning today. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for a really important debate and for his long-standing, committed and passionate campaigning on such an important issue. I look forward to seeing his Bill. The time for these changes has come—a time that is long overdue. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s important and timely debate. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to returning to a politics of service—something that we have heard a lot about from many hon. Members today. We want to ensure that public office holders are held to the highest standards, as the public rightly expect. Hon. Members remember the damage caused by scandal after scandal in the last Parliament, including the lobbying scandals of Matt Hancock, Owen Paterson and Scott Benton, which undermined the trust that people place in us to lead by example. On top of our commitment to further tighten the rules on second jobs, I am really proud of the work that the Labour Government have undertaken so far. As per our manifesto pledge, we have established the independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, which has an independent chair and an expanded and ambitious remit to promote the highest standards in public life. I thank its members for the dedicated work that they have already completed to strengthen standards in public life. Let me turn to the topic of this important debate. Our manifesto also said: “The absence of rules on second jobs…means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step, Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work”— in the context of this debate, I stress that it will be urgent— “on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents”. We can be a bit frustrated at the pace of progress on the second part of that manifesto commitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) described as glacial. To put some urgency behind this, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), stated in February: “The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 567.] The Government’s view is that MPs must prioritise their duty to Parliament and their constituents. The public would expect nothing less from us all. That is a very clear indication from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that the Government’s view is that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions. I am pleased that, on taking office in 2024, we immediately instructed officials to work with House authorities on tightening the rules about MPs and second jobs, in line with our promises. Just a month after the 2024 election, we put a motion before the House that closed two loopholes, which had allowed MPs to provide paid parliamentary advice on public policy and current affairs, and advice in general terms on how Parliament works. Frankly, I was shocked that that was possible before we came to power. Those rules clearly did not meet the public’s expectations of what MPs should focus on during their time in Parliament. Following that, the previous Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, wrote to the Committee on Standards to invite it to consider whether MPs’ ability to hold outside interests should be further restricted. The Leader of the House of Commons has worked closely with the Committee since it started its inquiry. I thank the current Leader of the House and his predecessor for their diligent work in this space and the support they have offered to the House as the inquiry has proceeded. The Leader of the House wrote to the Committee again in June to set out the Government’s expectations. It is right that the Committee on Standards is at the heart of looking at the future rules governing the behaviour of MPs, given its deep expertise and the proven ability for its members to work together on a cross-party basis to promote high standards in public life. Again—I will come back to this later in my speech—I encourage it to heed the very clear words of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who said that second jobs should be banned “outside very limited exceptions”. We will urge it to increase the pace of its review. As this debate has highlighted, there is some discussion about what constitutes a second job or outside interests, which can be varied. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) saw my jaw hit the desk when she talked about social media income—I had not seen that. It is absolutely astonishing that MPs can profit from clickbait and from driving hits and likes. The public can clearly see the contradiction and the conflict with representing constituents that could ensue from that, so I thank her for raising the issue. Based on the letter that the Leader of the House sent to the Committee on Standards in June, I want to set out what the Government want to achieve and what we want the Committee to focus on. We believe that there are three core areas that need to be considered when determining whether an MP should be able to undertake an additional role: time, money and influence. I believe—and I hope all Members agree—that being an MP is an enormous privilege. I know from having lost and come back that nothing will ever eclipse the privilege that we get in this role; it is precious to all of us. It would not be right for the focus of anybody elected to this place to be diverted from delivering in the best interests of their constituents. The fact that it remains open to MPs to treat their parliamentary and constituency responsibilities as secondary to other work is outdated—Victorian, as others have said today. In the view of the Government, it has to change now. How can it be right, for example, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has 16 jobs, as we have heard? Just yesterday it was revealed that he is paid £22,500 per hour. Let us think about that: he is paid £22,500 per hour, as a brand ambassador for gold trading. That blows my mind. The same Member has taken £2 million on top of his parliamentary salary. He receives £400,000 for presenting shows on GB News. Up until March of this year, he was filmed doing Cameo clips, including offering best wishes to a far-right rioter and being paid to say, “Up the Ra!” As of March 2026, he has spent the equivalent of 140 working days on his second job, according to Byline Times. I am not sure how anyone can see that as compatible with his obligations to the people of Clacton. Those are just the things we know about. Journalists uncovered a £5 million donation from a Thai crypto billionaire, which was not declared to Parliament.
I appreciate the Chair’s reflection, thank you. I will simply say that it is nice for some Members of Parliament to see a safe and secure future, which I am sure many of our constituents would dearly love for themselves. My concern about the examples I gave is not just that it diminishes the individual Member in the eyes of the public. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the shadow Minster, said that the onus is on the public to make a judgment. I completely appreciate that; it is true that the public will make a judgment. Such actions, however, do not just diminish the individual Member of Parliament. They diminish this place and our democracy, and they do a great disservice not just to the people of Clacton but the people of Britain. The Government believe there is a clear difference, as the shadow Minister mentioned, between a second job and a ministerial or parliamentary role, such as being the Chair of a Select Committee, not least because, in performing those roles, Members are accountable to Parliament and are acting on behalf of the House to scrutinise the work of Government. As I have said, the Government do not believe MPs should have a second job that poses a distraction from an MP’s primary duty to Parliament and constituents. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said they should not be able to compromise, which is a similar approach. It should not be a distraction or compromise an MP’s ability to do their duty. Put simply, being an MP is a full-time job—more than a full-time job, as many of us know. Members should spend their time doing the best possible job, representing their constituents who put their trust in them in the general election. The second principle is that any earnings from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is the MP’s primary source of income. MPs should decide whether they are brand ambassadors for gold bullion or ambassadors for the people they represent. Thirdly, a job must not have an influence, or be perceived as having an influence, on an MP’s behaviour and the way they undertake their parliamentary duties. I hope hon. Members across the House feel they can get behind those three reasonable tests and standards, and that they will reach out to the Committee on Standards to ensure their views are properly reflected in its considerations. I appreciate, as others have said, that we also have to be pragmatic and recognise that colleagues have had careers outside politics and many will need them again. The House is enriched by the experience of those roles—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) mentioned as a nurse, in the NHS. Individuals are required to maintain professional qualifications, which is why changes must include qualifying exemptions, so the House can retain the expertise brought to it by those with successful careers before they came to this place. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that this cannot be a loophole that is exploited. It is also important that some professions are not more equal than others. Everybody ought to have the ability to have a successful career after they leave Parliament, but that cannot be used as an excuse to justify earning a second income that could be detrimental their role as an MP. This Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to change how our politics is conducted and bring an end to the lobbying scandals that defined the previous Government’s time in office. We are committed to returning to a politics of service and to upholding the standards in public life that our constituents demand we maintain. This Government remain committed to the promise we made to the country at the last general election. I am proud that we implemented immediate changes to lobbying, but as we have heard today, there is so much more to be done. I welcome the ongoing work of the Modernisation Committee and look forward to the recommendations the Committee on Standards will make to the House. However—I will say this carefully, deliberately and as clearly as I can, perhaps in the hope of catching the ear of the next Prime Minister—this Government have the ability to draft and propose legislation and a big majority in the House. As I mentioned, parliamentarians here today and the Government have both the power and, crucially, the responsibility to protect this place and the privilege of being MP, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after. I very much look forward to seeing the Bill drafted my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East. I look forward to all of us using our collective voice and working with the Committees to sort this matter now, because it is long overdue. I thank hon. Members for taking part in this debate and for ensuring that their constituents’ views on this important issue have been heard in this place.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this draft order today. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to work in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh fiscal framework delivers value for money. It was as a result of joint working between both Governments that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, as part of the autumn Budget last year, some fiscal flexibilities for the Welsh Government’s budget to enable them to better support businesses and public services in Wales. That included increasing the Welsh Government’s annual and cumulative capital borrowing limits, their overall reserve limit and their annual RDEL and CDEL drawdown limits by 10% this year. From next year, each of those limits will be uprated annually in line with inflation. Only one of those limits has a legislative basis: the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit. Section 122A(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 currently sets this limit at £1 billion. Section 122A(2) of that Act enables the Secretary of State to vary this limit with the consent of the Treasury. The order before the Committee this afternoon, made under section 122A(2), will increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit by £100 million, in line with that autumn Budget commitment. The Welsh Government remain accountable to the Senedd for how they use these increased borrowing powers. The Wales Office will bring forward further orders annually to further increase this limit in line with inflation, as is the current process in respect of the Scottish Government’s borrowing limits. In summary, this order will increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit to £1.1 billion, in line with the commitment made at the autumn Budget last year. The changes to the fiscal framework, together with additional funding through Barnett consequentials and the largest settlement in the history of devolution, mean that the UK Government are providing the Welsh Government with nearly £6.5 billion in additional spending power.
To be clear, that accountability is with the Senedd; its Members will be holding the Welsh Government to account. I commend this draft order to the Committee.