Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
Order.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
Order. I am going to break with convention ever so slightly. The next speaker will be the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, as she is one of our new colleagues and I want to give her three minutes. After that, returning to convention, I will call Lloyd Hatton, at which point we will have a two-minute limit.
- Hansard source
Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
I do want to let everybody have a chance to put something on the record but, due to interventions, I have to cut to one minute. Any further interventions on speeches will reduce that further.
- Hansard source
Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
Order. I call Edward Morello.
- Hansard source
Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
Order. I am about to suspend the sitting due to Divisions in the House. I will aim to come back earlier than 10 minutes after the last Division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the shadow Minister, the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are here, we will start as quickly as we can, but it will be no later than 10 minutes after the last Division. I remind Members that if they have spoken, they need to come back to the Chamber. If I start slightly earlier, I will give some leeway, but I expect everybody who has spoken to be back in the Chamber 10 minutes after the start of the last Division.
- Hansard source
Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
Order. Mr Carmichael, you have been a Member of this House an exceptionally long time. You know that you are not allowed to wear clothing with slogans on it. Please fasten your jacket.
- Hansard source
Early Years Funding: Hampshire
Alex Brewer will move the motion, and then the Minister will respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
- Hansard source
Fishing Industry: Government Support
Order. I gently remind the hon. Member, first, that we do not use the word “you”—I am not responsible for any of this. You speak through the Chair so that we can maintain calmness in the Chamber. Secondly, you are not allowed to use aids and props. You may describe the aid or prop, but please do not hold it up as if it will be recognised.
- Hansard source
Fishing Industry: Government Support
Well, with an introduction like that, I call Lara Bird.
- Hansard source
Fishing Industry: Government Support
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
- Hansard source
Online Safety: Children
Parents, teachers and young people across North Dorset welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement last month, as do I. This is clearly a fast-moving area of communication. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that this will be an iterative and evolutionary process, with Government deploying the resources so that we are well placed to meet new challenges and our young people are safe and protected?
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for his urgent question. I was on the trip to Israel with him the other week, and we saw all too clearly and depressingly the very clear strategy of the Israeli Government; for them, E1 is a way of effectively blowing out of the water any delivery of a two-state solution. May I gently make this point to the Minister? The quiet, gentle Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office approach of taking a watching brief—looking at events to see how they unfold—needs a bit of gumption and muscle behind it. President Trump recently reminded Israel that without America, it would not exist. That should send a chill up the spine of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Ministers. As well as the Minister trying to talk to his Israeli counterparts, what conversation is he having with the Americans, who provide a massive amount of military support to Israel, to try to get the Netanyahu Government to rein it in, when it comes to E1?
- Hansard source
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
I think this is an important moment for us to remind all our constituents to check their insurance policies and make sure that they have sufficient cover, but on a practical note, may I ask whether the Minister expects the flood protection certificates to have the same status as energy performance certificates? Obviously that encourages improvement, but there may be a problem of stranded assets. I just want to be sure that we have thought about the impacts on the housing market and on social mobility.
- Hansard source
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?
- Hansard source
Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026
What impact assessment has been done to look at the Welsh Government’s ability to service the additional borrowing?
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I appreciate the hon. Lady giving way so early in her speech, because I have to run to a Delegated Legislation Committee. I agree with all the points she is making, but would she talk later about the impact on the pub trade? This policy will hit the pub trade by about £50 million—it is going to do some real damage to a very important industry.
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, so let us make sure that we keep our emotions in check.
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
“You” and “your”—the best thing to do is always speak through the Chair. That prevents that mistake from happening.
- Hansard source
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian and will know that I am not responsible for the Government’s policy position—if only I were. She will know that there are many ways in which this issue can be pursued with Ministers, and the Clerks and the Table Office are also available to advise her. No doubt those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard her and will ensure that she gets a response in due course.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
All Members should be familiar with the convention that they should inform colleagues in advance whenever they intend to visit another Member’s constituency. As the guide to the rules of behaviour and courtesy states, “failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” I hope that if colleagues fail to observe these courtesies an apology is forthcoming.
- Hansard source
Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
- Hansard source
Engagements
Can I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments about Venezuela, and also about the Lib Dems? [Laughter.] But seriously, the Chief of the Defence Staff made it known that the armed forces needed a minimum of £28 billion more to defend the country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks half that amount is enough?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister did not say that it was enough, and that was a very long list of things that he is not yet paying for. It is not right and it is not fair—certainly not to our troops, who put their lives on the line for all of us every single day. Three weeks ago, the Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), resigned saying, “I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.” Since that letter, the Prime Minister has increased spending by only 0.01%. We can count, the generals can count, and the Kremlin can count, and his plan does not add up. How can he possibly stand there and say that this is enough?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man, and what he and the NATO Secretary-General have done is welcome the fact that the plan has been published—just that it has been published. They have been waiting for more than a year. The strategic defence review was last year. The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man who is having to make do with very little. The threat level has dramatically changed in the two years that the Prime Minister has been in office. Since he took office, Poland has increased its funding to 4.8% and Germany has increased its funding to 3.7%. This year, Russia will spend 10% of GDP on defence. Meanwhile, Britain is spending it all on welfare. Even the limited plan that the Prime Minister has announced has completely unravelled, because he has not found the money to pay for it. It is £5 billion short. We all know that he is leaving this mess to his successor. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has agreed to fund the shortfall?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister says that he is delivering this outside the Budget. That is right: it should have been in the last Budget. The strategic defence review was published last year. It should have been in the last Budget, not the next Budget. According to the intelligence assessment that the Prime Minister himself has said we have, there could be an attack on NATO by 2030, but this plan does not deliver until after that. Not only is £5 billion missing from his plan, but it relies on £11 billion of unidentified savings. The plan has unravelled. It is a total dereliction of duty, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Times said today that the Prime Minister’s “legacy”—[Interruption.] Well, why don’t we wait and see what The Times said? It said that the Prime Minister’s “legacy is betrayal, failure and vulnerability” —and that is one of the nicer headlines. I will ask again, because the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Did the right hon. Member for Makerfield know that he was going to have to find £5 billion for the Prime Minister’s plan?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It does not sound as if the Prime Minister has told the right hon. Member for Makerfield to find £5 billion. He says that any Labour Prime Minister would stand behind this plan. Let me tell him what Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said yesterday. He said that the Prime Minister had chosen the “cheap option”, and he called the plan “woefully inadequate”. Let me tell him what General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of his own strategic defence review, said yesterday: “we are simply not going to be ready to defend this country properly.” That is what they are saying. The reason the Prime Minister is in this mess is that he was too weak to cut welfare when he had the chance. There are only three ways to find the missing £5 billion: increase borrowing, increase taxes, or cut welfare. Which one will the Prime Minister recommend to the right hon. Member for Makerfield?
- Hansard source
Engagements
We understand it perfectly, and that is why—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. That is why the Prime Minister is leaving and so is his Chancellor. Labour Members are laughing and pretending, but if he was doing such a fabulous job, why did he resign? Defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. [Interruption.] Yes, it is the first duty of Government. I do not need to read again what General Sir Richard Barrons or Lord Richard Dannatt said. Maybe Labour Members did not hear it the first time—they can rewatch the clips—but defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. Britain is facing a moment of danger unlike anything in our lifetimes and unlike anything that we saw in government. We need a plan to fund our armed forces that meets this moment. They are the Government for now, not for 10 years ago, and the fact is that Labour’s plan is too weak, it is too little and it is too late. If the Prime Minister’s successor does not want to be complicit in this failure, he should come out and condemn this plan. The money must be found, and that money should come from cutting welfare—something that these Labour MPs will not do. If Labour cannot defend our country, what is the point of them?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. Good luck, England! May I welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a social media ban for under-16s, following repeated calls from Conservative Members? Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that the enforcement of such a ban is robust enough to prevent children from bypassing it through the use of mechanisms such as virtual private networks, which expose young people to additional risks?
- Hansard source
Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on a subject that could hardly be more timely and important. There are a few issues; I am conscious that I am delaying people on a warm afternoon, with football around the corner for some, but I think that they deserve our attention. It would be very easy for me to stand here this afternoon and dismiss any debate outright, and for hon. Members to just wave this order through without looking more broadly—although I am impressed with the Minister’s speed in opening this debate; it is clear she is going in one direction. Parliament’s responsibility is not simply to approve; it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill pointed out, to provide real scrutiny. Nobody disputes that Wales needs further investment on the ground, but after 27 years of Labour in the Senedd wasting money on schemes that have produced very little in the way of value or outcomes for communities, it is important that we question whether just increasing the Welsh Government’s borrowing limit is the right way to achieve change on the ground, and whether the case that has been brought forward is truly convincing. In my shadow ministerial role, I have the joy of travelling the length and breadth of Wales—as you know, Mrs Harris, because I am often in your constituency area—and that gives me the opportunity to meet people from across businesses, sectors and communities. It greatly pains me that despite more money, support and local devolution and decision making, there is a continuing sense of deprivation, dilapidation and deterioration, particularly around infrastructure, that is hitting communities too hard, and a sense that what has long been promised through investment and devolution into the Welsh Government has simply not landed on the ground. The Brynglas tunnels, for example, have descended into being a continued stranglehold on the economies of Newport, Monmouthshire, Cardiff and Swansea. How has the M4 been improved? It simply has not. Unemployment in Wales has hit the highest levels in the whole United Kingdom and is continuing to dash young people’s aspirations. It pains me that too many young people feel they need to leave Wales to find the opportunities that they want. Everyone, including me, knows somebody in Wales who is waiting in pain and in vain on never-ending Welsh NHS waiting lists. Despite ongoing promises of change and of better days ahead from the Senedd, that has not changed. Both Plaid and Labour have sounded like broken records in claiming that they do not have the money to fix Wales’s problems, but the truth is that the Welsh Government have benefited from substantial funding increases for years, so what has happened? In 2021 alone, the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), announced that the Welsh block grant would rise to around £18 billion a year—an increase of roughly £2.5 billion a year. That naturally raises three important questions, which are pertinent to think about this afternoon. First, if additional funding has been made available, why have so many structural problems remained unresolved since 1999? Secondly, before the Government agree to increase the level of borrowing, should Ministers in the Wales Office not ask how the previous resources have been prioritised? Thirdly, what have the actual outcomes been? For too long, the Welsh Government, who were aided and abetted by—let’s be honest—the Labour enablers Plaid Cymru, decided to prioritise the wrong thing. Under the then Labour Welsh Government, more than £100 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on expanding the size of the Senedd with 36 more politicians, and more than £150 million was spent on developing plans for building the M4 relief road, which was cancelled abruptly. Tens of millions were spent on imposing the 20 mph speed limit, which is increasing journey times and creating wider economic costs. Other previous wasteful spending projects at the Senedd include setting up embassies all over the world, the failed Circuit of Wales project and tree planting in Uganda—all of which have cost taxpayers money. If a decision is made today to increase the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the money is not misappropriated again into pursuing Plaid Cymru’s ultimate goal of breaking up our country and setting up an independent country. At a time of wider geopolitical tensions, we need to be serious: we are better together. To attract more investment into Wales, I encourage the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to heed the Conservative and Unionist party’s ideals: to get on and build the M4 relief road, to abolish business rates for small and medium-sized businesses, to scrap stamp duty in Wales and to scrap glass from the deposit return scheme. Those things, alongside public borrowing, will make a difference, but more public borrowing today is not an end in itself; it must be justified with a clear and credible plan. There are Committee members whose constituents will be directly affected by this measure, so we should be mindful of where the money is going and whether it is making a difference to the people of Wales. Devolution cannot be a one-way road. We cannot devolve powers and hand over more money only for it to be wasted on pointless schemes and for the people of Wales not to see change. We can no longer afford to devolve powers and increase borrowing while hoping for the best—hoping that the people of Wales will get more. They deserve so much more than that; it is about changing lives and supporting people. How did the Government come to the figure of a 10% increase? I think the Minister covered that to a degree in her opening speech. What will the change of Government and what is going on in the Senedd mean for this important capital funding—taxpayers’ money? What justification have the Welsh Government provided for increasing the grant, and how will they show the impact? I understand from the Minister’s speech that she is comfortable with this being devolved to the Senedd, but we should be holding those 96 politicians to account. I look forward to the Minister’s kind response. If there is anything that she cannot comment on this afternoon, I will be happy to see it in writing.
- Hansard source
Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous to us all. I just want to reiterate the point about accountability. Between the announcement of this measure in the autumn Budget, and its publication on 2 June and the Minister’s presenting it today, the process, group of people and focus in the Senedd have changed. People’s feelings about the lack of accountability and openness, and about the wanton spending of other people’s money, are very acute when they are finding the cost of living so challenging. I offer to work with her if these powers are granted—we will not divide the Committee today—to make sure that we all keep watch equally that they do change lives on the ground, and we are willing to roll up our sleeves if we see that the money is being used wastefully and lives are not changing.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. This is a vital discussion that goes to the very heart of how our democracy functions, how our legislature connects with the public and how we maintain institutional integrity. Although we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban, I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. We all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House. There is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years. The public rightly expect us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is what we are doing. If we are considering a ban on second jobs, however, we ought to be clear as to why. Some have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, and that the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs’ parliamentary constituency work. I do not have an outside job, but before the general election I served as a Government Whip. It was a paid position, and it almost certainly took up more of the time that I was in Westminster each week than any outside job would. While those in Government posts—or for that matter House roles, such as Chairs of Select Committees—do necessary work for the proper functioning of Government and Parliament, I would struggle to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job. The same would be even more true for many ministerial positions, but most Ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. If we accept that a Minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of working in a Government Department with their duty to the electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a Back Bencher cannot do the same with a few hours a week of external professional practice. If the primary problem is not the time diverted from representing constituents, perhaps it is the money. But if we go down that route, there is a danger of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs. Few people would complain about the shadow Minister for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician; I informed her in advance that I would mention her. It is necessary for my hon. Friend to continue to work so that she can maintain her professional qualification, and it adds immense real-world value to her shadow ministerial role. She also properly declares her interests during relevant debates. Similarly, Members across the House have often been rightly congratulated on their ongoing work as surgeons, GPs and nurses, but these medical jobs are no less time consuming and, in some cases, may be better remunerated than some of the other interests that are more often the focus.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to. Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back-Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable. The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
Fundamentally, I think it comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as Members of Parliament, we are elected to represent constituents. It is then a question of judgment as to what activities conflict with that and prevent us doing that role as well as we need to. I think most people would agree that some of the cases highlighted today cross that line, but the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing with what is clearly a genuine problem. The independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on the issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. That inquiry is still under way, so it would seem the height of legislative impatience if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans while that independent review is still gathering evidence on how a more balanced approach could operate. Trying to put together a rigid set of formal rules that allows the activities we happen to approve of while preventing those that we find unpalatable is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos. It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents better served. Ultimately, the best people to judge whether an MP’s outside work prevents them from being an effective Member of Parliament are the voters in that MP’s constituency—if they have the full and proper information available. Let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see. Then let us trust the British public to look at that record, weigh it against the service they receive and render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as that of an Israeli child. That is the foundation of all of my views on this. May I congratulate the Minister for the middle east, and indeed the Prime Minister, who is not in his place, on having the courage and the leadership to recognise the Palestinian state when they did so? I supported that and continue to do so. Indeed, this urgent question justifies that position last September, because at that point we were all concerned that the viability of a Palestinian state was reducing as the weeks went by. We have seen that the extant policy of the current Israeli Government is to continue those illegal occupations and expansion. Will the Minister tell the House the latest on his discussions with Washington about the board of peace and reconstructing Gaza, ensuring that there is a viable Palestinian state? Finally, what is his view on whether the current Israeli Government’s position is likely to pertain beyond this autumn?
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Many of us feel that way about these statements, and surely the Minister must be starting to feel that way, too. He must recognise that the E1 settlement would represent the final and complete collapse of any British strategy in Israel and Palestine, and would have wider ripples, in terms of our standing in the world. Surely it is incumbent on him to change his modus operandi. Over the last two years of savagery, we have had meagre measures—talk, talk, talk, from both this Government and the previous one, frankly—and none of that has had any impact on the conduct of the Israeli Government. Surely now is the time to lay out exactly what the consequences would be for the establishment of the E1 settlement in plain terms, so that there is a hard red line, and the Israelis can make a judgment about whether they want to cross it.
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
None of them has had any impact; not a single thing has changed.