Westminster Hall

Wednesday 1 July 2026

[Matt Western in the Chair]

Before I call Richard Burgon, I would like to make a point to Members contributing to this morning’s debate. I remind Members to be careful if they choose to refer to other Members in this debate. If you wish to refer to a specific Member, you should have given them notice, and I would appreciate it if you mentioned this in your remarks. Please also ensure that your comments are, as always, appropriate.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am delighted to have secured this debate, but let us be totally honest from the start: confidence in our politics has collapsed. People look at Westminster and see a political system increasingly disconnected from their lives. They see stories about freebies, dodgy donations and so called gifts, and they see politicians collecting six figure sums from second jobs. They know that the system is not working for them, and it chips away at the public’s trust in Parliament; it damages their confidence in democracy.

If we want politics to serve the people, not elite interests, we are going to have to take bold action. That is why I have called this debate today. Banning MPs’ second jobs is one of the key steps to restore trust in politics. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister, when giving their speech on the steps of Downing Street in the coming weeks, commits to real action to clean up our politics, because there are very dangerous forces out there that want to take advantage of public distrust to roll back basic democratic norms, as we have seen in the United States.

Before I turn to why we must ban MPs’ second jobs, I want to look at the scale of the problem. All the figures I will reference today are from Sky News’s Westminster Accounts, a database compiled from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I commend those journalists on the work they have done, but I also want to put on record how unacceptable it is that the public cannot easily access clear information about MPs’ second jobs on Parliament’s own website. The Westminster Accounts has had to navigate the fiendishly complex way Parliament reports this, so there may well be discrepancies in the data, but if so, that is not the fault of the journalists; it is a failure of parliamentary transparency. Parliament needs to address that and start providing this information in a much more accessible way.

In total, MPs have taken an eye watering £11 million in outside earnings since the general election. The top 10 MPs account for over £7 million in total, so just 10 MPs have pocketed nearly two thirds of all second job money declared.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. He is rightly elaborating on the need for more transparency, and he just alluded to the 10 Members whose second job income comprises the vast majority of the total. When this debate comes into the public domain, the question that always runs beside it is, “What do we need to pay MPs to preclude the need or the desire for second jobs?” Does he agree that that issue has to be dealt with, and does he think the public would be satisfied with a salary for MPs of £120,000 or £150,000 in order to preclude a small number from earning massive sums?

I must confess, when I have been out and about in my constituency and in others, I have never met anyone who says, “What we really need to do is pay MPs more.” We are already in the top 5% of earners, so I do not think that paying MPs more is the issue. Being an MP is an incredible privilege—an incredibly well paid privilege. It is second jobs that we want to stop; we do not want to argue for further pay rises for already very well paid MPs.

We talk about second jobs, but for some MPs there are third jobs, fourth jobs, fifth jobs, sixth jobs and many more. For some, it seems, being an MP is the second job. I am opposed to MPs having second jobs, whether those MPs are Conservative, Reform, Labour or from any other party. I do not say this to make a party political point, but it is a fact that the top 10 includes eight Conservative and two Reform MPs, including Reform’s party leader. Beyond the top 10, looking at all MPs’ outside earnings, Conservative MPs account for around 66% of the total, Reform MPs around 20%, and Labour MPs around 7%.

Can I just say—because it needs to be said—that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform, is not here? On Monday, I wrote to him publicly, inviting him to come and explain why MPs should be allowed to rake in vast sums from second jobs. Yesterday it came to light that he has been getting paid £22,500 per hour promoting a gold dealer, which takes his second job earnings to approaching £2 million in just two years since the general election. That is more than £22,000 per hour for a man who last year argued that a minimum wage of £10.85 per hour for young people in his constituency, my constituency and constituencies across the country may be too much. Some man of the people! It is all very Donald Trump.

We hear a lot about why second jobs are acceptable, but the public know that when an MP can earn more for a couple of hours’ so called work than a nurse earns in a year, there is something deeply broken in our politics and change is needed. There is no doubting the scale of the problem.

In 2022, I presented the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, a private Member’s Bill for a total ban on MPs’ second jobs. I hope that can become law under the new Prime Minister. I welcome the steps taken by this Government to restrict second jobs, but so far they go nowhere near far enough. We need a proper ban. The key principle of my Bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a well paid privilege. The nearly £100,000 a year salary places us in the highest 5% of earners in the country, so being an MP should be a full time job. The public elect us to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns. They do not elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. When MPs do that, they short change the public who pay them and they undermine our democracy. We even have 18 MPs who have been paid more from their second jobs than from their MP’s salary. For them, it seems, that being a Member of Parliament is a second job.

If someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, they are entitled to do so. But if that is the MP’s priority, they should resign. Our democracy would be better for it. We do not need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs’ second jobs is that they create real conflicts of interest. An MP should have one loyalty—loyalty to the people who sent them here. The moment other employers pay an MP tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some cases even well over a million, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask, “Who comes first: the constituents who elected them or the company paying them?” No one can serve two masters.

Even if people claim there is no conflict of interest, it is clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life. Politics should be about public service, not personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressure, struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, struggle with rising bills and worry themselves sick about making ends meet. Is it any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year?

I have campaigned against second jobs for many years. When I do, one argument always gets raised. We are told that second jobs provide valuable real world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs do not bring MPs closer to the real world, because real people do not live like that. Huge second salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not of the vast majority of constituents we are here to serve.

It is funny that the MPs who claim to want real world experience never seem to find it doing the jobs of ordinary workers, such as stacking shelves, driving buses or caring for the elderly in a care home. I did not find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs’ extra earnings. The reason is obvious: it is really about getting money, not real world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real world experience, they would seek it where real people actually work, not in corporate board rooms. When people say that Parliament should benefit from a diverse range of life experience and professional expertise, I totally agree; but that should be from the experiences they gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs.

The other argument we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult, but it would not. My Bill shows exactly how it can be done. It would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs, while allowing sensible exceptions. The Bill is not about stopping a genuine public service. A doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public; sitting on a corporate board for large pay cheques is not. My Bill would not stop someone doing the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications, nor would it stop someone working out a short notice period when unexpectedly elected to Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. When he talks about second jobs, I think about my constituents who have to work second jobs to pay the bills. That is where our attention should be focused. On professional qualifications, I recognise that being an MP is a full time job. As a result, my professional qualifications had to fall, because I needed to give myself to my constituents 24/7. Will he look again at that provision in his Bill? The work we do here must be for our constituents, and we must not be distracted from that, even by professional roles such as the one I once held.

I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. The details of the Bill could be debated and amended in the House and at Committee stage, if it were taken forward, as I invite the next Prime Minister to do. I was trying to make the point that, if someone needs to do a handful of hours per year to remain on a professional register, I would have no objection. Perhaps the Bill can be enhanced and improved, including by my hon. Friend, if it progresses further. Beyond the limited exceptions that I have outlined, the practice of second jobs should end.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the way that he has outlined the issue at hand. I also commend him on the Bill that he brought forward. Does he agree that in the interim, as the Bill progressed through Parliament, there other steps that we could be take, such as changing Standing Orders and the code of conduct, and particularly in political parties? My own party has prohibited MPs from taking any other occupation.

The hon. Member has come forward with a very good idea. Of course, a party could change its own rules and expectations in that regard, but to fully clean up politics, I think that this should be passed by Parliament. This issue is going through the Modernisation Committee at the moment, and the discussions taking place there are very important.

Some will say that my restrictions are too tough. They are tough, but trust in politics has been damaged over many years, and rebuilding that trust requires bold action. That is what the public want. Parliament must show that it understands that the rot runs deep and cannot be tackled with half measures. There should be no more reviews or excuses; action is needed. I hope that the next Prime Minister will help to clean up politics and defend our democracy, starting by ending the ludicrous gravy train of MPs’ second jobs, which quite rightly turns the public’s stomachs.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. After the next speech, I will be reducing speeches to five minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who often brings forward subjects that are close to all of our hearts. I would like to share some personal experience, and I think other Members will want to do the same. This is an important and complex issue that depends greatly on context. While I agree with what he and others have said, he mentioned some things in his speech that honestly concern me greatly, and I would gently say that we should look at individual cases.

As the Member of Parliament for Strangford since 2010, I am deeply committed to serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I believe that to deliver for my constituents is my priority in this place. When I became an MP in 2010, I decided that the best way for me to fulfil that responsibility was to give up my other jobs. I am not better than anybody else—

Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak a little bit more loudly? We seem to be having a few issues with the audio today.

I have moved the mic a bit closer, so hopefully that will catch my words. When I became an MP in 2010, I was also a councillor; I served on Ards borough council for 26 years. I was also a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years. I would have loved to stay on as a councillor, because I loved the work and that was where my heart was, but I realised that that was not going to happen. I would not be able to jump on a plane and come across to Westminster and be home in time for a meeting that night. Looking at the physical practicalities of it all, I resigned from both of those positions. I did hold all three for two months, but that was during the summer months when there were fewer meetings. I also had my own business, which I started in 1985. I gifted that business to my son. Personally speaking, this is now my one job, and it is all I can do if I want to give it my best shot and do the best I can. None the less, I do not believe that all Members should automatically be required to give up outside employment if it has no impact on their ability to do their job here.

Members should be permitted to consider carefully whether any additional role could compromise their ability to carry out effectively their duties as an MP. Are they being lobbied by certain groups? I say this respectfully and kindly, because I have no evidence to prove anything and therefore I will not say anything more specific; that would be wrong, but I hope that having other jobs would not unnecessarily influence a Member’s capability to do the job that they are committed to here.

On the issue of any complexity adversely affecting a Member’s ability in the House, does my hon. Friend agree that while we all should be open and transparent and the register should be kept up to date, as the mover of the motion said, the final arbiter on all these issues has to be the voters? When the voters decide that a small number of MPs may be getting extraordinarily large, unacceptably large, sums of money, they decide at the election that they do not want that and they replace them with someone else.

Yes. Ultimately, our electorate makes that decision. That applies in any sphere and to any action that an MP may carry out. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

In my view, a complete restriction on second jobs would be an unfair limitation on Members. What do I mean by that? I agree with almost 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said; I just think that sometimes we need to look at the thing in a bigger way. I fully recognise that outside interests must be strictly regulated. There must be conditions; there has to be a declaration of all interests, and that has to be transparent. Wherever the things are, there must be an explanation, and it must fall within the rules of the House. Any changes made to the rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the House of Commons code of conduct should provide clear guidance for Members and constituents alike.

Many Members bring to the House valuable professional experience and expertise from outside interests. They bring knowledge. We all do that from our walks of life—individually, from the people we have represented over the years or perhaps just from the social circle that we move in. Maintaining links with professions when it is appropriate to do so has the potential to strengthen the quality of parliamentary debates, improve the scrutiny of legislation and ensure that Members remain connected to the experiences and challenges faced by people outside our offices and Westminster. That is the very thing that the hon. Member for Leeds East referred to—those experiences, and those interactions with our constituents.

On a personal note, my job and my business was selling bacon and sausage. I sold everything in the pig except for the squeak, and that is a fact, and it reared my family. It kept my wife at home to look after the children. We got a good holiday every year, and it paid the mortgage. We did well out of it, but way back when I was doing that—I have to cast my mind back—I was up at 5 am, went home and showered and was in the office for 9. My employee would carry on the run for the rest of the day. In all those years I was in the Assembly, we did that, but when I was elected to Westminster, I recognised that that was just never going to happen, so I gifted the business to my son. It was no longer a matter of nipping home after the run. I could not just nip home and go from Newtownards to London. It would be impossible to do the job well. I was able to do both back then, but I could never do that again; it just cannot happen. My duty was and should always be to my Strangford constituents. That is how it must be, and how it has been since 2010.

Members are ultimately elected in service of the public. Maintaining public confidence is of the utmost importance. The hon. Member for Leeds East referred to confidence, and I also think that is a critical factor. Transparency and accountability are two issues that must be at the heart of any reforms, but I think that public confidence may be the key issue. Constituents should have confidence that Members’ outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place.

I want to also underline the fact that we pay Sinn Féin MPs to not take their seats here and carry out their most basic functions. If we are to change anything, perhaps it should be their eligibility for election.

I believe that those who can easily carry out a few hours of work must be able to do so, in so far as they still perform their roles in this House. I always think of that old adage, “If you want something done, give it to a busy person.” Perhaps we should allow Members to strike that balance. I have tried to strike that balance. I try to live my life in such a way that I practise what I preach. I can only do the one job; I cannot do any more, and I recognise that. Although I agree with 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said, I do think it is better that Members should make their own choice.

With immediate effect, I ask Members to keep their speeches to around five minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful speech. Despite being members of the same party, we come from very different traditions within the labour movement, but I am pleased that on this issue—one that is critical to commanding public confidence in the mother of all Parliaments—we are in violent agreement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all party parliamentary group on anti corruption and responsible tax, which builds on my experience at two FTSE 100 firms advising on, among other things, how to manage conflicts of interest.

Let us remind ourselves that only 4% of the public believe politicians do what is best for the country, according to YouGov, while polling from More in Common found that 87% of Britons have either not very much or no trust in politicians. Despite reforms made shortly after the last general election, despite our own registration and code of conduct requirements, which are independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee on Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough or with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the risks—perceived or actual—around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction.

I mentioned those measures taken or in train because I give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say that nothing has been done—clearly that is not the case. The Government’s decision to remove the exemption that allowed MPs to provide advice on current affairs and how Parliament works was very welcome, but the issue has not gone away. Before, it was Owen Paterson, Matt Hancock, Nadine Dorries and Scott Benton who caused significant damage to the reputation of individual Members of Parliament and our democratic institutions, but now we have other Members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. They have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them today.

Take the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He has declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a Member of this place. Just yesterday, the Financial Times reported that he is receiving £22,500 an hour for promoting a gold bullion dealer—not bad for someone who has also received what he has variously described as a “gift” or a “reward” from his billionaire crypto backer, Christopher Harborne. Mr Western, you know my views about money in politics from past conversations.

Meanwhile, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the £60,000 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the average national salary. Do the people of Clacton or of Torridge and Tavistock not deserve a full time MP?

On 6 November 2024, the Modernisation Committee invited the Committee on Standards to inquire into whether outside interests or employment should be reformed in the Members’ code of conduct. I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence; the last evidence was heard on 15 July 2025, and no report has yet been published. Regrettably, it feels like we are moving at a glacial speed, when outside these walls, business is going on at an increasingly fast moving pace.

In my old line of work as an anti bribery and corruption compliance specialist, it would be unheard of for an employee to be holding down two jobs, unless they held part time elected office or were, for instance, an armed forces reservist. Why are second jobs permitted? In my view, they are a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working and do not account for modern demands on any hon. Member’s time, including 24/7 rolling news and constituents making contact by email or phone. I say yes to continuous professional development, but we are living in a wild west scenario with no controls on how much time is spent, or how much income can be gained, on work outside Parliament.

Members can earn 10 times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs. That gives rise to a question that any member of the public would be within their right to ask: if a Member of this House is earning more outside the House than they are as a Member, is being an elected representative not in fact their second job and their lower priority? That matters because it gives the impression that Members’ obligations in this place are not at the forefront of our minds.

Mooted reforms to lobbying and civil service governance must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates if we are to build a functional 21st century system that prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all Members. If we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed and the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened.

I agree with the likes of Transparency International and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East that there should be a total proscription on all secondary employment, except in order to maintain a professional qualification, undertake political activity or provide an essential public service. I know that the people of Bolton West deserve every hour I can find in the day to do what I can to improve my constituency. Do the people of each and every constituency in this country not deserve the same?

Order. With immediate effect, there will be a five minute limit on speeches.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate.

Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more.

It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

Immoral.

And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents.

Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public.

I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for bringing this really important issue to the House. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.

Listen, it is not my intention to mention gold bullion dealers or Members who are making £22,500 an hour. It is not my intention to mention MPs who do Cameos. It is not my intention to discuss cryptocurrency dealers or mention TV presenters. It is not my intention to mention shady donations, which stain our politics—the real problem is that when our politics are stained, all MPs in this place are tarred with the same brush. Perhaps I should have mentioned all that—I would love to raise some of the shady dealings that happen in this place—but I have not notified the individuals concerned.

What is this about? Is it about money? Is it about transparency? Is it about accountability? Is it about all of that? I am perplexed. I am an MP in the north east of England. I love the place—born and bred—and I see how people are struggling. How can MPs have second jobs? I forget the figure, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about thousands of hours being spent on second jobs—one, two, three, four, five and more second jobs. How can this be the case? I need somebody to tell us, because I am working my socks off for my constituents, and rightly so—that is what I was elected for, and it is what everybody elected to this place should be here to do.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) —he is no longer in his seat—talked about MPs’ wages, but £96,500 as an MP? I feel like a millionaire, man! I’m so rich it’s unbelievable! But I am representing my residents. People on the national minimum wage of £12.71 an hour, working a 40-hour week, are on roughly £26,416. That is what stress is. That is why we need to be looking after people. We hear from various MPs here, “We’re under lots of stress.” I will tell you what stress is: when you cannot feed the kids or put clothes on them. That is stress, and that is certainly not what I see here.

Forty five per cent of people say that they almost never trust any Government, and 68% say that second jobs should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. I agree with that. I think the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East is fantastic and it has my full support. How can individuals go to the jungle in Australia to do “I’m a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!”? Many MPs might feel when they are sitting in Parliament on a Thursday, “Get me out of here,” but seriously, how can any MP do that without any sanctions? It is absolutely disgraceful. It is a huge disrespect to the people we represent. They need to understand that we are on their side. They need to understand that not everybody is on this gravy train because, quite frankly, that is simply not the case.

I have not even started on my speech, but I will conclude simply by saying that we need to build trust with the general public. It is lost—it is gone. We cannot blame members of the public for that, given the amounts of money people have mentioned. We need to focus on the immense issues facing our priority—our constituents.

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.

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 hugely important debate and for his leadership on this issue over a long period.

At its heart, this debate is about public service, trust, standards and whether being a Member of Parliament is a full time duty to the people, or a platform for private enrichment and personal gain. Let us say plainly what people across this country already know: being an MP is not a side hustle, a brand or a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model; it is a privilege.

We are sent here by our constituents and we are paid by the public. Our first, last and every loyalty must be to the people we represent. Since the 2024 general election there have been welcome reforms, but they are only small steps. Members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate linked interest. The public have every right to ask why.

In Liverpool West Derby, people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between eating and heating. In the last six months, I have been across the country with the Right to Food Commission, and I have heard exactly the same stories: children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading their next bill and workers taking second jobs not to get rich, but simply to survive and keep afloat. That is the reality that too many in this House are oblivious to. People are not living; they are surviving.

Imagine what people think when they see Members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP’s salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours’ work, yet that is exactly what this House permits. People are sick of Parliament being treated like a marketplace, sick of influence following money, sick of politicians speaking the language of working people while living by rules that working people could never access. That is not public service; it is grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), claims to stand with left behind communities while accepting a reported £5 million gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate. That is not anti establishment—it is the establishment. It is money privilege wearing a different badge, and people can see that.

It is not just the hon. Member for Clacton. Across this house there are Members, including some who represent the poorest communities in Britain, who have chosen to follow the same path. They use public office to pursue private financial gain. That is exactly the culture that the public have lost faith in. In Clacton and in Liverpool, people know the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleaner starting before dawn, the care worker finishing another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether they have enough hours in the week, the nurse staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without so her children can eat and the dad skipping meals so the lights stay on. That is graft, not grift.

Every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking, “Who are they working for?” should really shame this House. When somebody writes to their MP, it is usually because they are desperate. They need help: they need advocacy, pensions, HM Revenue and Customs or child maintenance service; they are disabled, they are ill or they are struggling to navigate an inhumane benefits system. They deserve to know that their Member’s attention belongs to them—not to a corporate boardroom or a private client, but to them as individuals.

This job is a privilege and a vocation; it is not an entitlement, and it is certainly not a commercial opportunity. Let us finish the job. Let us ban second paid jobs, with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions, strengthen transparency and enforce the rules: no loopholes, no excuses and no more cashing in on public office. This debate comes down to one simple question. Whose side are we on—the side of the people who graft, work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who treat public office as a route to private wealth? I know where I stand. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who graft, not the people who grift. Public office is a privilege, not a business opportunity. This House belongs to the public. We are sent here for one reason and one reason only: to serve our constituents who put us in this place—nothing more, nothing less.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for the campaigning work he has done over many years on this important issue. As Members of Parliament, we are privileged to be here, but this is a demanding, full time role. Our time, energy and focus should be dedicated to representing our constituents, and to that alone; but, as we have already heard, it is all too common for Members to have multiple jobs, often serving corporate interests despite the obvious potential for a conflict of interest.

Every MP earns at least £98,599 a year, with Ministers and Select Committee Chairs earning even more. That is more than two and a half times the average wage, and almost 20 times the annual equivalent of the basic universal credit allowance. Before my election in 2024, my salary as a teacher, a head of curriculum area and a member of the extended senior leadership team at my school was less than half an MP’s salary. It is difficult to argue that Members need second, third or even 16th jobs while many of our constituents struggle to make basic ends meet. Members being hired as advisers or consultants, primarily because of their political connections and access, is not only wrong and out of touch; it poses a genuine risk to public confidence in our democracy and, as we saw from the Tory lobbying scandal during covid, a genuine risk to public health.

The reality gap between claiming to represent ordinary working class people and earning vast sums through private income streams is stark. It is best illustrated by, though by no means limited to, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I did contact him, Mr Western—who has declared more than £2 million in earnings since his election to this House in July 2024 from media contracts, paid Cameo appearances and serving as a brand ambassador for a gold dealer. That would be laughable if it were not so concerning.

I support a ban on second jobs for Members of Parliament, with sensible exemptions where work is necessary to maintain professional qualifications and skills in the public interest—as teachers, doctors or nurses, for example. This is a necessary step towards restoring trust and integrity in our political system. The privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament should come with a singular commitment: serving the public, and serving them alone. Diolch yn fawr.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western, and I really congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important and very timely debate, which he opened very well.

Being a Member of Parliament for my constituents in Hazel Grove is an enormous privilege, but it goes beyond that; it is a full time job, with knobs on. I must declare that early in my time here, I was also an elected councillor, representing the wonderful people of Bredbury Green and Romiley. That was classed as a second job under our current rules, so I declared the allowance that I received for the couple of months before I stood down as a councillor, and the details can be seen in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The people who voted us here did not do so just so we can use Parliament as a launchpad into a media career, a consultancy or corporate boardroom; voters send us here to work for them. Yet in this Parliament we have seen some Members treat their responsibilities to their constituents as, at best, a part time concern. Other Members have already given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have indeed let the hon. Member know in advance, Mr Weston, that I planned to mention him and his grifting.

The hon. Member for Clacton has been here for 300 sitting days since those of us in the 2024 intake were elected. When I was preparing this speech, I realised that if I added together the hours that he has declared as having worked elsewhere, he has spent more than 140 days on various other jobs since he was first elected. That might be understandable if, like many other Members, he had spent the time when he is not here on constituency work, or on fighting for those who elected him. However, there were reports in the Daily Mirror earlier this year flagging up how many of his constituents felt that he was not around enough. He has spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB News and taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms such as Blockworks.

Order. Can I just remind Members about their choice of language? It is okay to use certain vocabulary in general—in non specific terms—but when they are speaking about particular Members, I ask Members to be very careful about the use of language such as “grifting”.

I welcome your advice and guidance, Chair.

I will move on to talk about those Members who receive payments for posting on social media. Members of the UK Parliament should not receive payments from platforms such as X. I also note the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have also advised him that I will mention him in this debate. The details of his most recent donation show that he has received over £70,000 from X since his election to this place.

Given the international nature of social media companies’ revenue streams, the role that Elon Musk has attempted to play in US politics and the views that he has increasingly expressed about UK politics, we should ensure that there are limitations in place to prevent potential income from social media platforms from unduly influencing politicians. We know the way that the algorithms that these platforms use push content that evokes more feeling, because it drives engagement. Therefore, the more divisive and hate filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill that would address that issue and I would really welcome Government support for them.

It is also worth noting the number of times that various Members who have already been mentioned today have spoken in this place in their role as an MP. For the hon. Member for Clacton, it is fewer than 50 times in two years, including points of order and supplementary questions—considerably fewer than any other party leader.

As others have already mentioned today, some MPs have a second job related to a previous career. Within these walls, there are people with vastly different career backgrounds, from veterinarians to police officers. There is a vast difference between being an MP who maintains a medical licence, continues to practise at the Bar or keeps up their professional registration in nursing or social work, and being an MP who treats this Chamber as little more than a platform for personal enrichment. We should be honest about that difference, because members of the public already are.

The Lib Dems do not feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs; we do not believe that that would be the right answer. It would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament—that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians.

However, the people of Hazel Grove did not elect me to pop in here occasionally while moonlighting for a string of corporate sponsors. Many of my constituents rightly expect high standards and some of them have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians. Most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove wrote to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign based billionaire. My constituents elected me to do things such as fighting for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted, pressing for better rail services, and holding this Government—any Government—to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch.

We saw scandal after scandal under the last Conservative Government, from the resignation of Owen Paterson to partygate. Public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we are still paying the price for that failure. Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they do not go far enough—for example, MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, That clearly recognises that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs, but it is not a full solution. The Liberal Democrats have long supported broader reform to the rules for MPs’ conduct. We should not end up in a situation where MPs are marking their own homework.

I welcome the aims of the Modernisation Committee, but it was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in a debate on the motion that established it, yet the Government have so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including in relation to second jobs. I welcome any update from the Minister on when we might expect some progress.

Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our areas and our constituents. This is not a part time role, and that is the standard that this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.

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.

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?

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.

The shadow Minister is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy. Could he expand on what seems to be his view that Members of this House should be treated differently from serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants and other public servants for whom there are restrictions on taking outside commercial jobs in addition to their core role? What does he think is different about Members of Parliament?

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.

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 remind Members that direct criticism can be made only on a substantive motion. The particular language or assertion was perhaps not appropriate.

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 thank every single Member of Parliament who has contributed to the debate and the Minister for her constructive and encouraging response. The message from the debate to the public is clear. Many of us understand and believe that when Members of Parliament chase corporate cash, they are not only short changing their constituents, but undermining our democracy. That is a very serious matter indeed. Trust and public confidence in politicians, Parliament and our democratic process has never been lower. We have a historic duty to turn that around. That means change. It means, among other things, banning the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs.

I look forward to passing the Minister a copy of the Bill I drafted back in 2022. It is a full, comprehensive plan. I also hope to speak to the next Prime Minister about that plan, because it could be part of a new era. It could be part of a fresh start to show that we are not all the same, that we defend our democracy and that we believe in public service and a better kind of politics. I thank every single Member who has contributed to the debate and you for chairing it, Mr Western.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members.

Sitting suspended.

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for regeneration in Reddish.

It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you and other colleagues, Mr Western. I thank everyone who has contacted me regarding the status and future of Reddish library and Reddish baths, and more widely about investment across Reddish. The strength of local feeling on the issue is clear.

Reddish grew rapidly during the industrial revolution as canals and railways brought cotton mills, engineering works and brick making industries to the area. In 1901, it was officially incorporated into the borough of Stockport. Following industrial decline, many factories closed, and today Reddish is mainly a residential area with a thriving community. Reddish is new to the Stockport constituency following parliamentary boundary changes in 2024. I am proud to represent the area.

I welcome the fact that this Labour Government have increased central Government funding for Stockport council: by 2028-29, Stockport’s core spending power will rise by 7.5%. However, that is below the average increase for English councils. I have consistently called on the Labour Government to deliver the fair funding that Stockport deserves after years of under investment. The uplift marks a clear change in direction compared with the coalition years, when Stockport was hit by deep austerity cuts. I call on the Liberal Democrat run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously.

I am delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting rightful attention in this place. Does the hon. Member agree that it is genuinely disappointing that although the Government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and have overall, Stockport has been short changed? He will know, because it is in his constituency, that Stockport is the least well off part of Greater Manchester, yet because we missed out on extra funding by 0.1%, services will have to be cut. That was a decision of this Labour Government.

In meetings with the hon. Lady I have pushed the Government for more funding for Stockport, and I just mentioned that the Government should go beyond what the 7.5% increase will deliver. I agree that more deprived and lower income areas across Stockport and Greater Manchester deserve more attention; we cannot have a one size fits all approach. As a politician, I will make political points, but I hope she sees that my voting record and my record in Hansard show that I do what is best for Stockport.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am happy to take an intervention from Northern Ireland.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he is absolutely right to press for his constituents. Does he agree that whether we are talking about an urban, industrial town like Reddish or a rural community, for instance my Strangford constituency, the foundational rules of successful regeneration remain exactly the same? Regeneration requires targeted central Government support, modernised infrastructure and revitalised high streets, so that people can live, work and thrive in their home towns. The hon. Gentleman is pressing for that. I support him, and wish him well.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is extremely important to invest in our high streets and have thriving high streets with independent local businesses, as well as thriving district centres. We are lucky that Reddish has a wide range of fantastic independent local businesses, as I will mention later.

As I said, I call on the Liberal Democrat run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously, and nowhere is the need for fair investment clearer than in Reddish. Stockport council must not continue to overlook its needs when allocating funding. Reddish faces many issues, including serious health inequalities. In Reddish the average male life expectancy is 78 and the average female life expectancy is 83. That is lower than other parts of my constituency, where the average male life expectancy is 81 and the average female life expectancy is 84.

Residents have consistently raised concerns with me about ageing infrastructure, a lack of high quality public facilities and the lack of investment in the area. The people of Reddish deserve good quality public amenities and facilities, and better infrastructure in key green spaces like Reddish Vale and North Reddish park. Under the previous Government, many residents felt forgotten, while more affluent areas of Stockport benefited from sustained investment. Sadly, this is continuing under our Liberal Democrat controlled local authority. It is purely a political choice, just as austerity was. Can I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives for five long years, delivering truly regressive policies such as austerity, the bedroom tax and much more?

A Reddish resident told me recently: “It feels like Reddish is a cash cow, the residents pay lots in and get absolutely nothing in return.”

Across my constituency, there has been a string of failures by Stockport council. Grand Central swimming pool, which has provided this country with sporting champions, is in need of investment, with the future of its 50-metre capacity uncertain. Many roads across my constituency are in an unacceptable state, with potholes and ineffective repairs. Stockport Central library has been closed since September 2025, with no timetable or indication of when it will be reopened by the council. The bridge near Harrison’s weir in Reddish Vale is still out of action almost 18 months after it was severely damaged by flooding, with Stockport council producing no timeline for its repair. Charges in council owned carparks, including at Broadstone Road in Reddish where charges were recently introduced, are hitting residents and small businesses hard.

Turning to Reddish Baths, the site includes the disused baths building, the former community centre and fire station, and Reddish library. The 1908 buildings—library, fire station, baths and mortuary—are thought to be the only configuration of their type in the UK. They were a gift to the people of Reddish on joining the county borough of Stockport and are considered by some to be a symbol of the esteem—or the lack thereof—in which Reddish is held by Stockport council. Reddish Baths closed in 2005 and has stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together, allowed young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill and served as a much loved facility. Despite that, Stockport council currently has no firm plans to reopen or reinvest in this historic building. I want to pay tribute to Reddish North councillors Rachel Wise and David Wilson, who work tirelessly for the wider community and have done lots of work with me on this issue.

I recently ran a community survey in Reddish, asking residents to share their views on the future of Reddish Baths. Almost 1,000 residents responded, offering crucial insights into the community’s opinion: 86% of respondents placed swimming or fitness facilities in their top three preferred future uses for the site; 50% selected youth activities and services; 43% chose a community café or meeting space. The strongest guiding principles were promoting health and wellbeing, preserving historic architecture and expanding youth and family services. Some 65% of respondents want a plan that brings together the library, baths and community centre into a single, multi use community and cultural hub. The most frequent expressed hope was clear: reopening the baths.

Many respondents referenced childhood memories, the loss of local pools and frustration at seeing a valued building left unused. There is also a strong desire for a shared community asset that serves all ages. However, residents also raised concerns that future plans could be too expensive for local people, exclusionary for low income households, older residents or young people, run in a way that limits genuine community access or harmful to the site’s heritage. Some residents also expressed distrust of Stockport council due to previous delays and failed plans. I contacted the chief executive and the leader of the council to reopen engagement on the future of the bath site. I am grateful to the chief executive for visiting the baths with me a few months back. Across five facilities in Stockport borough, the public supply is 2,648 square metres of water. To meet the recommended supply of 12 square metres per thousand of the population, Stockport would need another 990 square metres, meaning that there is currently a clear water provision deficit.

Not only has Reddish lost its baths; we also have serious issues as Grand Central swimming pool in our town centre. Sport England has been less than helpful with my inquiries, which is highly disappointing because it receives a huge amount of funding from British taxpayers. Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening looking at the 2024-25 statistics, only 73% of year 7 pupils can swim 25 metres competently, and just 67% of children aged five to 16 can swim 25 metres unaided. That is 30,000, or 3.5%, fewer children than in 2017-18.

Turning to libraries, only 19% of children and young people in the north west read daily in their free time. That is the second lowest percentage in England. Alongside this, research from the University of Liverpool suggests that 1.2 million residents in Greater Manchester could be digitally excluded, with around 450,000 residents being non users of digital technology. Reddish library was the first to have been purpose built in Stockport. It is also the home to the longest continuous library provision in the borough. Reddish library needs investment in its equipment, staffing and opening hours. The building itself is crumbling with a leaky roof. The library is a vital community asset, supporting people of all ages to learn crucial literacy skills and providing support for members of the community who are digitally excluded with free wi fi provision, computers and help with digital skills. Many people also rely on our library as a warm space.

I am concerned that the urgent works identified for the library have still not been undertaken, despite the importance of this facility to the local community. I have been lucky enough to hold surgeries at the library, and I remember during my last surgery a few months back that there were lots of buckets out in Reddish library catching the water that was leaking from the roof. It is absolutely unacceptable. It is also deeply concerning that scaffolding has now remained in place at Reddish library for over three years at a cost of over £26,000 to the taxpayer. When including VAT, that cost rises to over £30,000 paid by the people of Stockport.

I am so disappointed that Stockport council made a combined application for four libraries across Stockport borough under the libraries improvement fund, rather than prioritising areas such as Reddish, where the need is most urgent. Reddish north has a digital exclusion risk index score of 4.37 out of 10. That is much higher than other parts of my constituency, where the scores are between 1 and 2.

The local authority, Stockport council, could have made a decision to submit a one off individual application for Reddish library. However, Reddish was simply one of many bundled into one joint application, despite needing thousands of pounds to stabilise the roof in addition to the other issues that I mentioned. The council did not inform me of this application. Had they done so, I would have been more than happy to lobby the Government and the Minister on behalf of the council. However, communication with elected officials, whether councillors or MPs, seems to be really poor from Stockport council. I recognise and welcome the investment secured from this Labour Government for nearby Bramall Hall, in my neighbouring constituency of Cheadle, including £1 million this year in addition to the £1.6 million previously awarded. Many of my constituents feel strongly that Reddish has once again been overlooked.

To be clear, I welcome investment in all parts of Stockport, not just in my constituency. However, the Liberal Democrats should be honest and upfront about overlooking some parts of our borough and prioritising other areas. I am a proud trade union member and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank Unison members working in Stockport libraries and across Stockport council for all the work that they do and the vital services they provide to the people of Stockport. It has been noted that Reddish has fewer home library service users than other parts of Stockport borough with similar demographics. That is attributed, among other factors, to the extraordinary knowledge, diligence and care demonstrated by Nicki and Belinda, Reddish’s long serving librarians.

As we mark the National Year of Reading, I also want to recognise the outstanding work of organisations such as Read Easy Stockport, whose volunteers help adults improve their literacy and confidence. Facilities such as Reddish library play an essential role in supporting that work, but they need a roof that does not leak to do so.

I want to challenge the narrative being pushed by the Liberal Democrat council leadership in the local press. We are told that this Labour Government, who are trying to address the effects of the coalition years of austerity and cuts, have made a political decision on funding in respect of Stockport. Let me be clear: blaming this Government, who have been in power for less than two years, has become a convenient excuse for years of neglect in Reddish under the Liberal Democrats. The real question the people of Reddish and myself as the local MP ask is: why do some communities always seem to be at the back of the queue? Residents in areas such as Reddish can see the difference for themselves. They can see nearby areas getting investment attention, yet their infrastructure and public realm is left to deteriorate even further. If council leaders are prepared to speak loudly and publicly about funding shortfalls, they should also be prepared to explain their own choices. How have local resources been allocated? Which communities benefited the most, and why do some areas such as Reddish repeatedly feel overlooked and, frankly, invisible?

One cannot claim to stand for fairness while presiding over unequal outcomes; one cannot demand accountability from the Government while avoiding accountability for one’s actions—the “one” being the Liberal Democrat leadership at Stockport council. The leadership at Stockport council should stop looking for someone else to blame and explain to the good people of Reddish why their neighbourhood has been left behind.

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

I have limited time and am already running behind. I may give way later, if I can.

The people of Reddish are not asking for special treatment; they just want fairness. I ask that the people of Reddish get equal treatment, and the same investment and urgency that appear elsewhere in Stockport borough. If money is so tight, why does this neglect never seem to fall equally across Stockport borough?

As an MP, I expect my correspondence and freedom of information requests to be dealt with promptly. The fact that I have had to repeatedly chase responses from Stockport council is unacceptable, and it inevitably leads me to question the level of service that local residents receive. If inquiries from elected representatives such as councillors and MPs are not being answered in a timely manner, it is reasonable to be concerned about the responsiveness and accountability experienced by constituents.

I made a freedom of information submission on 23 April. Stockport council contacted me on 5 May to say that it was unable to respond within 20 working days and needed 40 working days. The deadline for that was 22 June, which has come and gone. Today is 1 July, and I have been told that I must continue to wait for the information. The council cannot even respond to FOIs in a timely manner, which is frankly unacceptable.

It would be remiss of me not to mention Lancashire Hill, a development built with the ambitious vision of creating a thriving community. Despite decades of challenges, it retains that strong community spirit today. Residents look out for one another and demonstrate remarkable resilience in the face of difficult circumstances. However, the buildings are clearly crying out for investment. Constituents regularly raise concerns about ageing infrastructure, unreliable lifts, damp and mould, security issues, antisocial behaviour, fly tipping and the need for major refurbishment to bring homes up to a modern standard.

Lancashire Hill is now recognised as one of the most deprived neighbourhoods not only in Stockport but in Greater Manchester, making its exclusion from recent Government regeneration and recovery grant funding all the more difficult to understand.

indicated assent.

My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), is nodding.

At a time when the Labour Government and the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation are helping to deliver 8,000 new homes, the case for investment in Lancashire Hill has never been stronger. Growth must be matched by fairness. While we build for the future, we must not overlook existing communities living in ageing housing and facing persistent challenges. Lancashire Hill deserves to share in that vision for renewal, with the investment necessary to modernise homes, improve the local environment and give residents the quality of life that they rightly expect.

Many constituents living on the Lancashire Hill estate feel that they deserve better, and I agree with them. I would welcome the Minister’s attention on the acute challenges facing communities with significant need. I invite the Minister—my good friend—to visit Stockport. I promise to take her to the UK’s only hat museum, which is in my constituency. I would also like to take her to Lancashire Hill to meet residents and see at first hand the issues and challenges facing the community, as well as the extraordinary community spirit that endures there. I want the Government to provide the investment needed to modernise that vital development, so that families can enjoy the safe, secure and high quality homes that they deserve. Stockport council also has a duty of care to the residents of Lancashire Hill, and I want the council administration to take tangible action for them.

Reddish is a fantastic area with so many wonderful community groups, charities and faith groups. Re:dish provides food, supplies and vital support for local people, the friends of Reddish south station campaign tirelessly and passionately for better transport links, and Houldsworth working men’s club, which was built in 1874, is an essential community hub. Community spirit in this area is alive and well. For last year’s small business Saturday, I ran a competition to celebrate the work of small businesses in my constituency, and the vast majority of nominations came from Reddish, including Reddish Ale, the Last Track coffee shop, Ozzy’s café, Johnny’s café and so many more. You and I are good friends, Mr Western, and you know that I like cider. On your next visit to Stockport, I promise to take you to Reddish Ale for a lovely pint of cider. It was great to see the community spirit coming together to honour their contributions.

I emphasise to the Minister that communities such as Reddish cannot be left behind when future funding decisions are made. The £20 million awarded to Brinnington through Pride in Place is very welcome, and I am so grateful to the Government for awarding it after years of decline and austerity under previous Governments, but it is essential that support is not concentrated in a few areas alone and that places like Reddish also benefit from meaningful investment.

Areas with high deprivation, ageing infrastructure and long standing under investment need targeted support if the Government are serious about levelling up opportunity and improving quality of life. If Stockport council’s Liberal Democrat administration is serious about addressing the country’s largest deprivation gap, it must ensure that all parts of our borough get a fair share of funding.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this debate, and for using this opportunity to highlight so powerfully not only the brilliant things about his constituency and Reddish, but the challenges that need to be addressed.

The regeneration of our towns and cities is at the heart of this Government’s core mission to deliver growth and prosperity in all corners of the country. Protecting and enhancing local areas, including vital community assets such as libraries, leisure facilities and health facilities, is central to that work. I know that that is felt particularly keenly in neighbourhoods across Stockport, including Reddish, which my hon. Friend has spoken about today. Too many neighbourhoods have been let down and left behind after decades of under investment and many years of austerity—areas such as Reddish have paid a heavy price. I know that political choices have to be made, but the consequences of the choices made in the austerity years are still being felt by people in Reddish.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the impact of years of decline has not been felt equally. That is why it is crucial that this Government are relentless in focusing on growth and regeneration to raise living standards across the country. By working in partnership to invest in and empower all regions of this country, we will kick start growth and work to address the imbalances that exist between and within regions.

Funds such as the local regeneration fund and the UK shared prosperity fund have helped local areas to regenerate, but there have been limits. I am pleased that residents in Stockport will have benefited from a number of schemes financed by both funds, including for new employment spaces, improved rail access and walking and cycling routes, all of which are aimed at bolstering the local economy, connectivity and public health. However, as my hon. Friend has said, too many legacy funds were pitting places against each other through competitive bidding, which led to places such as Reddish being left behind. Those funds are coming to a close, and the Government have been looking at how local projects are funded, introducing a longer term approach that provides sustainable and predictable support for local authorities.

The truth is that elected local leaders have the expertise on how to invest in their communities. Having served as a local council leader myself, I feel that very strongly, and I know that, regardless of political party affiliation, the interests of local communities are best understood by local leaders. That is why the Government have committed to a series of new devolved levers and flexible funds to regenerate places, including by introducing new funds for mayoral strategic authorities.

In its integrated settlement, Greater Manchester has been allocated £141 million of local growth funding over the next four years. That enables strategic, place based investment, meaning that money will be targeted where it is needed most, addressing challenges for areas that need additional support to get projects off the ground. We have also announced city investment funds, which will place money directly into the hands of mayors to deliver new housing and to get existing projects moving forward. Local authorities are, of course, essential partners in that work. We know that mayoral strategic authorities work closely with their constituent councils to shape priorities, as they should, including by co designing interventions and ensuring that funding reflects local need.

One example of new and locally led delivery is the Pride in Place programme, which I am glad my hon. Friend referred to. Over the next decade, it will deliver £2 million per year directly to the local community in Brinnington, which is just on the other side of Reddish Vale country park. As I say, local people know what changes are needed for their community to thrive. That is why decision making on how those funds are spent sits with local neighbourhood boards. They will decide how to spend that money, whether it is on local arts, culture, heritage, sports, parks or something else that they think is important for their community.

I strongly agree with the Minister’s point about local leaders being best placed to make decisions. However, does she agree that when £3 of every £4 of Stockport council’s revenue spending goes on social care for children or adults, the number of choices that the council can make is far too limited?

I entirely agree that local government has for too long been underfunded, and we are, as a Labour Government, having to respond to 14 years of deep austerity. Having spent 10 years in local government, I would want to see more if the pot were endless, but politics is full of choices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said. Before us is the choice being made by this Government to ensure that we target resources at the areas that need them most. Projects such as Pride in Place, and the record amount of money given to local authorities across the country, demonstrate that.

There is much more to do, which is why I welcome this debate. My hon. Friend has highlighted the need for more investment in Reddish. I was pleased to hear that, since the launch of the Pride in Place fund, really good progress has been made, but there is more to do, and I hear his strong representations.

I know that local services, including decent library services, are a lifeline to many people up and down the country, including in Reddish and other parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to the individuals he mentioned in his speech, some of whom contribute on a voluntary basis. If it were not for the voluntary sector, and for individuals who help communities through their activities, we would be much worse off as a country. I pay tribute to those individuals, as well as to local council officers who work in frontline services and care so deeply and passionately about things such as library services.

We all agree that regeneration and protecting community assets are important. Investing in services, particularly libraries, is crucial. So many communities up and down the country want to see more of that. The most effective way to enshrine the needs of our communities in regeneration, to ensure that it works for them, is to equip local leaders with the necessary skills and tools to make that happen, and to ensure that we give them the voice and the levers that they need. I am pleased to see progress in the borough of Stockport, not only through new flexible spending powers granted to the Greater Manchester combined authority, and new funds and announcements to generate growth in the city region, but from empowering the local community to deliver and enhancing areas through projects such as Pride in Place.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the co operation and co production of services and regeneration, with the leadership of Members of Parliament, residents, and local authorities—which, in my experience always have good intentions, even if we do not always agree with their political choices—is an opportunity to shape a local place. The Government’s approach recognises that different areas require different interventions tailored to local circumstances. We must not only focus on the immediate challenges, but continue to ensure that funding goes in the right direction for the long term.

I very much welcome and accept the kind invitation from my hon. Friend to visit Reddish and his wider constituency—I would be delighted to visit. I note that I was not invited to drink cider, but I shall invite myself to do that, too, alongside the visit to the hat museum. I thank him once again for securing this important debate and for being such a strong champion for his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Shelbrooke. I welcome the Minister to his place.

This debate is timely, because I am angry and offended by what the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is doing to our coastguard rescue officers. I believe that the changes being introduced, following the recent Court of Appeal judgment, risk hollowing out a crucial emergency service that is relied on by people in my constituency and other coastal and island communities around the country. I believe that the changes should be paused so that a proper and meaningful consultation can be held, and then brought back in a shape that respects the contribution and service given by coastguard rescue officers and secures the future of that service.

I want the Minister to understand just why this matters as much as it does, so let me take the House back to 8 December 1963, some 20 months before I was born. At 3 am on that date, the trawler Margaret Wicks, of Fleetwood, ran aground off the coast of the Mull of Oa, on the island of Islay. The report of that grounding from the time recorded: “The Margaret Wicks went ashore on the Mull of Oa, a wild isolated part of Islay where there are few roads”— one, in fact— “at 3 a.m. on 8th December. Within…hours, the Mull of Oa company, who live in a small isolated community about three miles away, were on the scene. Shortly afterwards the Port Ellen company arrived, having carried their life saving gear for two miles across very rough, boggy terrain from the road where they had left their lorry.

The trawler was hard ashore, close in under a steeply sloping cliff 250 feet high; and the Volunteer in Charge, Mr. John Lockhead, took his men down the cliff to a point about 20 feet above the bows of the stranded vessel, from which they carried out the rescue. A whip and breeches buoy was used, and within half an hour the first survivor was landed. The other 14 were brought ashore uninjured within the next hour. The Islay life boat and H.M.S. Hampshire were both lying off shore, unable to help because of the rocks which surrounded the wreck.”

One of the men who was part of the Mull of Oa company was my father. He and his friends and neighbours were awarded the Minister of Transport’s shield for best wreck service of the year for 1963-64, jointly with the Lerwick station in Shetland—for obvious reasons, I am relieved that it was called a draw. The rescue of the Margaret Wicks is part of my family’s story.

My father will celebrate his 95th birthday next month. I spoke to him about the rescue last night; he recalled it with total clarity and in great detail. He told the story not boastfully, but with a pride rooted in an understanding that this is part of what it means to be an islander or to live in a coastal community. Our communities produce fishermen and other seafarers, so coastguards and lifeboat volunteers go to those who are in difficulty and distress on our shores because, if it were necessary, we would want the same to be done for those about whom we care.

Of course, the modern coastguard service is very different from the one that my father was part of in 1963. Now, the crew of the Margaret Wicks would most probably be lifted by helicopter rather than by a breeches buoy, but the same sense of pride and duty motivates coastguard volunteers today as it did my father and his neighbours six decades ago.

I heard that same sense of pride and duty when I met CROs in my office in Orkney on Saturday—incidentally, we were in my office because I was not allowed to meet them in the coastguard station. I heard about the four days that they spent searching the coastline for a young monk who had gone missing from the monastery on Papa Stronsay. I heard from CROs in Shetland about the role that they played a few years ago when a winter storm brough catastrophic failure to the local electricity network, leaving parts of our community with no power for over a week.

rose—

I know of no CRO who gives their time and skills for the money, but the way in which they have received financial recognition in recent years has enabled them to make their contribution. That is especially true for the self employed: many paid by the hour in their day jobs will lose out financially. They knew that system when they signed up, but now it is being changed and they are expected to carry on as they did previously. That is not reasonable and does not respect the contribution that the CROs make.

rose—

I have spoken to you about taking interventions today, Mr Shelbrooke. So many people are in the Chamber that I am afraid I have agreed to take just one—from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who is running the drop in session. I hope that somebody has been counting and listing the people in the Chamber, to highlight the importance that we all attach to this issue.

It is critical that the Minister should understand what that sense of pride and duty means. I am afraid that the senior management of the MCA apparently have no understanding of it at all; their handling of the issue has been heavy handed to the point of being disgraceful. Instead of engaging and consulting, they have produced a scheme that fundamentally rewrites the contract between the agency and the CROs. As a result, we risk seeing CROs walking away from the rescue service, to the point of losing the critical mass of people needed to provide the service.

rose—

This is the intervention.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this really important debate. Does he share my concern that, from the Isle of Wight to Orkney and Shetland, the management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are showing a lack of heart and a callous approach when it comes to their problem resulting from the model that they have developed for how to protect our coastline? It seems that they are driven by their problem with HMRC payments, when they should be putting the coastguard rescue officers first—brave men and women working on the frontline to keep our country safe.

Possibly the least surprising thing that the House will hear today is that I agree with every word of that.

In my view, what is being proposed is so fundamentally disrespectful of CROs. Despite that sense of pride and duty and the importance of the service that CROs provide to coastal and island communities, we risk losing many who currently give service. Senior management in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—here, I single out the chief executive for particular criticism—are so removed from the service that CROs provide to communities that they are prepared to see it destroyed. Either they do not understand the people they are paid to manage or they do but are indifferent to the consequences of their actions. Either way, it is apparent to me that there is a crisis of leadership within the agency. That is what makes the issue a problem for the Minister.

The people who do understand the CROs are those whose job it is to recruit, train and manage them. Go back 10 or 12 years: the MCA made a strategic shift of resource away from coastguard stations to put extra into the training of CROs. Money was spent on better equipment and training for the volunteers. That took time, but it worked. I give the agency credit for what it did then. I have watched Dave Sweeney, my local coastguard operations manager in Shetland and Orkney, as he has built and shaped a network of teams across the northern isles. That has not been quick or easy, but it has worked.

It is the coastguard operations managers and their other full time colleagues who have been charged by the senior management of the MCA with communicating and driving the changes now being proposed. Since this debate was announced, I have been contacted by a number of them who have told me how the issue has been handled within the agency. That has been truly shocking and displays an organisation with serious cultural and management issues to address.

The representations have come to me in confidence and I shall share them, suitably anonymised, with the Minister after this debate. Suffice it to say that they lay bare a truly shocking approach to management that is based on a culture of bullying and a lack of respect for the people on the frontline. One in particular describes the manner in which the issue has been handled within the agency: “Every full time coastal officer in the UK has this week been called to a meeting led by the Assistant Chief Coastguards from Southampton.

These meetings were non negotiable, all FTOs”— full time officers— “must attend.

These meetings have taken place in secret, in hotel meeting rooms or MCA business suites.

On entering the meeting room, FTOs are informed that under no circumstances should any information be leaked from the meeting until July or we risk losing our careers.

FTOs are informed that they may not record or take pictures of PowerPoint slides nor take any notes on the shared information as this will all be sent out in due course.

Delegates at the meeting are demanded that they must and I mean ‘MUST’ toe the agency line that we are in support of the withdrawal of remuneration even if we do not believe in it or have moral issues with it.

FTOs are told that we must deliver the message to all Coastguard Teams in the UK and must not deviate from the message.

We were told that if we did not agree with the policy then we must get over it or risk losing our jobs…One Assistant Chief Coastguard stated ‘you can get on the bus or join the party, or you can get off and leave the service’ thus insinuating that our full time jobs are at risk if we do not do as we are told…We raised a concern that we will need to work extra, we were told to ‘just suck it up’ by one Assistant Chief Coastguard.

We asked if extra hours and evenings incurred overtime and were told absolutely not. We are working over our 37 hours for free all because the UK Government have made a decision and we need to deal with the consequences.

Another Assistant Chief Coastguard shouted at delegates because we all asked too many questions”.

That is the position in which these changes are being driven. For as long as I have known it, the MCA has been a body with challenges, but the situation that has been described to me is on another level altogether. To undertake changes of this nature and scale in this way is unacceptable for any public body. To risk leaving coastal and island communities with no resilience in moments of crisis is not just unacceptable but unconscionable. That is why I make this earnest plea to the Minister to intervene. Pause what is being done, bring in someone from outside the service to examine in short order the way in which these changes have been made and communicated, look at the culture within the service, and work out how to recognise the work that CROs do in a way that is compliant with the law and respects their efforts. It cannot be beyond the wit of man.

The chief executive has failed to engage with volunteers since the remuneration announcements, and appears to be having leadership struggles at the top with other senior officers. This is an issue that matters beyond measure to communities such as ours. I hope the Minister will hear our simple ask. I hope he understands from the sheer number of people here today the importance that we attach to it and acts accordingly.

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

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.

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?

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—

Order.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and introducing it so very well.

In Burnham on Sea, we have a fantastic coastguard team and rescue officers. They are dedicated volunteers who respond to incidents along one of the most challenging stretches of coastline in the country. The Bristol channel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the risks are very real. When people get into difficulty, it is these volunteers who respond, often within minutes. Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation that they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham on Sea coastguard team, who are deeply concerned about what that means for their future involvement.

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

I agree with the hon. Lady: I think those volunteers have been poorly treated.

The payments were never a salary, but they made it possible for people to continue volunteering. One officer of many years, who shared his thoughts with me, said: “Call Outs never come at a ‘convenient’ time. The money we earn would never replace the time lost, but it does soften the blow.”

It is often said that rescue officers do not volunteer for financial reward but out of a strong sense of duty and community spirit. However, the modest compensation recognised the very real costs involved: travel, time away from work and the disruption to family life.

I understand that the MCA must operate within the law, and that the Court of Appeal ruling has created a complex situation. It is, though, sad to see these committed volunteers penalised as they have been. I urge the Government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer coastguards and would be grateful if the Minister addressed these questions when he sums up. What assessment has been made of the impact on recruitment and retention? In constituencies such as mine, a reduction in volunteer numbers would have a direct impact on public safety. Is the Minister satisfied with the MCA’s engagement with volunteer coastguard teams? I end by thanking the coastguard volunteers in Burnham on Sea and across the country.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I pay tribute to the brilliantly dedicated and inspiringly selfless coastguard rescue officers across the country, but particularly those who operate in my constituency—at Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh. They are represented in the Gallery today.

For my constituents and the many visitors who come to our area to experience our brilliant and beautiful coastline, the coastguard makes a vital contribution to the emergency services’ ability to keep people safe. I recently met a number of volunteer officers from the Folkestone and Romney Marsh coastguard rescue teams. They attend hundreds of incidents a year, including cliff rescues—we have the white cliffs of Dover; sadly, people sometimes jump off them: it is necessary to address what is going on at the top as well as at the bottom—as well as missing persons. There are all sorts of circumstances in which the police or the fire brigade cannot or will not reach people, so the CROs perform a vital role as part of the emergency services.

My constituency neighbour and I share a coastline, and we know the important work that CROs do. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that they must be valued as the emergency service that they are, especially as more extreme weather events mean that they are more needed than ever?

I entirely agree. That is absolutely key. A coastguard officer said to me that the money they get helps to offset some of the costs, but I think this phrase sums it up: “we do not do this for the money; the money means we can do it.”

Other Members have talked about sacrificing family time; one officer said to me that he once left a wedding to attend a call out. That is the level of bravery and commitment that these individuals are showing every day. The approach that the Maritime Coastguard Agency has adopted is not the way to treat them.

If we remove the recognition in those payments, I, like the CROs I have spoken to, think it is obvious that availability will fall, resilience will decline and our coastal rescue services will simply start to disintegrate. That will put lives at risk. I echo the point made by others: the MCA has dealt with this in a very heavy handed way—it seems entirely procedurally irregular. The MCA has serious questions to answer about how it has gone about this.

My questions for the Minister are similar to those posed by other hon. Members. Does the Minister know whether the MCA has modelled the likely reduction in volunteer availability following the proposed changes to remuneration, particularly for high demand response teams such as those in Folkestone and Romney Marsh? If so, can we please see them? Does the Minister know whether the MCA has carried out a safety impact assessment, and whether that will be published? Critically—this has been raised by others—what meaningful engagement does the Minister know the MCA has had with unions such as the GMB and with serving officers? Are the Government open to reviewing the proposed model of employment and the removal of the call out fee for CROs in the light of that dialogue?

Finally, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I ask for the implementation of these changes to be paused so that we can understand the impact on volunteer capacity. Ultimately, we have to maintain the standards of the service and the good will of those who volunteer every day to keep people safe. That is in the interests of the country and of all those who put their lives on the line for that service.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for how he opened it.

With 23 inhabited islands, innumerable uninhabited islands and an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency has 22 coastguard stations—more, I believe, than any other constituency in the UK. On behalf of everyone in the House, I want to say a sincere thank you to those dedicated, highly skilled and incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives at sea working out of Kilchoan, Kames, Salen, Coll, Tiree, Tobermory, Craignure, the Ross of Mull, Colonsay, Jura, Port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crinan, Tarbert, Gigha, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh.

Across my vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of those coastguard stations are already understaffed. They have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is, because of the low availability of suitable candidates. The MCA’s plan to strip these vital volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will be another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in these rural areas.

I add my voice to those of the growing number of people not just protesting against the MCA’s decision but calling on the UK Government to become directly involved in the dispute and to use their influence to force the decision to be paused, to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place, so that a fair and equitable solution can be found.

Whether they like it or not, the UK Government have a hugely important role to play. Although the decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department for Transport and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Should the Government not intervene and pause the MCA’s plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place, they will have to accept that serious consequences will inevitably follow—not just for morale or recruitment and retention, but for public safety.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this important debate.

In 2024, Fleetwood and Lytham’s coastguard stations were officially recognised as the busiest in the UK. Only four days ago, Fleetwood coastguard rescue officers spotted around 20 teenagers out in the sea in Bispham. While some were able to get themselves out of the water safely, others were struggling. Coastguards then rescued three of the children, who were taken to hospital. Without our heroic coastguard, it could have been a lot worse.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to maintain the legal volunteer status of coastguards by removing their remuneration. That will have a terrible impact on my community, and it cannot be allowed to happen.

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 do.

To make things even worse, according to the GMB, members were informed of the removal of the payment by a WhatsApp message. We all know that coastguards are not motivated by financial reward; they come into this role to serve their community, protect our residents and save lives. Coastguards in my constituency have told me that they already lose income from their main work, as call outs are often late at night and during working hours. They also miss out on time with their loved ones because they are keeping our community safe. Removing their remuneration is unsustainable for our coastguards, and we cannot afford to lose them.

Coming from Falmouth in Cornwall, I know that coastguards and the brilliant work they do are crucial. May I suggest a potential solution for the Minister to consider, whereby HMRC agrees some sort of disturbance or disruption allowance that volunteers can claim? We have to ensure that coastguard volunteers can continue doing this vital work.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I am sure that the Minister will look at that suggestion—well, I hope so, anyway.

One coastguard wrote to me stressing that removing this support risked affecting availability, recruitment and retention. They warned that we might lose capacity in people and in skills that would take years to rebuild. I have written to the CEO of the Maritime Coastguard Agency to express my concern and I call on the Government to ensure that a sustainable remuneration model is found. We owe it to our coastguards to get this right.

I will be grateful for answers to the following questions. First, have the Government considered options that would allow for remuneration while complying with employment law? Secondly, how will the Government ensure operational resilience if large numbers of coastguards leave, and has an impact assessment of that happening been made? Finally, do the Government believe that it is sustainable to rely on volunteers who receive expenses only?

Diolch o galon i holl wylwyr y glannau am eu gwaith. [Translation: Heartfelt thanks to all the coastguards for their work.] The economy of Gwynedd is highly dependent on tourism, especially our coastal communities in the Llŷn peninsula and on the Meirionnydd coast, as well as in the uplands of Eryri. To give a snapshot of the impact on population numbers, the year round population of Abersoch in Llŷn is 600, but that increases to 50,000 in the summer. The volunteer rescue services and the salaried blue light teams are under immense pressure to deal with these numbers, even as things stand. Keeping the public safe under such pressures requires a close knit response from people who know their local coast and country like the back of their hand, who are prepared to turn out at short notice and who are fully trained to bring a professional response to an ever changing environment and hazardous challenges.

Gwynedd has eight coastguard stations at Aberdaron, Abersoch, Bangor, Barmouth, Criccieth, Landwrog, Porthdinllaen and Tywyn, and there are at least 80 volunteer coastguard rescue officers in the county. The coastguard rescue teams at these stations provide essential emergency response capability along the Welsh coastline, including search and rescue, missing person operations, flood response, and cliff and mud rescues. They co ordinate with North Wales police and transport police, North Wales fire and rescue service and the Welsh ambulance service, and with volunteers from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and mountain and cave rescue teams. They even attended the Talerddig train accident in 2024, where there was a fatality. The public do not distinguish between the services. They see emergency responders, they see uniforms and kit, and they trust them—sometimes with their lives.

Portsmouth coastguard rescue officers responded to 171 incidents last year, and I rise to express my admiration of them and of the coastguard rescue officers in the right hon. Member’s constituency. Does she agree with me and my constituents that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency had a number of options available to it, but it chose to blatantly ignore those options and instead put the burden on the shoulders of the CROs and their families, which is just not good enough?

I agree entirely. A CRO suggested to me that we should look at the model for retained firefighters. I wonder whether that is something the Minister might consider. Obviously, there will be issues with that model, but other models have been suggested by the CROs.

I have already cited the evidence showing that we need CROs. Now, let me pass on what they have told me about the proposed changes. Teams will be put under extra pressure when—not if—some members cannot attend incidents because they will be out of pocket, whether they are working or for another reason. The exact same issue will arise in respect of essential training sessions. We risk losing officers with decades of experience, skills and local knowledge. Emergency response times will increase when neighbouring teams are called in because local officers are not available; we already know that that happens with the fire service on occasion. Recruitment will be hit as new team members are required to do 10 days’ training without remuneration. This will reduce the pool of people who can afford and are willing to do this work. CROs already feel isolated and ignored; their morale will fall even further.

I will also quote what one CRO told me, and I have been careful here because CROs do not want their names to be put on the record. We have already heard that they are being threatened by their management, which is frankly appalling, although it gives us a role here as MPs to say the words that really should be coming from their own mouths. This CRO told me their work involved “People sacrificing time that could be spent with family to go out in all weather, at any time of day or night, to carry out all manner of rescues, from a dog on a cliff to recovering dead bodies.”

That is what these people do.

I have already tabled written questions about whether the Government have assessed how many CROs are likely to leave the service, the impact on public safety and the long term sustainability of the coastguard if it were to operate on a wholly volunteer model. The Government have not provided any answers to those questions. I therefore ask them again to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his response. Diolch yn fawr.

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.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

It is important to me that this is my first contribution in this place, having arrived only last week, because the first email I ever had from a constituent was on this very matter. I have been inundated with similar emails since. That demonstrates the importance of this issue to so many of our constituents, which many others have mentioned.

In my coastal constituency, a coastguard station in Arbroath proudly serves the stretch of coast between Montrose and Dundee; it is fundamental to the safety and protection of those in peril all the way to St Andrews. It is a busy corridor, and the coastguard works closely with RNLI stations in Arbroath and in Broughty Ferry to save hundreds of lives every year.

The volunteers who dedicate their time and lives are so much more than volunteers. They are members of our community—mine and everyone else’s—who work day in, day out and deserve to be respected for that. Coastguard teams not only respond to traditional maritime emergencies but, as many have said, are increasingly called to incidents involving, for example, people experiencing severe mental health distress, including vulnerable individuals at risk near coastal areas, bridges, cliffs and waterways, which my constituency has in abundance.

This very real decision has very real consequences for people’s lives, and constituents who have spoken to me do not feel it has been handled with adequate respect or seriousness. At a time when communities, including mine, are facing pressures on mental health services, reductions in community outreach provision and increased demands on emergency services, the coastguard is becoming an essential part of the crisis response service. Does the Minister accept that highly trained responders who are being relied on to undertake complex, distressing and lifesaving interventions cannot simply be viewed as casual volunteers? In coastal communities such as Angus, losing experienced CROs will affect not just rescue capacity, but the wider safety nets available to people in their darkest moments.

Morale in my CRO team in Arbroath is exceptionally low. My constituents have conveyed to me that they feel this process has been done to them, not with them or for them. The two questionnaires circulated—“badly drafted” questionnaires, as they put it—were the only basis on which they were able to convey their concerns. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that changing the status may have on recruitment, retention and the resilience of the coastal emergency response? Those are the key questions that my constituents have.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate.

As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset. Whether they are locating missing and vulnerable people, responding to injured climbers, walkers and sailors or, tragically, recovering those who have lost their lives, coastguard rescue teams across South Dorset are highly skilled and essential to keeping local people and visitors safe along our Jurassic coast. That is why I am incredibly concerned about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s changes to volunteers’ remuneration following the handing down of Court of Appeal’s judgment earlier this year.

Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether. Those concerns were powerfully illustrated to me by one of my constituents, whose family have served in the service for more than 150 years across five generations. His recognition and bravery were rewarded and recognised with a Queen’s gallantry medal in 2017. Despite that lifelong commitment to the coastguard rescue service, he told me that the proposed changes could leave him unable to dedicate the time and effort that he once did.

I urge the Minister to consider carefully the concerns of coastguard volunteers in South Dorset and across the country. I fear that without action and direct intervention, the real impact of these changes will be devastating for coastal communities across the country. That is painfully clear from their stories. We all know that the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is wholly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand. For all these volunteers, we can and must do better.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for once again speaking up for coastal communities. I speak today on behalf of the brave, dedicated and selfless coastguard rescue officers not just in my beautiful constituency of Strangford, but right across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We should remember that this change will have an effect across all the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. A Northern Ireland coastguard rescue officer contacted me to say: “I am not writing out of personal financial interest”

but “because I care deeply about the future of a service that has protected lives for generations”.

Does the hon. Member agree that their voices need to be heard?

That is the whole reason why we are here. We are their voice in this place for them.

From Portavogie down to Ballywalter, all around the shores of Strangford lough and the Irish sea, the people of Strangford know the dangers of the sea. Our volunteers put themselves directly in harm’s way to protect complete strangers. They are the very pinnacle of noble public service. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who frankly feel insulted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to strip away their remuneration completely, following the recent Court of Appeal ruling. The removal of the remuneration sends a devastatingly wrong message to those who give up their time, often at a moment’s notice and in the dead of night, to respond to life and death emergencies. They balance their lifesaving responsibilities alongside their regular day jobs, family commitments and community involvement. Remuneration provided by the MCA was never, ever viewed as a luxury. My fear is that the heavy handed withdrawal of payments will absolutely decimate morale. What will it do to recruitment? What will it do to retention, when our coastguard teams are already stretched to their limit safeguarding lives?

I have great respect for the Minister and this is in no way a personal attack, but I do have some questions. With the greatest respect, what assessment has his Department made of the impact that this policy change will have on volunteer recruitment? Will it just wait until a station cannot turn out to an emergency because it cannot retain staff? What alternative mechanisms are being looked at to ensure that these officers continue to receive appropriate recognition and support for their vital work? We need solutions. We look to the Minister to give us those solutions. We seek nothing less for our constituents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, as we debate an issue that matters so deeply to communities in South East Cornwall. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

Truthfully, this debate is about people. It is about those dedicated coastguard rescue officers who leave family dinners, children’s birthdays, Christmas day celebrations and their homes in the middle of the night to respond when somebody else is in danger. They are often the first on the scene when someone is trapped on the coastline, caught in mud, stranded on a cliff or at risk of rising tides. They do not consider whether it is a convenient time; they simply respond. Some descriptions of their role simply do not reflect that reality. I have heard the role publicly described as being only a few hours a week in a volunteer capacity, which does not speak to the sleepless nights and multiple call outs.

Officers have talked to me about the hours spent at incidents in really difficult conditions, including in my own village very recently. They talk about mandatory weekly training, travelling at their own expense and giving up significant personal time to maintain the skills that save lives. They are highly trained emergency responders carrying out category 1 response work. They understand the spirit of volunteering and public service and many are proud to give their time in that spirit, but they also carry legal responsibilities; they wear the uniform of a Government agency and they respond as part of our blue light emergency response system. The appropriate measure to deal with that must be engaged with.

I want to address remuneration. Officers question why training can be unpaid, why they often travel at their own expense and the impact that might have on family finances. They want to do this job in the spirit of volunteering but they must be recognised. I ask the Minister not to view the issue through just one lens but to engage with them, perhaps visit me in South East Cornwall and undertake discussions in that spirit, which is so important for our communities.

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

You know me too well!

I do know my right hon. Friend too well. I also warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an excellent first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate.

The coastguard service is clearly critical to a constituency like mine, with more than 150 miles of coastline across west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There is a lot of heritage. The National Coastwatch Institution was established in 1994, following the tragic deaths of two local fishermen whose boat sank off the coast of the Lizard peninsula, within sight of the recently closed coastguard station at Bass Point. Although the National Coastwatch Institution provides a vital volunteer service, it does not in any way replace the coastguard.

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

My hon. Friend is right, and I will come to that in a second. I want to share quotes from some of many CROs who have been in contact we me. One said, “Many CROs…make considerable personal financial sacrifices in order to respond to incidents. Whilst nobody joins the coastguard for financial gain, the current remuneration helps offset the real costs associated with responding, including loss of earnings, disruption to employment, interrupted family life, loss of sleep and the wider impacts that emergency responses can have.”

Needless to say, many of the CROs in my area are self employed. Others say that on this occasion the bosses have “made us all redundant and re employed us as volunteers.”

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about using the model of retained firefighters, who are recompensed through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call outs, and specific disturbance fees. That is a good model for the MCA to look at seriously.

I gave the Minister advance notice of a large number of questions, so I will summarise some of them. What level of consultation was undertaken with CROs prior to this announcement? What alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI, have been considered? What workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact on retention and availability? What operational safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experience, skills and leadership capability? What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels? In terms of viability, how has HM Coastguard satisfied itself on public safety? What impact assessment has been undertaken of the resilience of the future of coastguard rescue teams as a category one emergency call out?

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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate on an issue that concerns those in my constituency. The south Essex coastline is one of my constituency’s greatest assets—beloved by residents, depended upon by our fishing community and a magnet for the more than 7 million day visitors who flock to Southend alone each year. But as beautiful as our coastline is, it can also be treacherous, from unpredictable tides to shifting mudflats.

Protection from physical danger requires specialised skills, a rapid response and a deep local knowledge. The Southend on Sea coastguard rescue team covers roughly 70 miles of coastline, and its 11 volunteers are the reason why our community can safely enjoy locations such as Shoeburyness’s east beach, the marshes of Wallasea island and, of course, Southend pier. Rescue officers, those who—

Order. I call Edward Morello.

Thank you, Sir Alec. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this important debate on what is, frankly, an outrageous and insulting decision by the MCA. I also pay tribute to the amazing work of the coastguard rescue officers in Lyme Regis, West Bay and across the country. I recognise the extraordinary sacrifice they make when they drop everything to respond to emergencies and save lives.

As has been said, no one joins the coastguard for the money, but that small, modest payment helps to soften the substantial financial impacts that they incur. My CROs tell me that it helps cover the cost of a family meal to say thank you for sacrificing time together; it replaces the sunglasses broken while performing CPR; it helps to compensate the children for an abandoned cinema trip; it helps to recognise the Christmases, birthdays and family gatherings that are missed because they are out on a cliff or in the sea, in the middle of a rescue, when the rest of us are at home. It is not a salary; it is recognition.

I believe this Government must find a way to square the circle of the court’s judgment with properly recognising the sacrifice that these heroes make.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for opening this debate and for bringing attention to this important matter. I will keep this brief, as most points have already been raised.

CROs have contacted me on this matter, and there was a real strength of feeling about how they have been treated. In my constituency we have members of the coastguard rescue service across Ardrossan, Cumbrae and Largs, and it is a very busy service. CROs told me that they take pride in their vital role for the community, and feel that they should be able to continue to claim an hourly remuneration.

I will just add that coastguard rescue officers perform safety checks and maintain equipment, as well as supporting the emergency services, searching for missing people, rescuing people who may be trapped on cliffs or drowning, and often dealing with people in difficult and distressing situations. It is only right that all that should be reviewed.

For coastguard rescue officers, remuneration provides recognition of the sacrifices that they and their families make: the nights away from home, the cancelled plans, the annual leave taken for training and the loss of income as a result of having to go out and answer calls.

These coastguard teams are not built overnight; skills in search and rescue, casualty care and water navigation take years to acquire. Local knowledge, local experience and team cohesion are impossible to replace. If experienced coastguard rescue officers leave, those capabilities cannot simply be replaced.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on smaller and more remote coastal communities, where recruitment is already challenging. For the Jurassic coast, that might mean the team at Beer having to become dependent on teams at Exmouth and Lyme Regis. When an emergency occurs, the public do not distinguish between those organisations and others.

We are a proud seafaring nation—as John Evelyn put it, the “sea is England’s element”—and the coastguard stands as the nation’s eyes and ears along our shore. The west Somerset coast runs along the north of my constituency and, in the Bristol channel, we have the second highest tidal range in the world.

I ask the Minister, on behalf of my constituents who now face greater vulnerability as a direct result, on what basis the decision was made. It looks like negligence, but I fear that the blame lies squarely with the MCA. These CROs show extraordinary courage in the line of duty, and, as we all know, “With courage, nothing is impossible”.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. This weekend, I watched the coastguard rescue a kayaker very close to my house. I spoke to the coastguard, who brought me up to date on the situation. There are two things to say. First, it is clear that the MCA management has made a right mess of this. It should listen to the petitioners and put its plans on hold. Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether he has discussed the volunteer fire service’s terms and remuneration with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and whether, for example, an honorarium, a stipend or another of its policies could be adapted?

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Beachy Head in my constituency is, regrettably, one of the most visited suicide spots in the world. Every year, brave coastguards such as Mark Francis in Eastbourne recover bodies from those cliffs and intervene at the cliff edge. Their presence is often the difference between intervention and inquest. That is why I am outraged at the proposed changes that threaten to decimate our coastguard service and threaten lives. I urge the Minister, on behalf of not only our brave CROs, but the bereaved Beachy Head families, to pause the changes, to object to the MCA’s short sightedness and to ensure that our CROs get the support that they deserve and that our communities need.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He truly is a champion that coastal communities like mine can rely on to stand up for them. In terms of miles of coastline per square mile of constituency, he is surely in the top three most qualified Members to speak on this topic.

I begin by expressing my gratitude and admiration for the work of the volunteer coastguard in North Norfolk and across the country. These brave teams go out to situations many of us could not dream of handling and save lives on a regular basis. As the weather improves and tourist season approaches, there will no doubt be more and more call outs in the coming weeks. Because of their hard work, those enjoying our coast are much safer. It is also worth making clear that, whatever the outcome of these new changes, we will still have a coastguard; there will be people willing to protect us, and this issue should not scare people away from visiting our coastline.

Ahead of this debate, I did something that I fear is too rare in politics; I went out yesterday to speak to the people to whom this issue matters the most. I had several back to back phone calls with coastguard rescue officers based in some of North Norfolk’s five coastguard rescue teams. Our coastguards have a fascinating range of backgrounds and experiences. They have a fantastic diversity of skills and careers that contributes to their excellent teamwork.

What was striking, and I think this has to be at the heart of our consideration, was that one chap said to me, “I’ll be honest with you, Steff, I didn’t even know that we got paid when I first applied”. I heard that again and again, and I have also heard it from right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The motivation for being in the coastguard is so far from financial that many did not even know that they would be remunerated. Even so, having financial support to cover lost hours of work means that coastguards have the confidence to volunteer more and attend more call outs. Remuneration supports lost working time, but also the cost of those missed meals with the family because the pager went off and the plans cancelled so that they can spring into action. It is far from huge recompense—about £30 for a call out of three hours or less—but it helps. It makes it viable for more people, it enables people to give up more of their time to volunteer and it makes the service more resilient.

We desperately need people to attend call outs. One coastguard told me that when he started volunteering, his team received around 30 call outs. Last year, it was 150. Another team told me that they had had just shy of 200 call outs and were well on track to beat that this year. The coastguard is a vital service to my area and at this peak season it handles multiple call outs a day. A gentleman I spoke to told me he was called out three times on Saturday; after a full week at work, he then sacrificed much of a day off with his family to save lives on our coast.

It is also not just lifesaving rescuing that the coastguard carries out. The coastguards I spoke to told me that their role often includes keeping the public safe from unexploded bombs uncovered on our beaches. It is a wait of many hours for the bomb squad to arrive in my constituency from Colchester, during which time it is our coastguard who protect and secure the scene. It is an arduous task and not a glamorous or thrilling one—but would any Member prefer it if we just left bombs sitting on the beach and hoped for the best, or drew down on limited rural police resources instead?

I am not showing up just to complain at the Minister; I have a lot of time for him. Without having explored other avenues first, I too have spoken to the chief exec of the MCA, as have colleagues, and I do not feel reassured by what I heard. I asked the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, for answers when she came before the Transport Committee last week, and I was equally not reassured. It is worrying when those at the highest level behind such a decision simply cannot provide adequate answers or reasons that make someone like me, who lives in and represents a coastal community, truly believe that the future of our service is as safe as it needs to be.

I have some asks for the Minister and I hope he can oblige. From my discussions with coastguards, I understand that two questionnaires or surveys were put before them around the time of the court case on potential changes in remuneration. Can he place copies of them both in the Library of the House, along with the summarised results? The MCA has relied on legal opinions for its claim that the court decision means it has no choice but to take this approach. Will he publish those also? The Government say that there will be a transition period to assess the changes. Could they assess the changes before launching into that period? Otherwise, it feels rather like a fait accompli for those volunteers.

The plans seem half baked at best and penny pinching at worst. The coastguard is a vital emergency service that the Government seem to think is not worth investing in, and that is wrong. In my community, most people are more likely to call on a coastguard than a copper, but the Government would be seen as barmy if they suggested any pay for police by their mileage. I have seen some poor choices from the Government in my couple of years here, but this one has made me the most worried.

I truly think that the MCA and the Government have not realised what they are doing. They have heard some legal advice and listened to some Treasury bean counters, and decided that our service cannot be supported. As they have heard today, that is just not good enough. There is time left in the Prime Minister’s reign for one more U turn; I urge the Government to make it this one.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing today’s debate—quite a feat, given that the Department for Transport was not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He managed to secure a debate on an issue that has caused serious concerns not just for our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us; I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a seat about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England.

The changes to the renumeration of coastguard volunteers have raised fundamental questions about the future of the service, as we have heard clearly from across the House today. I thank my colleagues who have attended the debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the coastguard. Those colleagues included my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who has had to go to run the drop in event. I welcome his informative comments on the process in the main Chamber, given his constituent’s role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right.

The question of how the coastguard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the coastguard has played a central role in that over centuries. We must preserve the lives of those who are in danger and support our coastal towns and cities, where upholding safety is a priority. That brings us to the issue underpinning the debate: what happens if we no longer have those volunteers? We know that the 3,000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public; it is integral that they remain part of the service.

For as long as the coastguard has existed, there have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the coastguard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy. It included payments and allowances—a salary of £10 for a chief boatman and £5 for a commissioned boatman. As volunteer servicemen entered the system, the Government provided support to the coastguard and to volunteer lifesaving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the Department conduct internal reviews of the role that auxiliaries should play in the service compared with those working full time.

The relationship between the state and the coastguard has changed throughout the years along with the evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring that people can volunteer, while maintaining incentives so that the coastguard is able to operate effectively. Worryingly, the decision that was accepted by the Government, stemming from the court case, completely alters the relationship that has been put in place.

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.

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

On resuming—

Back from the Division break, we can think about the possible impact of the court judgment and the Government’s decision. I put it to the House that it is crazy that the Government have made this decision affecting our brave coastguard rescue officers. We face the prospect later this year of huge numbers of our coastguard personnel leaving because the Government have failed them.

I appreciate that the Minister has reiterated in multiple written answers that this was not a decision that the Government wanted to take. It was taken after a recommendation from the MCA; after engagement through the MCA with the coastguard rescue service—although on the basis of speeches earlier in the debate we can question the veracity of that—over previous months on the implications for the service; and after further conversations with area management teams, senior leadership visits and national representative forums, as well as two all member surveys, which played a direct part in understanding the impact of the models upon the service.

It is important to reflect on those remarks, because while they show on the face of it that steps were taken, I am unsure of the level of consideration they demonstrate. The Government seem to have sought to understand the models but reverted to the simplest option. There needs to be a comprehensive explanation of the thought processes within the Department. Let us consider the action stemming from the legal decision. What steps were taken to establish a path forward? Can the Minister explain how much time the Government took to analyse the legal decision and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate?

I acknowledge that the Minister has said that the suggestion came from the MCA and the Government accepted it. However, the MCA’s annual report for 2024-25 highlighted a lack of legal resources within the organisation. To quote one of the priority concerns listed in the annual report, the MCA said that there is a “lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change – the ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce lawyer resource. The Agency continues to work with the Department for Transport Legal Team to ensure that it can access necessary resource. Progress is being made but the risk remains current.”

I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that remains the case, because the issue of remuneration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could have consequences for legislation. If the MCA was considering the issue with the Department for Transport legal team, is it right to frame this as a decision merely stemming from the MCA? What legal resources were provided by the Department, and what work did its officials undertake to consider alternative options? I hope that the proposal did not merely stem from the Department’s own legal team.

Furthermore, the Minister’s previous responses referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I have missed something, the Government have failed to publish significant analysis of the decision’s impact on volunteer numbers. From the outside, the Government seem to have chosen not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and their full reasoning. That exacerbates worries among hard working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay but get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. That is reflected in the comments of the anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would “damage morale and weaken the service”.

I say all this recognising that there is no simple option for the Government, but we cannot ignore the fact that they have taken a decision with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of the change, I ask the Minister whether there is anything that can be done to delay it while the Government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified.

Meanwhile, the Government have known the outcome of the case since January. The judgment on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages; since then, we have not seen anything as detailed from the Government. They should have anticipated the decision from the court, and we believe that they need to put together a solution that does not cause droves of people to leave our coastguard service. The current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved.

Across the House, it feels like it has been lost on the Government that they have significant powers available to them and they should use those powers to achieve the best outcome for the British people. In this case, that should mean maintaining the existing system until they are confident that they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our coastguard.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this debate to the Chamber; I am sure you agree, Sir Alec, that it has been a useful one informed by honest exchanges. I want to be clear with hon. Members and with the CROs who I know will be watching the debate about how we got to this moment and what happens next.

For those observing the debate who might be wondering exactly who we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are. Put simply, they are the people who are there when we need them most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. CROs could rescue us or our loved ones if we are trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud or struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable, recovering people who it has not been possible to save in order to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I personally thank them all for their service.

I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition; I am sure that his words will have been heard and appreciated. Some 17% of CROs are now members of the GMB. The threshold for voluntary recognition by the agency would be 10%. As a Labour Minister, does he agree with me, a Liberal Democrat, that this would be a good moment for the MCA to recognise the GMB as a union for CROs?

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else.

I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.

The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter.

The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution.

A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post incident follow up.

Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.

I know that the Minister is responsive to our requests, so will he take the time to speak to the regions, particularly Northern Ireland? We have the same issues, but we sometimes feel at a distance.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.

The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.

Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?

I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks.

If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out of pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.

Might I gently suggest that it would be easier for colleagues to understand the Government’s conclusions on this advice if we were able to see it? Would the Minister consider placing a copy in the House of Commons Library, along with the two surveys that I believe were undertaken?

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.

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

Those considerations and how they would affect the lives of CROs are not immaterial, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying they are. It is my understanding, although I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, that to transpose that relevant scheme into a wholly different part of the voluntary sector would have primary legislative implications. We would need to work through them; it could not be done simply by wishing to do it.

I have set out why the MCA was compelled to accept the court’s judgment. Having done so, it needed to take immediate action to comply. Based on operational judgments and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model, the recommendation was to move to a pure volunteer system that paid expenses, so that CROs did not have to choose between being a CRO and their primary employment. That was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option. As that decision has been communicated to CROs, it is only natural too that it would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve, which has been powerfully articulated today.

In the time since the decision was made, I have listened to and reflected on the points made by colleagues, including during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impact of this change on the operational capacity of the coastguard rescue service. I hope that I have gone some way to addressing those concerns, but it is important to recognise that the alternative—moving to a worker model—would require a fundamentally different model and would likely lead to CROs having to leave the service, which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions; I have to get through my remarks.

It is about impact assessments.

I have given way plenty of times.

This is a complex challenge that we must all work through together. We do not want employers to be unable to continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see CROs tangled in a mire of employment obligations that make the choice of going to a rescue a difficult one. We all understand that the court judgment changed the legal status of CROs, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems they face, and in fact could create many new ones, but we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers. We have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed, and fellow Members for their excellent points. I assure them that the debate has resonated strongly with me. I will reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised. I have heard the deep concerns of the CRO community, and I want to carry on working with them, trade unions and colleagues across the House in the future to work through these issues. I thank everybody for their contributions today.

Apologies for de knighting you earlier, Sir Alec. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate and recognise in particular the contribution from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird). We welcome her to the community of Westminster Hall.

I did not remember to count early enough, but I think that we had at least 32 Members of Parliament in this Chamber at the start. In addition, I had indications from the hon. Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that they would have been here also.

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.

I am bereft, Sir Alec. I do hope that nobody goes back and looks at the footage of me when I was inadvertently leaving my jacket open in that manner.

As I was saying, a number of other Members wanted to be here. I listened to the Minister. He is telling me—telling us all, in fact—that the problem is the law, and I am thinking to myself, “My goodness, if only there were something that the Government could do about the law.”

I do not honestly know what the answer is—I am not without sympathy for the position in which the Minister finds himself—but I do know what it is not. It is not to take away the terms and conditions that people have served under up until now and to treat them with the utter disregard that the chief executive and the senior management of the MCA are displaying. I again suggest to the Minister that we need to pause this, work it again, properly, talk to the CROs in a respectful and engaging manner, and then come back with something that focuses not on the process argument that we have heard and that we understand, but on the outcomes, because the outcomes for our communities, if we do not get this right, will be catastrophic and I do not want that to be happening on my watch.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers.

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.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the adequacy of early years funding in Hampshire.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. A Hampshire nursery manager recently told me: “Sometimes the funding arrives so late that we are genuinely worried about making wages.”

That sentence has stayed with me, because it captures something that the national conversation about “free childcare” too often misses. The question is not simply whether Hampshire has enough childcare places on paper. It is also whether every family can access suitable, affordable and high quality early education and childcare when they actually need it and whether providers have the funding and workforce to deliver that sustainably. Those are two very different questions, and today I want to address them both.

Let us be clear about the scale of the pressure that the sector is under. Providers are being hammered by rising costs: increased employer national insurance contributions, rising energy costs just to keep the lights on, business rates and more. One nursery provider in my constituency of North East Hampshire told me that their liability insurance had risen by 19% this year alone, and that was on top of a 59% jump in business rates.

Department for Education analysis published in May found that on average providers took in just £1.01 for every £1 that they spent in 2025, and nearly half of providers reported income that fell short of covering their costs. I am aware that one nursery in my constituency is required to subsidise the Government’s funded offer by more than £51,000 in this academic year alone. It cannot be right that a sector that is already operating on wafer thin margins is left to absorb more and more tax rises.

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. She is right to highlight the funding shortfall, which is present across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is forcing nurseries to close, driving up childcare costs and stopping parents returning to the workforce. Does she agree that the Government need to make this issue a priority in education to ensure that children are educated and parents can cope with the pressures that they are under?

Yes, I absolutely agree; that is a precise summary of the current position. When we think of early years, most of us automatically think of nurseries, but in many areas of the country, and especially North East Hampshire, many families rely on local childminders. Earlier this month, a constituent of mine, Lorna, told me that after almost 26 years of running her childminding business, she must close it because of mounting financial pressures. She has loved the job, but the lack of any promise of a better financial future has left her with no choice.

Every ambition that we hold for this system—more places, better outcomes and proper support for children with additional needs—depends on a stable, skilled and well supported workforce. Parents do not use the language of workforce policy, but they feel its consequences all the same, including in high staff turnover, longer waiting lists, reduced flexibility and the particular difficulty of finding a place for a child with additional needs.

A Hampshire nursery manager put the underlying cause to me plainly: rising costs have not come with a matched uplift in the funding rate. Staffing alone accounts for three quarters of costs in the early years sector. That leaves early years settings particularly exposed to sudden changes, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions. Providers cannot compete for the experienced senior staff necessary to deliver high quality support, and high staff turnover leads to higher training costs.

Every parent stuck on a waiting list is living with the downstream consequence of a workforce crisis that starts with underfunding, and Hampshire reflects many of the challenges in microcosm. It is a large county, spanning urban, rural and coastal communities. Hampshire county council’s childcare sufficiency assessment points to the same challenges: expanding supply to meet the extended 30-hour entitlement; tackling recruitment and retention; and ensuring that rising demand does not squeeze out children with special educational needs or from disadvantaged backgrounds—the very children who stand to gain the most from a good quality early years setting.

Free childcare makes for a great headline, but it has to be deliverable. As of September 2025, the county council projected that Hampshire would need an additional 2,100 childcare places in wards where supply is already limited just to meet the promise of 30 hours a week. This promise is not all it is made out to be. The figure of 30 hours is based on term time care only, so for those parents who work full time, that is spread out over 52 weeks, not 38. The rate for three and four year olds that is paid to settings is lower than the cost to provide the service, so those paying for additional hours are, in effect, subsidising the free provision. For those families who are barely getting by, with high living costs and stagnant wages for their own work, it is often more expensive for both parents to work. That is not good for our economy.

As with any business, cash flow is key, and providers across my North East Hampshire constituency tell me that they are paid in arrears, with funding for a month’s care landing in the last three days of that same month, compared with other counties that pay before the month even starts. So Hampshire nurseries are covering an entire month of wages, rent and bills with private fees. When that is combined with low or no profit margins, it sets the scene for instability and uncertainty. Young children, working parents and childcare providers all need stability in the sector to thrive, but the circumstances are far from ideal for that.

Nowhere is the funding gap starker than for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Before entering this House, I served as a school governor and ran a charity supporting children and young adults with Down’s syndrome and their families, so this is an issue I have seen up close from both sides of the school gate. Providers tell me that the pathway to secure support is long and difficult to navigate. By the time a child is identified, their needs are often already very high.

What funding does arrive frequently pays for only an enhanced ratio, which is no substitute for the one to one specialist care that many children need, and staff often lack the specialist training required. Indeed, in my previous line of work, it was the charity that stepped in to provide the training—a service with the uncertainty of being funded solely through donations and simply not available everywhere in the country. A child’s future should not be a postcode lottery.

Investing in our future generations is the best investment we can make, for them, for families and for society. That is why Liberal Democrats are calling for early years providers to be exempted from the rise in employer national insurance contributions. Hampshire’s early years providers are not asking for handouts; they are asking for the funding that was promised to arrive, to be enough and to be on time. A place on a spreadsheet is not the same as a place a family can use. A free hour that no provider can afford to deliver is not free at all. Our children’s futures, and those caring for them, deserve nothing less.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members who are present. I will start by also thanking all the wonderful staff who work in early years settings in her constituency and across Hampshire. They do a brilliant job and give all our children the best possible start in life. They deserve all our thanks and recognition.

The hon. Lady made a number of fair points that I will address in my speech, but I will say at the outset that for the first time in a long time this Government have prioritised the early years. We have put record investment into the early years, with £9.5 billion next year. We have stretching targets to ensure that record proportions of children are ready for school. We are opening Best Start family hubs across the country and network sites, encouraging integration between our local services and early education providers. Through our best start in life strategy, we are determined to have the back of providers, ensuring that the workforce is brilliantly supported to continue doing such a fantastic job for our children and young people. It was important to start my remarks by situating us in that important context.

I will move on to my substantive speech and address the points that the hon. Lady raised. The Labour Government have delivered a record expansion of free childcare, halving childcare costs for families, boosting family finances and improving children’s life chances, driving towards record proportions of children being ready for school. Not only are we saving working parents thousands of pounds, but we are giving every child excellent early education, which they will need to thrive later.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she agree that there is genuine excitement and joy from families when they see the benefits of this investment? She and I have both witnessed that in our community in Reading. The Government are building on a great tradition in that local authority; I wish other local authorities invested to that extent.

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving me the opportunity to thank the fantastic early years staff in my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire and across Reading, who do a brilliant job for our children. As a constituency MP, as well as a Minister, I know that giving every child the best possible start in life is so important for their future life chances. If we get it right in the early years, it makes a transformational difference as they grow older.

The work we are doing is thanks to our brilliant early education sector, which has worked tirelessly to deliver the large expansion of childcare, making it such a success. We have a responsibility to ensure that the sector is financially sustainable to deliver the entitlements and high quality early years provision. That is why we are investing record amounts in early education and why, through our proposals, we have the back of the sector. In 2026-27, we expect to provide over £9.5 billion for the early years entitlements, more than doubling annual public investment in the early years compared with 2023-24. We are investing over £1 billion more than last year to deliver a full year of expanded entitlements and an above inflation increase to entitlements funding rates.

The national average funding rate increases continue to reflect the forecast cost pressures on the sector, including the national living wage, and they take into account the wider workforce pressures felt by the sector that the hon. Member for North East Hampshire mentioned. On average nationally, we have increased the three and four year old hourly funding rate by 4.95%, the two year old hourly funding rate by 4.36% and the funding rate for the nine months to two year old entitlement by 4.28%. That investment, alongside the hard work and dedication of countless colleagues in the sector, means that working families are saving an average of £8,000 a year.

There has also been a benefit in Hampshire from those rate increases. The rates set for Hampshire have seen increases of 3.6% for three to four year olds, 2.9% for two year olds and 2.8% for under twos. That means that Government paid rates for Hampshire are £6.38 for three to four year olds, £8.73 for two year olds and £11.81 for under twos. That compares relatively favourably with average rates, which are marginally above those figures. This demonstrates, I think, our commitment to properly funding our early years settings to continue to deliver on this vital mission.

Hourly rates vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and the different costs of delivering provision across the country. Those rates are calculated using the early years national funding formula, which is used to target funding to local authorities where it is needed most. We believe that that approach is fair, efficient and transparent. Of course, we keep funding rates under review, and I assure the hon. Member that the team will have listened carefully to her points today. She may also be interested to know that, as we committed in the best start in life strategy, we plan to review early years funding and consult on changes to how we distribute that funding. I would welcome her contribution to that review. The consultation will begin imminently, and I ask her and everybody here today to encourage their constituents to feed into it.

We are also investing to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds and with additional needs to ensure that every child, no matter their circumstances, has the best start in life. On top of the largest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium in 2025-26, this year we increased early years pupil premium rates by 15%, equivalent to up to £655 per eligible child per year. We also expect to spend over £90 million on maintained nursery school supplementary funding in 2026-27. The best start in life strategy sets out our plan to boost uptake of the 15-hour entitlements to two, three and four year olds by working with local authorities and family hubs and tracking data through the local outcomes framework.

The hon. Member for North East Hampshire mentioned the vital issue of SEND. To support children with SEND, a further £47 million is being provided in 2026-27 to support greater inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities as part of our three year £1.6 billion inclusive mainstream fund. That is on top of mandatory SEN inclusion funds, through which providers can access support for children with early and emerging needs in their settings. Through the disability access fund, eligible children can also receive £975 per child per year to support reasonable adjustments.

Early years settings will also benefit from a dedicated early years offer within a £200 million national training package and access to specialist advice from health and education professionals through Experts at Hand. I assure the hon. Member that we are working tirelessly on this vital issue to ensure that every child with additional needs gets the help and support they need.

The hon. Lady also talked about the vital importance of the workforce. We know that we must invest in the workforce to ensure the best possible future for the early education system in this country. That is one reason why, earlier this month, we launched a £4,500 payment to attract and retain qualified nursery teachers in the communities that need them most, starting in 10 areas and expanding to 30 later this year. The scheme will boost outcomes for children and allow more families to access their funded childcare entitlement. Alongside that, we committed in the BSIL strategy to continue supporting the sector to grow and professionalise, and I assure Members that work on that is continuing at pace.

Our record expansion of childcare means that the Government now fund around 80% of childcare hours in the country, which is a remarkable figure. In effect, it means that we have created a new public service, and we must ensure that that public service is working for providers, parents and children. We announced at the autumn Budget 2025 that the Department is leading a review of early education and childcare support, provided by different parts of the Government. Our review will set out a new vision for the early education and care system—one that builds children’s life chances and supports parents’ work choices, and one that is simpler and easier to use for both providers and parents, improving access and the impact of the Government’s investment in children and families.

I look forward to engaging with colleagues from across the House as we make progress on that review. I also look forward to engaging widely with the sector, which is wonderfully diverse. It is important for me to say at the Dispatch Box how much we value the many private and voluntary nurseries that are operating at a brilliant level to provide such a great service for our children and young people. They will be at the heart of the review and of any future system.

I conclude by thanking all Members for their thoughtful contributions. It is clear that we share a common goal to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life and that every family can access high quality, affordable and flexible childcare. Despite our record funding, I recognise the challenges faced by some in the sector, particularly the costs that providers face and funding distribution. That is why we are continuing to work closely with them to refine our funding approach through consultation and to always make sure that we are listening, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Hampshire. Through our consultation and review, we can ensure that our early education system fulfils the ambition that we all have for it. This is about more than childcare; it is about opportunity and life chances. I remain confident that, working together, we can deliver a system that truly meets the needs of every child and every family.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

[Relevant document: Seventh Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2024-2026, Resetting the relationship with fishing communities, HC 680.]

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Alec. The rich fishing and coastal heritage of my constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is second to none. My constituency is home to Europe’s largest whitefish port at Peterhead and Europe’s largest shellfish port at Fraserburgh—the largest is not Bridlington, as some people claim. My constituency’s corner of the north east of Scotland is a key part of our nation’s fishing industry, and a significant part of the industry in these islands.

That is why I was so keen to invite the Minister’s colleague—the former Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—to Scotland and to extend that invitation to my constituency. I hope that you, too, can accept that invitation when your diary allows, so you can then see this historic industry with your own eyes and meet the experts who nurture and maintain it against myriad challenges during these volatile geopolitical and economic times. I hope, too, that such a visit will be valuable in understanding why there is such disappointment and anger at how the fishing and coastal growth fund has been allocated in Scotland, which has less than 8% of it—£28 million out of a £360 million pot.

Let us put things into perspective. The Scottish fishing sector represents over 60% of the UK’s total fishing capacity, contributes over 60% of the UK’s seafood exports and lands more than 75% of all UK quota species. If the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), otherwise known as the presumptive Prime Minister, is really serious about the devolution of power and decision making, seeing growth in every postcode and putting hope in every heart, let him look at this issue. Let him listen to Councillor Ann Bell, chair of the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership, when she says: “A fair allocation would, at minimum, be consistent with the 46% share Scotland previously received”

from European Union funds.

Why is there still so much anger about all this in Scotland and in my constituency? Because this Westminster Government tried to blame the Scottish Government for the Barnettisation of the fund. So we submitted a freedom of information request asking the Scotland Office to show us where in its discussions that had been asked for. This is what we got—and I have six pages of this.

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.

Thank you for that clarification, Chair. I have six pages of almost entirely redacted correspondence, so it is clear that somebody does not want us to see these things.

In subsequent correspondence between the Scotland Office and the chair of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, it is admitted that this was a Treasury decision in 2024, not a Scottish Government decision. It is admitted that the allocation in no way reflects the size and strength of the industry in the north east of Scotland, but the Under Secretary of State for Scotland says she is too busy to meet the chair of the SWFPA, Jimmy Buchan—too busy. Perhaps in the forthcoming reshuffle she might find herself less busy.

Adding insult to injury, allocating this paltry pocket money to Scotland over 12 years means that Scotland will receive only around £2.3 million per year in additional investment. To say that that falls short of what is needed is to put it mildly. If the UK Government had engaged fully with the industry in Scotland, as well as with the Scottish Government, they might have been made more aware of that. The Minister here today now has the opportunity to put this right.

Another expert in the industry, Mike Park, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, has also called the allocation unfair and indefensible. He adds: “Scottish waters are bearing the brunt of the 12-year EU fisheries access extension”, which was negotiated by the UK Government, and that “the use of the population based Barnett formula fails to reflect this reality…with communities left carrying the burden with only a fraction of the support they deserve.”

This is not about tribal politics; nor it is about scoring points in this Chamber. This is about fairness and the lack of it in terms of support for our fishing industry in Scotland.

I was pleased to note the excellent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Resetting the relationship with fishing communities”, which was critical of how the fund had been allocated and recommended that the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on the design and allocation of the fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year 2.

In common with my colleagues on the all party parliamentary group on fisheries, I look forward to the forthcoming sectoral action plan being co ordinated by the former Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I would like to add my own recommendation that the ideal way to ensure better engagement in Scotland would be to support reinstating the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group, as suggested by former Scottish Government Fishing Minister Mairi Gougeon, something which the Scotland Office endorsed. Collaboration with those in this sector will be invaluable in resetting relationships and an opportunity to understand a further pressing problem on how one size most definitely does not fit all when it comes to fishing’s labour shortages.

That brings me to the UK Government’s reluctance to have a Scottish bespoke visa for our catching and processing sector. Fishing in the north east is affected by major labour shortages. The knock on impact to growth and building a successful and prosperous future is very negative. I am currently in an unsatisfactory game of email ping pong with the Department for Work and Pensions about its insistence that skilling up domestic labour is the answer to these shortages.

Let me share some reality with the DWP and the Home Office. The north east fishing industry cannot get local people to apply for these posts or, when they do, to stay in post for more than one shift, despite strong financial and career incentives. The flip side is that international workers are commonly keener to stay the distance once they are trained up—a costly endeavour for already stretched businesses. This is not just a Scottish issue; just ask my colleagues from other parties. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows exactly what I am speaking about in relation to Northern Ireland.

On another front, Ian Gatt, the chief executive of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association points out that the ongoing situation with quota shares of mackerel between coastal states is yet to be resolved, despite efforts by UK and Scottish Governments to secure an agreement with the four coastal states. That is crucial, because mackerel is the most valuable to Scottish fisheries in terms of tonnage. The autumn negotiations are therefore crucial for Scotland.

All those issues point to the need for the UK Government to play a far more supportive role with the Scottish fishing industry. To do that, they need to listen to industry concerns, rebuild trust and boost economic growth, and they need to do so with policies that rise to the challenges outlined and that reflect solutions to the realities that they face. It is just not good enough to bypass the sector, override the Scottish Government and play funding games with invaluable investment. The time for a more positive reset is well past due.

The Scottish Government’s support for our fishing industry is extensive. Since the launch of marine fund Scotland, £70 million has been awarded to almost 400 projects across Scotland, enabling total investment of £154 million—everything from supporting new entrants, the onboard observers programme, the promotion of Scottish seafood, safety training, covid-19 recovery funding for 855 vessels, emergency harbour repairs and much more. Targeted economic link measures have, for example, led to an additional £58 million worth of mackerel and herring being landed in Scotland, helping to drive record landed values at Peterhead port. There is much more to be done, not least in terms of harbour renewal and expansion at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Those are the kinds of capital projects that need co operation between our two Governments in the interests of both Scotland and the UK.

I should be grateful if the Minister could address the following four questions, either in his closing remarks or in correspondence at a later date. First, can our fish processing industry colleagues be included in the energy intensive industry scheme? The former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), was pressing hard on that point; I lobbied her strongly on it, and she understood. Secondly, does the Minister understand that the current Home Office approach to immigration is creating unintended consequences for our fishing industry, and will he lobby for a bespoke visa scheme that provides solutions, not problems?

Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the Scottish industry that the European Union will not use the forthcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export?

I completely agree that the funding settlement is inadequate and unfair for Scottish fishermen, but will the hon. Member confirm that the SNP policy is to rejoin the EU and then rejoin the hated common fisheries policy?

I have no brief to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. Of course, our policy is very clear: we want to rejoin the European Union, because Brexit has been a disaster for the Scottish economy. However, I do not believe that we want any of the worst effects of the common fisheries policy.

Finally, can the Minister support the re establishment of the Scottish seafood industry action group and actively investigate doing so?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I especially thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for his opening of the debate. It is a real pleasure to work alongside him in addressing the issues of visas, quotas and many other things that he referred to. He and I have had separate meetings with the Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). The Minister today, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), may want to engage with him on the visa issue. I think we had quite positive meetings with the Immigration Minister about a way forward, and I thank him for that.

I will speak specifically on the Northern Ireland fishing sector. In 2024, it generated some £50 million in landing values, employed 445 people full time, and supported some 6,500 jobs ashore across Northern Ireland’s rural and coastal communities. The impact of fishing in Northern Ireland is massive, as it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and across all Scotland. Fishing is woven into the very fabric of Northern Ireland’s identity—culturally rich, diverse and shaped by a maritime heritage that stretches back to the 14th century, when Northern Irish vessels supplied fish throughout Ireland, across the British Isles and into European markets.

The importance of the long term survival of the Northern Ireland fishing industry cannot be overstated. Fishing is at the heart of the cultural identity of coastal communities. Without fishing, these communities lose their soul, identity and pride. I represent the village of Portavogie in Strangford. I do not represent directly the villages of Ardglass and Kilkeel, but they are represented by a Member who does not attend Parliament. On behalf of them, through the Anglo Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation, I represent all three ports.

The Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish sea’s available fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas, proposed bans on bottom towed gear, rapid offshore renewable development and new restrictions imposed by the Isle of Man authorities. The Northern Ireland fishing industry has lost nearly 9,000 km of fishing grounds in the Irish sea over the last couple of decades, through a combination of marine protected areas, active and consented wind farm developments and other spatial restrictions. That is more than half the land area of Northern Ireland, and it is threatening the sustainability of the remaining fishing grounds through displacement of fishing effort into an ever decreasing area.

The industry has two greatest spatial concerns. First, there is the ongoing Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs consultation on management measures restricting bottom trawling in marine protected areas in the Northern Ireland offshore region, which strengthens a further loss of key fishing grounds for the nephrops fleet.

Secondly, there is the issue of UK skilled visas, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East referred to. The Northern Ireland offshore area is crucial to the fleet, particularly to those vessels with crew employed via the transit visa mechanism, who can only fish outside territorial waters. That refers specifically to the loss of access to the Isle of Man waters for all Northern Ireland vessels with any crew on transit or UK skilled worker visas.

I am very pleased to see the Minister. He always gives us helpful responses, and we will test him again today. I ask him again to engage with the hon. Member for Dover and Deal, who came up with some ideas that I think the industry is sympathetic to. As you will know, Sir Alec, life as an MP is about solutions. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and I believe that there is a solution, so we would be very keen to see the hon. Member for Dover and Deal’s suggestions taken up as a way forward.

I urge the Government to support a balanced planning system that protects fishing and our fishermen as a legitimate food producing industry vital for the UK’s fishing industry. Access to Isle of Man waters for Northern Ireland vessels with any crew on transit or UK skilled worker visas has disadvantaged us greatly, so we are deeply concerned about that.

The Northern Ireland industry wants to work with the Home Office to co design a visa system that is fit for purpose, that meets the needs of Government and industry and that delivers a sustainable seafood supply chain for the future. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and I, along with others in the Chamber today, wish to work with the Home Office to co design a visa system that is fit for purpose. To do nothing puts at risk an industry that is at the heart of Northern Ireland’s coastal communities, which provides jobs, delivers economic growth and is core to the cultural pride and identity of local fishing villages.

Oil prices have been a real bugbear for the sector back home. Although oil prices are now starting to come down, the increase in the cost of fuel has had a significant impact on the operating costs of fishing vessels and therefore on profitability. Before the Iranian war, fuel represented between 15% and 30% of operating costs. The price increases during the war meant that fuel prices rose to 50% of operating costs, which is quite unsustainable.

Fishing communities in Northern Ireland that have already faced decades of disruption now face a series of simultaneous pressures that threaten their long term viability. Fishermen confronted with such changes are left with profound uncertainties that exacerbate financial stress as well as mental health issues for them and their families.

Food security and economic security will depend on the ability to maintain a sustainable fishing industry in Northern Ireland. With the right foresight and with a committed cross Government policy, we all believe that the industry can sustain itself, remain productive and remain, as it has been for centuries, the cornerstone of the communities that have long lived along our coast. If we ignore the concerns of the Northern Ireland fishing communities, our rich and irreplaceable heritage could be lost.

I know that the Minister will never ignore us, but we will make sure that he does not. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for introducing the debate. I look forward to hearing from other Members, including the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), who has become quite a regular in Westminster Hall today. I congratulate her: it is a real pleasure to see that, having made her maiden speech yesterday, she has come to Westminster Hall twice today. I had better watch out.

Well, with an introduction like that, I call Lara Bird.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a tough act to follow, as always. Thank you, Sir Alec, for chairing this debate; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing it.

Many Members across the House have spoken out in support of the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland—I know that because I followed the issue closely before I came to this House—but I must pay tribute specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for being such a consistent champion and for ensuring that the difficulties and challenges that fishermen and women face in Scotland, in his constituency and mine, continue to be raised in this place.

My coastal constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has a proud fishing history, as do the constituencies of many Members in this Chamber. In its heyday, it was one of Scotland’s busiest fishing ports, with 40 boats landing white fish and shellfish in the late 19th century. Overfishing led to fishing quotas, however, and from the 1970s that led to a steep decline. That has had an impact on the town of Arbroath: not just on the fishermen and women and their families, but deeper into the economy, the businesses and the surrounding industries that rely on fishermen and women. That is something that we are still really feeling today in Arbroath: the last boat to catch haddock or cod, which was once the town’s prize catch, stopped sailing in 2013, so most of the famous Arbroath smokies are now made with haddock landed 90 miles north in Peterhead.

This is a theme that many of my constituents have raised with me—not just those who do the fishing themselves, but other businesses that rely on the fishers in Arbroath. As well as being a core fishing industry in Arbroath, we are also a deeply proud fish and chip community. The impact on that industry and the hospitality industry of the lack of UK Government support for the fishing industry is deeply felt in my constituency. In this debate, I want to briefly address that side of the impact on the fishing industry in Scotland, because we cannot separate the experiences of the fishing sector from the experiences of the hospitality sector. In my constituency, they are one and the same.

I feel compelled to say, in my second debate today, that I am proud that Arbroath has what I believe to be the best fish and chips in Scotland and therefore the world, but the experiences of my constituents who are trying to run viable businesses that rely on the fishing industry have been very challenging. Even in the past week since being elected to this place, I have had so many emails and letters from people in my constituency who rely on the fishing industry and who say that they are absolutely at a loss. They are so concerned about what was once a proud industry in Arbroath and its future, not least because of the lack of support that they feel is coming from this Labour Government.

I asked the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) whether the SNP policy is still to rejoin the EU and rejoin the hated common fisheries policy. He failed to answer that question. Could the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) try to answer it?

As the hon. Member is undoubtedly aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is not able to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government, and neither am I. But the hon. Member will be aware that our policy is very much to rejoin the EU, and that rejoining the EU will mean support for the fishing industry that is currently unavailable because of the Conservatives’ policy of pulling out of it. One thing my constituents have raised to me is that they face challenges with exports and support for their industry that would not be felt if it were not for the damaging consequences of Brexit. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to the hon. Member to hear me say that.

I will continue by explaining the recent experience of one of the businesses in my constituency. The Bellrock is famous for its fish, not just in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry but across Scotland: folk come from all over to experience its fish suppers. The fish it uses used to be caught just off the coast of Arbroath, but the owner of the Bellrock told me recently that the price of the fresh fish they buy has increased by over 30%. That is mainly due to higher fuel costs—another matter that the current UK Labour Government are unwilling and unable to address and which is having detrimental impacts on the fishing industry. It is also due to fewer boats going out, as it is no longer commercially viable to do so, largely because there are no incentives or support for smaller members of the fishing industry, which used to be so profitable. The Bellrock is also paying the same price, or more, for smaller fish than it used to receive. Because of the inconsistent price and size of fish, many of the fish shops in my constituency are turning to frozen at sea fish, which is generally supplied by larger companies using fish from overseas. That reduces the reliance on local producers and processors.

I commend the hon. Lady, who has brought a matter to my mind and probably to the mind of the Minister and others. We have just seen a record price for a cod supper—I think the paper this week said that it was £11.51. I go back further than most Members, but I can remember when £11.50 would have bought a fish supper for four people or more. It really does put pressure on the hospitality sector.

I thank the hon. Member for that point, which highlights how deeply the issue is being felt across many different industries, not just among those who are going out and catching the fish.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned in his opening remarks, the pitiful and arguably insulting allocation of funds from the UK Government to support fishermen and women in Scotland not only fails to reflect their contribution to the fishing sector, but fails to hold up other businesses and industries that rely on it. That is just an example—the tax on jobs is another—of the destructive Labour policies that mean that businesses in my constituency are really struggling.

A historic, integral fishing industry on an island nation cannot be allowed to struggle and decline while the UK Government sit back and do nothing. From my experience of speaking to my constituents, it is not about a lack of will or demand for fish in Scotland. As my hon. Friend outlined, the situation we are in is purely about the lack of engagement from the UK Government to experience what is happening to the fishing industry in Scotland and provide adequate policies to support it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing the debate and making a strong case on behalf of his region in Scotland. He focused on the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is £360 million over 12 years, as he understands, so it is spread over a very long period. When one looks at it across the whole UK on an annual basis, it is spread very thinly.

Coastal communities in particular have been left behind following Brexit, as the hon. Member mentioned. In Cornwall, for example, we were entitled to objective 1 aid from the EU. Following Brexit, we were promised equivalent funds from the Treasury to make up for the loss of EU aid; it was equivalent to £100 million a year coming into Cornwall, which is one of the most deprived regions not just in the UK, but in Europe. It is now 2026 and there are no funds at all: over the years, that replacement has simply not happened.

A paltry amount is available through the fisheries and coastal growth fund, but it is being spread around the country and, as the hon. Member rightly says, it is a relatively small fund. It is welcome, of course—one should not decry the Government for making the offer—and I entirely understand that the purpose of the fund is to modernise the fishing industry and the seafood sector, build resilience and support coastal communities. However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the funds go to those areas that need it most, rather than simply allocating it on a flatline basis across the country, based on the size of the existing fishing industry. Not all communities are doing as well as one another.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on adding to what must be a world record for Westminster Hall debate contributions. I thank him for emphasising the social and cultural as well as economic consequences of the fishing industry in his part of Northern Ireland. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), who is already proving hyperactive: this is her second debate in Westminster Hall today. She made a very telling contribution that illustrated brilliantly the impact of changes in recent years, the demise of the haddock fishery and its consequences on the community.

On the future of the fishing industry, we must recognise and acknowledge that the best type of fishing policy is one in which politicians do not need to get involved. It is one in which scientists, fishermen and marine conservationists work together in a framework created by politicians in which they can come to an agreement on the future management of stocks. In my early days in Parliament, I was a member of what was then the Agriculture Committee. We visited a number of countries, including Spain and Iceland, where it was quite evident that the relationship between scientists and fishermen was much better established than in this country, where—at that stage, at least—scientists were seen in the industry as some kind of enemy. The presumption, wrongly, was that they were working to shut the commercial fisheries down.

Now those relationships have significantly improved. Recently, in April this year, on the initiative of the fishing industry itself, the Cornwall fisheries science board was established. We need to see a great deal more of those kinds of positive initiatives. We have just had the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, so it is appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on that, as it has been mentioned on a number of occasions.

As someone who campaigned to remain, I had to acknowledge in the debates we had at the time that the one sector in which one could easily identify potential to thrive and improve in Brexit circumstances was the fishing industry, if there were an opportunity to regain control out to the 12-mile limit.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Briefly, as I do not want to test Sir Alec’s patience.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Had we secured control between the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, as was promised at the time but has not been delivered, one could see circumstances in which local IFCAs, local management and indeed the Government would agree that there would be an opportunity to achieve that within the 6-mile limit.

It is telling that, after the flotillas up the Thames and certain campaigners using the fishing industry as the poster boy of the Brexit campaign, on occasions like this debate, when they should come along to explain what happened as a result of the promises they made, they are conspicuous by their absence. They are not here to answer for themselves and for the claims they made at the time. Where are they? They should be here to explain why the industry is still struggling post Brexit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate.

Fishing is not just an industry; to many it is a way of life, passed from one generation to the next. It is why so many people in our fishing communities looked to the Government’s UK EU summit in May 2025 with disbelief. At that summit, the Government agreed to grant the European Union full access to UK fishing waters until 2038—a 12-year extension of the existing arrangements. The Government said that it would be in return for British participation in the Security Action for Europe defence fund. Despite repeated questions, however, it remains unclear exactly when or indeed if they will achieve that. That is because the talks collapsed when the EU demanded billions of pounds from Britain as a condition for joining. You might think, Sir Alec, that the Government would have thought about that possibility before signing away important fishing rights. They seem to have got nothing in return.

Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government will renegotiate with the EU and return the fishing rights to our fishermen and women, now it is clear that the talks have failed? Or was our fishing industry just used as a bargaining chip in pursuit of the Prime Minister’s broader political objective? This House deserves answers, and so do the communities whose futures depend on those decisions.

I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the fishing and coastal growth fund and will claim that it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the sector, but fishermen across the country feel very differently. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has raised serious concerns about the Government’s approach in relation to this fund. It found that Ministers had not clearly explained why the figure of £360 million was chosen, why the fund should run for 12 years or why this support is best delivered through a single integrated scheme. Crucially, the Committee also concluded that the fund lacks clear objectives against which success can be measured. That is a remarkable criticism, and I hope the Minister will address it. I ask him these questions directly. What are the objectives of this fund? How will he measure its success? What outcomes will demonstrate to fishing communities that this money has delivered meaningful change? And what happens if those objectives are not met?

The previous Conservative Government had a clear record of backing our fishing industry. We secured increased fishing opportunities, allocated substantial support for the long term future of the sector, developed new fisheries such as bluefin tuna, and began replacing the hated common fisheries policy with a bespoke framework designed around the interests of UK fisheries.

On this side of the House, we support investment in fishing and coastal communities. Many stakeholders have rightly highlighted the need for better port infrastructure, improved training opportunities and investment in skills, scientific research and fleet modernisation. By contrast, this Government’s headline achievement has been to lock in EU access to UK waters for another 12 years while offering a fund that, to many, looks to be little more than a sticking plaster.

Additionally, “Economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2026”, published earlier this year, shows that there has been a decrease in this year’s quota of 135,000 tonnes compared with last year’s quota. That will cost the British fishing industry £136 million. At the same time, spatial squeeze is forcing fishermen out of their traditional fishing areas, and new rules have been imposed governing trawl mesh sizes. The Iran war pushed up fuel prices, but the Chancellor’s May statement on support during the Iran war did not help fishers at all.

The fishing industry is vital for our food security and deserves proper support from the Government to address the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities now face. The Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of access to our own waters and Britain’s rights as an independent, sovereign coastal state. I urge the Government to do the same.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for the timely opportunity to take part in my first fisheries debate and to set out the priority I place on this industry. I congratulate him on the timing of this debate; I assume that he is not an England football fan.

In addition, I welcome the two new Members—the hon. Members for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) and for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—and I congratulate them on contributing so successfully this afternoon.

Having proudly grown up in a coastal community and now representing a constituency that has a small fishing port, as well as having a father who regularly took me sea fishing, I am delighted to have been appointed as the new fisheries Minister. I am excited to have the chance to support the fishing industry and help it to adapt to the opportunities and challenges ahead.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East made a number of specific points, and I assure him early in my speech that I am very happy to write to him on the specifics.

As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some helpful points on immigration policy and visas. He will recognise that such matters are for the Home Office to comment on. However, I can assure him this afternoon that my Department is in regular conversation with counterparts in the Home Office about the concerns that the industry and Members have raised today. I have already met my equivalent fisheries Minister in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member will know the seriousness that I place on my relationship with colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I assure him that I will do the same in my new ministerial role.

Fishing is not just an industry, and fishermen are not just businessmen; they and their industry are economically, socially and culturally important to the vitality of many coastal communities across the United Kingdom. Before I go further, it is customary to pay tribute to those in the fishing community who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives in what can be a very dangerous industry. On Sunday, I attended a memorial for seafarers, and my thoughts are with all those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea. We must not lose sight of the fact that fishing communities contend with really tough and dangerous working conditions. The work to improve safety across the industry remains essential, and I welcome the efforts from the industry and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to drive progress in this important area.

Our fishing fleets across the UK are incredibly diverse, as we have heard, from small day boats in my Portsmouth South constituency to the large trawlers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East. Across our nation, each and every one of those vessels, their crew and those supporting them on shore work hard to support our food security and provide jobs in our coastal communities.

UK seafood is in high demand, with a world class reputation for quality. I am deeply proud to promote and support a thriving, sustainable fishing sector. I have heard from representatives of the UK fishing industry about the work that goes into getting our revered British seafood from net to plate. I met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation this week, and it gave me valuable insights into the opportunities presented to the fishing industry and the solutions to some of the challenges.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress.

I strongly believe in working with those in industry who best know the solutions and how to deliver lasting change, so I will be listening to and working with the industry. I look forward to getting out on the quayside, accepting the invitation from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East to visit his constituency and engaging with fish markets and processing facilities to hear at first hand what fishermen and those working across the supply chain have to say about our world class fish and seafood.

Previous Ministers all made a journey to Portavogie, and I extend the same invitation. If he is not going anywhere on holiday during the summer, will he please come to Portavogie? He is very welcome, and he will have the best scampi in the world—I know the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) makes the same claim, but that is by the way. If the Minister has a spare day, he should come to Portavogie. He would be very welcome.

The hon. Member teases me to visit Northern Ireland, knowing that scampi is my dish of choice on a Friday, so perhaps that is a visit we can get into my diary sooner rather than later.

I am very aware that the fishing industry faces a multitude of opportunities and challenges. As we have heard in today’s debate, enabling the industry to benefit from opportunities and adapt to challenges is a top priority, building on the good work of my predecessors. At the heart of this is a recognition that for the fishing industry to thrive, it has to be environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. I will carefully consider how to address pressure on fish stocks as we enter the autumn peak of negotiations with other coastal states for fishing opportunities.

One of the challenges our fishermen now face is the high cost of fuel. In Ireland, the Government have announced a €15 million fuel aid package for their fishermen; in France, a similar scheme has been announced. Will the UK Government consider a similar scheme to help our fisherman with the high cost of fuel?

I thank the new hon. Member for his intervention—I was waiting for an invitation to visit him in Scotland, but perhaps that will come later. I am very alive to the issues around costs. He will know about the interventions the Treasury has already made on red diesel, which will benefit the fishing community. I continue to monitor the situation closely, working with industry on potential solutions.

The extreme temperatures that we have seen this summer have rightly focused attention on climate change, and we must take that more seriously. The fishing industry will need to adapt to the impacts on stocks where new species flourish in our waters and where stocks that we have traditionally fished move away.

Also on my mind, as covered in today’s debate, is the need to respond to current and emerging challenges, such as operating costs and pressure for marine space. The fishing and coastal growth fund is therefore one of the key tools that this Government have introduced to support the sector right across the United Kingdom. Shaping how that fund is used in future years is a priority. Having met with my ministerial colleagues in the devolved Governments already, I know that they will be thinking about this too.

The context of these issues is important. The fund is in addition to the largest real terms spending review settlement for the devolved Governments of any settlement since devolution. Importantly, devolution means that all Governments have the autonomy to shape their funds in the way that works best for their nations. I am confident that, by working together, we can ensure that the UK seafood industry has a bright future for generations to come.

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

I would politely say to the shadow Minister that I will take no lectures from the Conservative party, who saw the fishing community decimated with broken promises, fishing numbers down, economic damage done and a dramatic decline in exports. I will take no lectures from him, given his party’s record on these issues.

I want to briefly touch on some of the Government’s achievements since 2024. First, I remind hon. Members that, despite a difficult scientific backdrop, the UK has secured access to 640,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for the 2026 fishing year, estimated to be worth just over £1 billion based on historical landing prices. Our fisheries management plans set out how to maintain or restore fish stocks to sustainable levels. The UK programme is well under way and being delivered in close collaboration with the fishing industry and other stakeholders.

We have been working with the industry in England to understand its priorities and those of coastal communities, and that is helping to shape the fishing and coastal growth fund. That is already driving growth for the future. In England, this April, we began to deliver funding through the fisheries and seafood scheme, supporting fishing and seafood industries and coastal communities across England. So far, we have received around 260 applications with a value of around £15 million in grants.

Those are just three headline achievements this year, and our work continues at pace on a range of other areas. We are now beginning our preparations for the end of year consultations with the EU and other coastal states on fishing opportunities for 2027. Over the summer, we will be working closely with the sector to consider the scientific advice and to understand its perspectives and requirements for next year.

Our export markets are vital—in 2024, seafood exports were worth £2.1 billion—and support jobs not just at sea but across the supply chain. We are working at pace towards a new SPS agreement with the EU and aim to have legislation in place by the end of 2027. That will make it easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner, and will strengthen the economies of our coastal communities.

We will continue to set our own rules outside the common fisheries policy—rules that support sustainable fisheries and protect marine life—and the deal will remove costly paperwork for fish exports to the EU. By cutting red tape and helping fisheries get their products on the shelves quicker and more cheaply, we are looking to allow UK shellfish exports that are currently banned—a big win for producers.

We also export beyond the EU and are backing export success through a £1.5 million a year seafood export package funded from the fishing and coastal growth fund. That will ensure that UK businesses best placed to take advantage of trading relationships by opening new opportunities for growth and trade.

Let me turn to the issues raised on managing marine space. Last year, DEFRA gave a steer to the Crown Estate on the key risks and issues associated with future offshore wind development in the English sea. That was informed by the marine spatial prioritisation programme, and has helped the Crown Estate to unlock offshore wind in a way that considers all marine sectors and fisheries and protects the marine environment.

In conclusion, I am proud to represent a coastal opportunity and to have the opportunity to help shape fishing’s contribution to coastal communities, food security and the wider economy. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and all colleagues in the long term to ensure that fishing has a sustainable future across the whole of the United Kingdom.

It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister to his place earlier, and I formally do so now. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. We have had a small number of speakers, but it is not about volume; it is about quality. There were lots of references to broken promises; there have been too many broken promises, I am afraid, but let us hope that the future will result in promises kept, and I wish the Minister well in his endeavours in that regard.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), asked some very searching questions; I agree with him that we need to know what outcomes will flow from the fishing and coastal growth fund. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in relation to immigration, and it sounds very much as if there might be some productive dialogue in the future—let us hope so. I was also very heartened to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes great pride in this industry and that he has a heritage there to draw on; that is wonderful. I endorse the remarks that were made about the impact of fuel costs on the industry and about the dangers that our fishermen and women face when they go to sea—it is a very dangerous occupation.

Finally, I want to take issue with one part of the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird): she claimed to have the best fish and chip shop in the world in her constituency. Many Members in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber will have laid claim to that title, but I assure her that there are many fish and chip shops in my constituency that believe they have that title, not least Findlay’s in Fraserburgh.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

Sitting adjourned.