Westminster Hall
Wednesday 1st July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
09:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Order before I call Richard Burgon. I would like to make a point to members contributing to this morning's debate. First, 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 mention it. Absolutely. Absolutely. This in your remarks, as well as ensuring that your comments are, of course, as always, appropriate.
I call Richard Burgon to move the motion.
I call Richard Burgon to move the motion.
09:30
09:31
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. And it's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Weston. And I beg to move that this House is considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for honourable members. Now, I'm delighted to have secured this debate today, but let's be totally honest from the start. Confidence in our politics has collapsed.
09:31
09:32
09:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It damages their confidence in democracy. So if we want politics to serve the people, not elites interests, then we're going to have to take bold action. And that's why I have called this debate today banning MPs second jobs is one of the key steps to restore trust in politics, and I do 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.
09:33
09:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As we have seen in the United States. But 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 referenced today are from Sky News's Westminster accounts, a database compiled from the Register of Members Interests, and I commend the work done by those journalists.
09:33
09:32
09:33
09:32
09:33
09:33
09:34
09:33
09:34
09:33
09:34
09:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Give way, on securing what is a timely debate. Um, he's quite rightly, uh, elaborating on the need for more transparency. And he's just alluded to the number of people that comprise the vast majority of, of, of amounts that are paid in second job income. Would he agree with me that unfortunately, when this debate does come into the public domain, what always runs beside it is what do we need to pay MPs to preclude the need or the requirement or the desire for second jobs?And that's an issue that has to be dealt with, because with the public service, be satisfied with a salary for MPs of 120,000 or 150 000, in order to try and preclude a small number from earning massive sums.
09:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And he's just alluded to the number of people that comprise the vast majority of, of, of amounts that are paid in second job income. I thank the honourable member for his intervention. Would he agree with me that unfortunately, when this debate does come into the public domain, what always runs beside it is what do we need to pay MPs to preclude the need or the requirement or the desire for second jobs?I must confess, when I've been out and about in my constituency and in others, I've never met anyone who says what we really need to do is pay MPs more.
We're already in the top 5% of earners, and I don't really think that that's the issue.
We're already in the top 5% of earners, and I don't really think that that's the issue.
09:35
09:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Being an MP is an incredible privilege and it's an incredibly well-paid privilege and it's second jobs. We want to stop not arguing for further pay rises for all very already very well paid MPs. And so we say second jobs. But for some MPs there's third jobs, fourth jobs, fifth jobs, sixth jobs and many more. And for some of them, it seems that being an MP is the second job and I'm opposed to MPs having second jobs. Whether those MPs are conservative reform, Labour or from any other party.
So I don't say this to make a party political point, but it is a matter of fact that the top ten includes eight conservative MPs and two reform MPs, including Reform Party leader beyond the top ten.
So I don't say this to make a party political point, but it is a matter of fact that the top ten includes eight conservative MPs and two reform MPs, including Reform Party leader beyond the top ten.
09:36
09:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Looking at all MPs outside earnings, conservative MPs account for around 66% of the total reform, MPs around 20%, and Labour MPs around 7%. And can I just say, because it needs to be said, I'm disappointed that the member for Clacton, 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. And yesterday it came to light that he has been getting paid £22,500 per hour promoting a gold dealer that takes his second job earnings to approaching £2 million in just two years.
Since the general election. 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, in my constituency and in constituencies across the country, may be too much.
Since the general election. 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, in my constituency and in constituencies across the country, may be too much.
09:37
09:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Of the people. It's 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's something deeply broken in our politics, and change is needed. So there's no doubting the scale of the problem. In 2022, I published a bill for a total ban on MPs second jobs. And I hope that this bill can become law under the new Prime Minister.
Now, 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. And the key principle of my bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a privilege. A well-paid privilege. The nearly 100 zero zero £0 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 electors to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns.
They don't elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. And when MPs do that, they shortchange 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 MPs salary. And for them, it seems that being a member of Parliament is the second job. Now, of course, if someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, then they are entitled to do so. But if that's their priority, they should resign.
Our democracy would be better for it. We don't need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs second jobs is because 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 or hundreds of thousands, or even well over a million in some cases, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask who comes first?The constituents who elected them, or the company paying them?After all, no one can serve two masters, even if people claim that there's no conflict of interest, it's clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life.
Politics should be about public service, not about personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressures, really struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, they struggle with rising bills and they worry themselves sick about making ends meet. So is it really any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year?Now I've been campaigning against second jobs for many years. And when I do, there's always one argument that gets raised.
We're told that second, jobs provide valuable real world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs don't bring MPs closer to the real world because real people don't live like that. Huge second, salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not the experience of the vast majority of constituents that we're here to serve. And it's funny that the MPs who claim to want real world experience never seem to want to find it, doing the jobs ordinary workers do, like stacking shelves, driving buses, or caring for the elderly in a care home.
I didn't find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs. Extra earnings, and the reason is obvious. It's really all about getting money, not about getting real world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real world experience, they would seek. They would seek that where real people actually work, not in corporate boardrooms. And to those who 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 people gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs.
Now, the other arguments we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult. It wouldn't. My bill shows exactly how this can be done. My bill would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs while allowing sensible exceptions. Because this bill isn't about stopping a genuine public service, a doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public. Sitting on a corporate board for large paychecks is not, nor would my bill stop someone carrying out the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications.
Nor would my bill stop someone working out a short notice period when they are unexpectedly elected to Parliament. I will give way.
Now, 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. And the key principle of my bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a privilege. A well-paid privilege. The nearly 100 zero zero £0 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 electors to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns.
They don't elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. And when MPs do that, they shortchange 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 MPs salary. And for them, it seems that being a member of Parliament is the second job. Now, of course, if someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, then they are entitled to do so. But if that's their priority, they should resign.
Our democracy would be better for it. We don't need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs second jobs is because 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 or hundreds of thousands, or even well over a million in some cases, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask who comes first?The constituents who elected them, or the company paying them?After all, no one can serve two masters, even if people claim that there's no conflict of interest, it's clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life.
Politics should be about public service, not about personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressures, really struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, they struggle with rising bills and they worry themselves sick about making ends meet. So is it really any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year?Now I've been campaigning against second jobs for many years. And when I do, there's always one argument that gets raised.
We're told that second, jobs provide valuable real world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs don't bring MPs closer to the real world because real people don't live like that. Huge second, salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not the experience of the vast majority of constituents that we're here to serve. And it's funny that the MPs who claim to want real world experience never seem to want to find it, doing the jobs ordinary workers do, like stacking shelves, driving buses, or caring for the elderly in a care home.
I didn't find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs. Extra earnings, and the reason is obvious. It's really all about getting money, not about getting real world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real world experience, they would seek. They would seek that where real people actually work, not in corporate boardrooms. And to those who 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 people gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs.
Now, the other arguments we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult. It wouldn't. My bill shows exactly how this can be done. My bill would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs while allowing sensible exceptions. Because this bill isn't about stopping a genuine public service, a doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public. Sitting on a corporate board for large paychecks is not, nor would my bill stop someone carrying out the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications.
Nor would my bill stop someone working out a short notice period when they are unexpectedly elected to Parliament. I will give way.
09:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Really grateful to my honourable friend bringing today's debate forward when he talks about second jobs, I think about my constituents who are having to work second jobs in order to pay the bills. And that's where our attention needs to be focused. But on the issue of professional qualifications, I recognise that being an MP is a full time job, and as a result of that, my professional qualifications had to fall because I needed to give my 24 over seven to my constituents. So would he look again at that provision within his bill?Because I think if we are fully doing our work here, it must be for our constituents not distracted even into professional roles such as I once held.
09:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank my honourable friend for her important point. Of course, the particular details of the bill, if it were taken forward, and I invite the next Prime Minister to do so, could be debated and amended in the House and at committee stage. The point I was trying to make, I suppose, is that if someone needs to do a handful of hours per year to remain on a professional register and they wish to do so, then I personally would have no objection to that if it's for that purpose.
But the bill can perhaps be enhanced and improved, including by the honourable member, if it progresses further. But beyond those limited exceptions that I've outlined, the practice of second jobs would end, and I will give way to my honourable member for securing this debate and for the way that he's outlined the issue at hand here. I also wish to commend him on the bill that he's brought forward. Would he agree with me that as the bill is progressing through Parliament, there are steps that we could be taking in the interim, particularly political parties, in terms of changing standing orders and code of conduct, such as my own, which has prohibited MPs from taking any other occupation other than the Member of Parliament, I think.
That's a very good idea, that the honourable member has come forward with. Of course, the party could pass its own rules and expectations in that regard, but to fully clean up politics, I think, should be passed by Parliament. And I know that it's going through the modernisation committee at the moment, this issue, and I think that the discussions that are taking place there are very important. Now, 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. And that's what the public wants. Parliament must show. It understands that the rot runs deep and it cannot be tackled with half measures, not more reviews, not more excuses. Action is what's needed. So I hope that the next Prime Minister will help 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 stomach.
But the bill can perhaps be enhanced and improved, including by the honourable member, if it progresses further. But beyond those limited exceptions that I've outlined, the practice of second jobs would end, and I will give way to my honourable member for securing this debate and for the way that he's outlined the issue at hand here. I also wish to commend him on the bill that he's brought forward. Would he agree with me that as the bill is progressing through Parliament, there are steps that we could be taking in the interim, particularly political parties, in terms of changing standing orders and code of conduct, such as my own, which has prohibited MPs from taking any other occupation other than the Member of Parliament, I think.
That's a very good idea, that the honourable member has come forward with. Of course, the party could pass its own rules and expectations in that regard, but to fully clean up politics, I think, should be passed by Parliament. And I know that it's going through the modernisation committee at the moment, this issue, and I think that the discussions that are taking place there are very important. Now, 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. And that's what the public wants. Parliament must show. It understands that the rot runs deep and it cannot be tackled with half measures, not more reviews, not more excuses. Action is what's needed. So I hope that the next Prime Minister will help 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 stomach.
09:46
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Mr. chairman, as always, a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And a big thank you, if I can, to the honourable gentleman for Leeds East, as he often does, brings forward subject matters which are very close to all of our hearts. Um, I probably will want to, um, give the personal experience that I think others will probably maybe want to do that as well. But I agree that this is a very important and a complex issue, one that depends greatly on context. And I want to say that while agreeing with all the comments and all, the gentleman said, uh, because I think we need to say very gently, Mr.
Chairman, look at things, maybe individual cases, because there are things that I've just mentioned today. And as in his speech, which concern me greatly, I have to say that honestly. Um, but, um and as a member of Parliament for Strangford, uh, going back to, to that time in 2010, I'm deeply committed to serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I believe that's my priority in this place is to deliver for my constituents. So when I became an MP in 2010, I personally decided that the best way for me to fulfil that responsibility was to give up the other jobs that I did.
I tried to practice. I'm not better than anyone else, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman, look at things, maybe individual cases, because there are things that I've just mentioned today. And as in his speech, which concern me greatly, I have to say that honestly. Um, but, um and as a member of Parliament for Strangford, uh, going back to, to that time in 2010, I'm deeply committed to serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I believe that's my priority in this place is to deliver for my constituents. So when I became an MP in 2010, I personally decided that the best way for me to fulfil that responsibility was to give up the other jobs that I did.
I tried to practice. I'm not better than anyone else, Mr. Chairman.
09:48
09:48
09:48
09:48
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Okay, I've moved to make a bit closer. Hopefully that will catch the the words that I'm saying. Uh, whenever, whenever I became the MP in 2010, I was also a councillor. I served in Orangeburg County for 26 years. So I'm also a member of the Legislative Assembly, which has served in for 12 years. Um, well, I would love to have stayed to be a councillor, Mr. Chairman, because I love being a councillor, to be truthful with you. Uh, that was really where my my heart was, but I realized that just wasn't going to happen.
I wasn't going to be able to come to Westminster, jump on a plane and come across and get home in time for the meeting at night. Just never was going to happen. So, uh, looking at the practical, physical, physical practicalities of it all, I resigned from both of those. I did hold the position for two months of all three. Um, but that was during the summer months, whenever the meetings were less. I also had my own business, uh, which, uh, I started in 1985.
Um, I gifted that business to my, to my son. So personally speaking, this is a one job and that's all I can do if I want to give it my best shot and do the best I can. So that's a personal opinion. So I want to say that right away. I do not believe that all members should be automatically required to give up outside employment. If it doesn't impact, uh, upon. Upon their ability to do their job here, members should be permitted to carefully consider whether any additional role could compromise.
Here's my issue could compromise their ability to effectively carry out their duties as an MP. Are they being lobbied by certain groups?Are they?I say this very respectfully and very kindly, because I have no evidence to prove anything. And and therefore I won't say anything that would be wrong. Uh, but, um, I would. Hope that that when it comes to in another job that that wouldn't unnecessarily influence, uh, your capability of doing the job that you're committed to right here.
Yeah, yeah.
I wasn't going to be able to come to Westminster, jump on a plane and come across and get home in time for the meeting at night. Just never was going to happen. So, uh, looking at the practical, physical, physical practicalities of it all, I resigned from both of those. I did hold the position for two months of all three. Um, but that was during the summer months, whenever the meetings were less. I also had my own business, uh, which, uh, I started in 1985.
Um, I gifted that business to my, to my son. So personally speaking, this is a one job and that's all I can do if I want to give it my best shot and do the best I can. So that's a personal opinion. So I want to say that right away. I do not believe that all members should be automatically required to give up outside employment. If it doesn't impact, uh, upon. Upon their ability to do their job here, members should be permitted to carefully consider whether any additional role could compromise.
Here's my issue could compromise their ability to effectively carry out their duties as an MP. Are they being lobbied by certain groups?Are they?I say this very respectfully and very kindly, because I have no evidence to prove anything. And and therefore I won't say anything that would be wrong. Uh, but, um, I would. Hope that that when it comes to in another job that that wouldn't unnecessarily influence, uh, your capability of doing the job that you're committed to right here.
Yeah, yeah.
09:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank the honourable member for giving way. Just on the issue of, uh, a complexity in. In terms of, uh, adversely affecting a member's ability in the House, would he agree with me that we all should be open and transparent and the register should be updated as the mover indicated. But the final arbiter in all of these issues has to be the voters. And when the voters decide that a small number of MPs may be getting large, extraordinarily large, unacceptably large sums of money, they decided the election.
They don't want that, and they replace it with someone else.
They don't want that, and they replace it with someone else.
09:51
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The the the electorate will make that decision. And that's that comes in any sphere or any action. An MP may carry out. But I think my honourable friend, for his intervention, in my view, Mr. Chairman, a complete restriction on second jobs would be an unfair limitation on members and what they mean by that. Now I want there's almost 99.9% of what the honourable gentleman said. I would agree with, but I just think that sometimes we need to look at the thing in a in a bigger way.
I fully recognize that outside interests must be strictly regulated. There must be conditions. There has to be an declaration of all interests, and that has to be transparent. And wherever the things are, there must be an explanation and it must fall, must fall within the rules of this 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 both members and constituents alike. Many members bring, and I say this, bring valuable professional experience and expertise from outside interests.
They bring some of the knowledge and we all do that from our from our walks of life as well, even individually. For as we've represented over the years, or just your social, uh, circle that you move in perhaps as well, maintaining links with professions when it's appropriate to do so has the potential to strengthen the quality of our parliamentary debates and improve the scrutiny of legislation, ensure that members remain connected with the experiences and the challenges faced by people outside of our offices in Westminster. The very thing that the honourable gentleman referred to about those experiences, those interactions with our constituents on a personal.
I used to say, my job and my business, Mr. Chairman, was selling bacon and sausage. I sold everything in the pig except for the squeak. Uh, and and my family. I kept my wife at home to look after the children. Uh, we've got a good holiday every year, and I paid the mortgage, and we. And we did well out of it. Uh, but, um, whenever I was doing that for the short term, uh, way back, back, I was up at 5 a.m.
home in to the office for nine. Uh, my employee would have carried on the run for the rest of the day. And all those years in the assembly that we did that. However, when I was elected to Westminster, that was just never going to happen. So I recognize that I gifted that business to my son. And it wasn't a matter of nipping home after the run any longer, just couldn't, uh, nip home from Northern Ireland to to London and do that.
It's impossible to do it well. So I was able to do both back, but I believe I could never do that again. I so just can't happen. And my duty was and should always be to my constituents. And this is how it must be. And that's how it has been since 2010. Members are ultimately elected in service of the public. Maintaining public confidence is of the utmost importance to our approach. Again, another thing that the honourable gentleman.
Referred to confidence and. And I think that's a critical factor as well. Transparency and accountability. Two key issues must therefore be at the heart of any such reforms. And perhaps that's the key. Perhaps that's maybe I think the key issue. Constituents should have confidence of members. Outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place. I find this topic to also underline the fact that we pay.
I say this, Mr. Chairman. We pay Sinn Féin MPs to not take their seats here. Yeah, and carry out the most basic of their function. And if we are to change anything, perhaps we should be looking at their eligibility. Eligibility for election. I believe that those who can easily carry out a few hours of work must be able to do so, insofar as they are still carrying out their roles in this House. I always think about all that, and it's true.
If you want something done, give it to a busy person and perhaps we should all allow members to strike that balance. I've tried to seek that balance. I try to live my life in a way that preaches. Practicing what I preach. For me, I can only do the one job. I can't do any more. But I recognise that. And I take my my stance from that there. And that's my thrust.
Well, absolutely agreeing, 99.9% with the gentleman said, uh, but I do think it's better that people should make their own choice.
I fully recognize that outside interests must be strictly regulated. There must be conditions. There has to be an declaration of all interests, and that has to be transparent. And wherever the things are, there must be an explanation and it must fall, must fall within the rules of this 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 both members and constituents alike. Many members bring, and I say this, bring valuable professional experience and expertise from outside interests.
They bring some of the knowledge and we all do that from our from our walks of life as well, even individually. For as we've represented over the years, or just your social, uh, circle that you move in perhaps as well, maintaining links with professions when it's appropriate to do so has the potential to strengthen the quality of our parliamentary debates and improve the scrutiny of legislation, ensure that members remain connected with the experiences and the challenges faced by people outside of our offices in Westminster. The very thing that the honourable gentleman referred to about those experiences, those interactions with our constituents on a personal.
I used to say, my job and my business, Mr. Chairman, was selling bacon and sausage. I sold everything in the pig except for the squeak. Uh, and and my family. I kept my wife at home to look after the children. Uh, we've got a good holiday every year, and I paid the mortgage, and we. And we did well out of it. Uh, but, um, whenever I was doing that for the short term, uh, way back, back, I was up at 5 a.m.
home in to the office for nine. Uh, my employee would have carried on the run for the rest of the day. And all those years in the assembly that we did that. However, when I was elected to Westminster, that was just never going to happen. So I recognize that I gifted that business to my son. And it wasn't a matter of nipping home after the run any longer, just couldn't, uh, nip home from Northern Ireland to to London and do that.
It's impossible to do it well. So I was able to do both back, but I believe I could never do that again. I so just can't happen. And my duty was and should always be to my constituents. And this is how it must be. And that's how it has been since 2010. Members are ultimately elected in service of the public. Maintaining public confidence is of the utmost importance to our approach. Again, another thing that the honourable gentleman.
Referred to confidence and. And I think that's a critical factor as well. Transparency and accountability. Two key issues must therefore be at the heart of any such reforms. And perhaps that's the key. Perhaps that's maybe I think the key issue. Constituents should have confidence of members. Outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place. I find this topic to also underline the fact that we pay.
I say this, Mr. Chairman. We pay Sinn Féin MPs to not take their seats here. Yeah, and carry out the most basic of their function. And if we are to change anything, perhaps we should be looking at their eligibility. Eligibility for election. I believe that those who can easily carry out a few hours of work must be able to do so, insofar as they are still carrying out their roles in this House. I always think about all that, and it's true.
If you want something done, give it to a busy person and perhaps we should all allow members to strike that balance. I've tried to seek that balance. I try to live my life in a way that preaches. Practicing what I preach. For me, I can only do the one job. I can't do any more. But I recognise that. And I take my my stance from that there. And that's my thrust.
Well, absolutely agreeing, 99.9% with the gentleman said, uh, but I do think it's better that people should make their own choice.
09:57
09:58
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Weston. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I congratulate the member for Leeds East on securing today's debate and his extremely powerful speech at the start of the debate. Now, 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, an issue critical to commanding public confidence in this mother of all parliaments, we are in violent agreement. Now, let me declare my 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, amongst others, on how to manage conflicts of interest.
Let's 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. And so my remarks today will be that 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, despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee of Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough, nor with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eyes and tell them that the risks perceived or actual around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction.
Now, I mentioned those measures taken or in train, because I do want to give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say 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've got other members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. Now they have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them here today, Mr. Weston, take the member for Clacton, who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He is declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a member of this place. And just yesterday the Financial Times reported that he's 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. Weston, you know my views about money and politics from past conversations. The member for Torridge and Tavistock, meanwhile, chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the 600 £0 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the national average salary. So don't the people of Clacton, or of Torridge and Tavistock deserve a full time MP?Mr. Weston, now. On the 6th of November 2020, for 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.
Now, I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence. The last evidence was heard on the 15th of July 2025, with no report having yet been published. Regrettably, this does feel like we're moving at a glacial speed when outside these walls, businesses 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, with the exception of if they held a part time elected office or, for instance, were an armed Forces reservist.
So why are second jobs permitted?In my view, they're a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working. They do not account for modern demands on any honourable member's time, whether that be 24 over seven. Rolling news, constituents making contact on email or phone. So I do say continuous professional development. Yes, but we are living in a Wild West scenario with no controls on how much time is spent on work outside of Parliament, or how much income can be gained.
Members can earn ten times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs, but they give rise to a question. No doubt many members of the public will be within their right to ask if a member of this House is earning more outside than they are as a member here, isn't being an elected representative in fact, their second job, their lower priority?That matters because it gives the impression that members obligations in this place are not for all of our minds. Mooted reforms to lobbying, to civil service governments must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates, too.
If we are to build a functional 21st century system which prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all members. So if we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed, the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened. So I agree with the likes of Transparency International and the member for Leeds East that there should be a total prescription on all secondary employment except those that maintain a professional qualification are political activity or provide an essential public service.
I know in summary myself 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 also deserve the same?
Let's 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. And so my remarks today will be that 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, despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee of Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough, nor with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eyes and tell them that the risks perceived or actual around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction.
Now, I mentioned those measures taken or in train, because I do want to give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say 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've got other members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. Now they have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them here today, Mr. Weston, take the member for Clacton, who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He is declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a member of this place. And just yesterday the Financial Times reported that he's 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. Weston, you know my views about money and politics from past conversations. The member for Torridge and Tavistock, meanwhile, chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the 600 £0 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the national average salary. So don't the people of Clacton, or of Torridge and Tavistock deserve a full time MP?Mr. Weston, now. On the 6th of November 2020, for 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.
Now, I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence. The last evidence was heard on the 15th of July 2025, with no report having yet been published. Regrettably, this does feel like we're moving at a glacial speed when outside these walls, businesses 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, with the exception of if they held a part time elected office or, for instance, were an armed Forces reservist.
So why are second jobs permitted?In my view, they're a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working. They do not account for modern demands on any honourable member's time, whether that be 24 over seven. Rolling news, constituents making contact on email or phone. So I do say continuous professional development. Yes, but we are living in a Wild West scenario with no controls on how much time is spent on work outside of Parliament, or how much income can be gained.
Members can earn ten times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs, but they give rise to a question. No doubt many members of the public will be within their right to ask if a member of this House is earning more outside than they are as a member here, isn't being an elected representative in fact, their second job, their lower priority?That matters because it gives the impression that members obligations in this place are not for all of our minds. Mooted reforms to lobbying, to civil service governments must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates, too.
If we are to build a functional 21st century system which prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all members. So if we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed, the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened. So I agree with the likes of Transparency International and the member for Leeds East that there should be a total prescription on all secondary employment except those that maintain a professional qualification are political activity or provide an essential public service.
I know in summary myself 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 also deserve the same?
10:02
10:02
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank the honourable member for Leeds for securing this very important debate. Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is a full time job. It's more than a full time job and it should be because it is a job that is about public service. That and only 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 that privilege of serving in this place. 100% of our available time, energy, skill should be focused on serving our constituents. That and absolutely nothing else. It's really very simple. There should be no time available in an MPs day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs, because the needs that our constituents have for us to serve them, to represent them, absolutely can fill every moment available and more. And so it is utterly shocking to me that people like the member for Clacton, and yes, I have notified him in advance that I will be naming him in this debate.
The member for Clacton has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of service as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday, as we heard, £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene, immoral. Indeed immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person. That than more than the average person, the nurses, the teachers, the people who dedicate their lives to public service. This is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed.
And I agree with the honourable member. This is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern parliament. 100% of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents. So why is it that this total anachronism endures, that those who don't have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about, doing all sorts of other things that don't contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are solely motivated by what we buy. What is simply personal greed?Let us call a spade a spade.
If somebody is doing this sort of work, work in inverted commas for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation personal enrichment, personal greed, and that has no place in a public servant, still less in a public servant who has the honor of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of all parliaments here. And so we must stop it. I entirely agree with the honourable member. A full ban on second jobs. Yes, we would hope that Members of Parliament will bring outside experience into Parliament.
Let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life. To have that honour of serving here, let us take steps within our parties to ensure that we do that. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused solely on serving our constituents because otherwise we have a situation of total conflict of interest. Are you serving yourself or are you serving the public?We must be here to serve the public.
And so I call on the minister. I call on the next prime minister to take this step to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism and to ensure that we're not counting on the individual. Conscience of every single member of Parliament. When we can clearly see that there are, unfortunately, a tiny handful who do not share this commitment to public service, let us ensure that the baseline, the 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.
And it should be the only reason that anybody has that privilege of serving in this place. 100% of our available time, energy, skill should be focused on serving our constituents. That and absolutely nothing else. It's really very simple. There should be no time available in an MPs day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs, because the needs that our constituents have for us to serve them, to represent them, absolutely can fill every moment available and more. And so it is utterly shocking to me that people like the member for Clacton, and yes, I have notified him in advance that I will be naming him in this debate.
The member for Clacton has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of service as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday, as we heard, £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene, immoral. Indeed immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person. That than more than the average person, the nurses, the teachers, the people who dedicate their lives to public service. This is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed.
And I agree with the honourable member. This is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern parliament. 100% of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents. So why is it that this total anachronism endures, that those who don't have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about, doing all sorts of other things that don't contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are solely motivated by what we buy. What is simply personal greed?Let us call a spade a spade.
If somebody is doing this sort of work, work in inverted commas for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation personal enrichment, personal greed, and that has no place in a public servant, still less in a public servant who has the honor of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of all parliaments here. And so we must stop it. I entirely agree with the honourable member. A full ban on second jobs. Yes, we would hope that Members of Parliament will bring outside experience into Parliament.
Let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life. To have that honour of serving here, let us take steps within our parties to ensure that we do that. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused solely on serving our constituents because otherwise we have a situation of total conflict of interest. Are you serving yourself or are you serving the public?We must be here to serve the public.
And so I call on the minister. I call on the next prime minister to take this step to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism and to ensure that we're not counting on the individual. Conscience of every single member of Parliament. When we can clearly see that there are, unfortunately, a tiny handful who do not share this commitment to public service, let us ensure that the baseline, the 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.
10:06
10:06
10:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Western. Now, first of all, um, thank my hon. Friend the member for Leeds East for bringing us a really important issue, uh, to the the floor of the House. And as ever, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Listen, it's not my intention to to mention gold bullion dealers or members who are making two, £22,500 an hour. It's not even my intention to mention MPs who do cameos. It's not my intention.
To discuss cryptocurrency dealers, and it's not my intention to mention TV presenters. It's not my intention to mention shady donations which stain our politics because you know, the real problem, Mr. Weston, is when our politics are stained, all MPs in this place are tarred with the same brush. But perhaps I maybe should have mentioned this. However, I haven't notified anybody, uh, of the fact that I would love to raise some of the shady dealings that are happening in this place with the individuals themselves.
What is this about, Mr. Weston?Is it about money?Is it about transparency?Is it about accountability?Is it about all of this?Because, you see, I'm perplexed. You know, I'm an MP in the North east of England. I love the players born and bred, and I see how people are struggling. How can MPs have second jobs?How can you?I think it was mentioned by my honourable friend. Uh, if I get the quote, but you're talking about thousands of hours in 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'm working my socks off, and rightly so, because that's what I was elected for, for my constituency. And that's what everybody elected in this place should be there to do. And when you look at the wages and are they the honourable gentleman is no longer any seat. But 96,500 for an MP. I'm a millionaire man.
I'm so rich it's unbelievable. But I'm representing my residents. You know, there was on the national minimum wage or uh, at £12.71 an hour. Uh, 40 hour a week or on £26,416, roughly. And that's what stress is. That's why we need to be looking after people. You know, you hear from various MPs, you were under lots of stress. Tell you what stress is when you can't feed the kids, when they can't put clothes on the kids that stress, uh, and that's certainly not what I see here.
45% people are saying, uh, that almost never trust any government. Uh, 68% say that second jobs, uh, only or should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. And I agree with that. I really agree with that. And, and I think my right on my newly promoted you there, uh, my honourable friend, um, the member. For Leeds, I think he's been absolutely fantastic. He's got my full support. How can individuals. Go.
On to the jungle in Australia. I'm a celebrity. Get me out of here. Mr. Weston. Many MPs might feel that at times. You know, when they're sitting in Parliament on a Thursday, they get me out of here. Seriously, how can any MP, uh, actually do this without any sanctions?It's absolutely disgraceful. It's a huge disrespect to the people who we we represent. They need to understand that we're on their side.
Understand that everybody isn't on this gravy train because that quite frankly, that's just simply not the case. Mr. Weston, I haven't even started my speech. Um, but I will conclude simply by saying that we need to, to build trust with the general public. It's lost, you know, it's gone. And we need to build trust with the public. And can he blame members of the public for the way in which they experience, uh, the fact that members, which we've just been mentioned, how much money people are actually mentioning, we need to focus on the immense issues facing our priorities and not Mr.
Weston is our constituents. Thank you.
To discuss cryptocurrency dealers, and it's not my intention to mention TV presenters. It's not my intention to mention shady donations which stain our politics because you know, the real problem, Mr. Weston, is when our politics are stained, all MPs in this place are tarred with the same brush. But perhaps I maybe should have mentioned this. However, I haven't notified anybody, uh, of the fact that I would love to raise some of the shady dealings that are happening in this place with the individuals themselves.
What is this about, Mr. Weston?Is it about money?Is it about transparency?Is it about accountability?Is it about all of this?Because, you see, I'm perplexed. You know, I'm an MP in the North east of England. I love the players born and bred, and I see how people are struggling. How can MPs have second jobs?How can you?I think it was mentioned by my honourable friend. Uh, if I get the quote, but you're talking about thousands of hours in 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'm working my socks off, and rightly so, because that's what I was elected for, for my constituency. And that's what everybody elected in this place should be there to do. And when you look at the wages and are they the honourable gentleman is no longer any seat. But 96,500 for an MP. I'm a millionaire man.
I'm so rich it's unbelievable. But I'm representing my residents. You know, there was on the national minimum wage or uh, at £12.71 an hour. Uh, 40 hour a week or on £26,416, roughly. And that's what stress is. That's why we need to be looking after people. You know, you hear from various MPs, you were under lots of stress. Tell you what stress is when you can't feed the kids, when they can't put clothes on the kids that stress, uh, and that's certainly not what I see here.
45% people are saying, uh, that almost never trust any government. Uh, 68% say that second jobs, uh, only or should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. And I agree with that. I really agree with that. And, and I think my right on my newly promoted you there, uh, my honourable friend, um, the member. For Leeds, I think he's been absolutely fantastic. He's got my full support. How can individuals. Go.
On to the jungle in Australia. I'm a celebrity. Get me out of here. Mr. Weston. Many MPs might feel that at times. You know, when they're sitting in Parliament on a Thursday, they get me out of here. Seriously, how can any MP, uh, actually do this without any sanctions?It's absolutely disgraceful. It's a huge disrespect to the people who we we represent. They need to understand that we're on their side.
Understand that everybody isn't on this gravy train because that quite frankly, that's just simply not the case. Mr. Weston, I haven't even started my speech. Um, but I will conclude simply by saying that we need to, to build trust with the general public. It's lost, you know, it's gone. And we need to build trust with the public. And can he blame members of the public for the way in which they experience, uh, the fact that members, which we've just been mentioned, how much money people are actually mentioning, we need to focus on the immense issues facing our priorities and not Mr.
Weston is our constituents. Thank you.
10:12
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Weston. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank my honourable friend for for bringing this timely and important debate, because I know how hard you've worked over a number of years on this issue. Before the general election, Labour wanted to ban second jobs for MPs, but it seems this 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, as we've heard and in institutions, is at an all time low and it is duty bound on us as elected members to change this for the sake of democracy itself.
Being an MP is a full time job in itself. In fact, it can and often does become a way of life. We never truly switch off, even on a rare free day. And before coming to this place, Mr. Weston. 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 wouldn't want to do surgery working at home, but, um, it's not particularly suited.
I'm really pleased, therefore, that my honourable friend has made exceptions for people like me who have a professional registration to maintain doctors, lawyers, nurses, allied health professionals work really hard to gain their qualifications and registrations, and regular practice is required to maintain this. I also served as a local councillor for Wollaston and Stourbridge Town before coming to this place, and 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 to hold both roles, and I stood down in May this year, having served without taking an allowance.
However, this is not what we mean when we talk about second jobs. It's the paid consultancy and advisory work, often with conflicts of interest and lobbying expectations. Paid roles as TV presenters, as we've heard, paid for giving speeches and attending to events. And it all adds fuel to the fire of public commentary, of elected politicians having noses in the trough, being on the gravy train. And let's not forget those brown envelopes. I believe that most honourable members come to this place in earnest to serve their constituents and communities and 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 damaged the public trust for all of us.
Being an MP is a full time job in itself. In fact, it can and often does become a way of life. We never truly switch off, even on a rare free day. And before coming to this place, Mr. Weston. 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 wouldn't want to do surgery working at home, but, um, it's not particularly suited.
I'm really pleased, therefore, that my honourable friend has made exceptions for people like me who have a professional registration to maintain doctors, lawyers, nurses, allied health professionals work really hard to gain their qualifications and registrations, and regular practice is required to maintain this. I also served as a local councillor for Wollaston and Stourbridge Town before coming to this place, and 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 to hold both roles, and I stood down in May this year, having served without taking an allowance.
However, this is not what we mean when we talk about second jobs. It's the paid consultancy and advisory work, often with conflicts of interest and lobbying expectations. Paid roles as TV presenters, as we've heard, paid for giving speeches and attending to events. And it all adds fuel to the fire of public commentary, of elected politicians having noses in the trough, being on the gravy train. And let's not forget those brown envelopes. I believe that most honourable members come to this place in earnest to serve their constituents and communities and 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 damaged the public trust for all of us.
10:14
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The damage to the public trust for all of us. We're not here to serve big businesses and corporate interests, or 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. And even during the Covid lockdowns, when the rest of us were staying at home to prevent infection spread, and I myself was working as an ODP in emergency maternity theatres, some MPs saw this as a golden opportunity to cash in with second jobs and dodgy contracts totalling nearly £5 million.
And while we're debating corruption and trust, can I also mention the ongoing concerns about companies lobbying honourable members, offering them hospitality or gifts?And then those mentions of said companies appear in Hansard or in communication with government down the line. None of this is about what we know. It's all about who we know, and members should always have their eyes wide open to possible corruption and influence from outside bodies and MPs. Time is best spent prioritising their constituencies and the people they serve.
And if any members feel their renumeration is not adequate, perhaps they should consider a different job. My salary currently is nearly three and a half times higher than I've 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. And it is also a huge privilege to represent my home town of Stourbridge and the wonderful people who sent me here. They are the top of my agenda, and this is an opportunity to show that MPs are not just out for themselves and begin restoring trust with the public.
So let's ban second jobs and start transforming our democracy with transparency, accountability and integrity.
And while we're debating corruption and trust, can I also mention the ongoing concerns about companies lobbying honourable members, offering them hospitality or gifts?And then those mentions of said companies appear in Hansard or in communication with government down the line. None of this is about what we know. It's all about who we know, and members should always have their eyes wide open to possible corruption and influence from outside bodies and MPs. Time is best spent prioritising their constituencies and the people they serve.
And if any members feel their renumeration is not adequate, perhaps they should consider a different job. My salary currently is nearly three and a half times higher than I've 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. And it is also a huge privilege to represent my home town of Stourbridge and the wonderful people who sent me here. They are the top of my agenda, and this is an opportunity to show that MPs are not just out for themselves and begin restoring trust with the public.
So let's ban second jobs and start transforming our democracy with transparency, accountability and integrity.
10:16
10:16
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
But also like to. Thank my hon. Friend the member for Leeds East for securing this hugely important debate and for his leadership on this important issue over a long, long period. At the heart of this debate is about it's about public service. It's about trust. It's about standards. It's about whether being a member of Parliament is a full time duty to the people or platform, a platform for private enrichment and personal gain. Let's say plainly what people across this country already know.
Being an MP is not a side hustle. It's not a brand, it's not a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model. It's a privilege. We are sensitive about our constituents. We are paid by the public. Our first loyalty, our last loyalty and every loyalty in between must be to the people we represent. Since the general election in 2024, there have been welcomed reforms.
But these are welcome but only small steps. Because members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate interests. The public have every right to ask why Liverpool West Derby people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between heating and eating across the country through the Right to Food Commissioner being on the last six months, I've had exactly the same stories. Children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading the next bill, workers taking second jobs not to get rich, to simply survive and keep afloat.
That is the reality. Too many in this house are oblivious to. People are not living. They are surviving. So imagine what people think when they see members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours work. Yet this 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 a language of working people while living by rules.
Working people could never ever access. That's not public service, it's grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. We see the leader of reform claiming to stand with left Behind communities while accepting the report of 5 million grift from a crypto donor or gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate. That's not anti-establishment, it's the establishment. It's money, privilege. Wearing a different badge.
People can see it. And it's not just the 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, using public office to pursue private financial gain. That's exactly the culture. The public have lost faith in, because in Clacton, in Liverpool, people know exactly the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleanest, starting before dawn, the care worker finished another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether there are enough hours in a week.
Then they're staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without children, the dad's. A meal so the lights stay on. That's graft, not grift. And every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking who they working for should really, really shame this house. Because when somebody writes their MP, it's usually because they are desperate. You need help. They need advocacy, pensions, HMRC, child maintenance service.
They are disabled, they're ill, they're struggling to navigate an inhumane benefit system. They deserve to know that their members attention belongs to them, not to a corporate boardroom, not to a private client. For them, to them individuals. Because this job is a privilege, not a vote and a vocation. It's not an entitlement. And it's certainly not a commercial opportunity. So let's finish the job. Banned second paid jobs with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions.
Stenton transparency enforce the rules. No loopholes, no excuses. No more cashing in on public office, because this debate comes down to one simple question whose side are we on the side?Of the people who graft. Who work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who seek 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. Thank you. Well said.
Being an MP is not a side hustle. It's not a brand, it's not a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model. It's a privilege. We are sensitive about our constituents. We are paid by the public. Our first loyalty, our last loyalty and every loyalty in between must be to the people we represent. Since the general election in 2024, there have been welcomed reforms.
But these are welcome but only small steps. Because members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate interests. The public have every right to ask why Liverpool West Derby people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between heating and eating across the country through the Right to Food Commissioner being on the last six months, I've had exactly the same stories. Children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading the next bill, workers taking second jobs not to get rich, to simply survive and keep afloat.
That is the reality. Too many in this house are oblivious to. People are not living. They are surviving. So imagine what people think when they see members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours work. Yet this 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 a language of working people while living by rules.
Working people could never ever access. That's not public service, it's grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. We see the leader of reform claiming to stand with left Behind communities while accepting the report of 5 million grift from a crypto donor or gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate. That's not anti-establishment, it's the establishment. It's money, privilege. Wearing a different badge.
People can see it. And it's not just the 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, using public office to pursue private financial gain. That's exactly the culture. The public have lost faith in, because in Clacton, in Liverpool, people know exactly the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleanest, starting before dawn, the care worker finished another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether there are enough hours in a week.
Then they're staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without children, the dad's. A meal so the lights stay on. That's graft, not grift. And every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking who they working for should really, really shame this house. Because when somebody writes their MP, it's usually because they are desperate. You need help. They need advocacy, pensions, HMRC, child maintenance service.
They are disabled, they're ill, they're struggling to navigate an inhumane benefit system. They deserve to know that their members attention belongs to them, not to a corporate boardroom, not to a private client. For them, to them individuals. Because this job is a privilege, not a vote and a vocation. It's not an entitlement. And it's certainly not a commercial opportunity. So let's finish the job. Banned second paid jobs with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions.
Stenton transparency enforce the rules. No loopholes, no excuses. No more cashing in on public office, because this debate comes down to one simple question whose side are we on the side?Of the people who graft. Who work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who seek 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. Thank you. Well said.
10:23
10:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
It's a pleasure to serve under your chair, Mr. Weston, and I commend my good friend, the honourable member for Leeds East, on the work he has done over, over many years to campaign 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 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 conflicts of interest. Every MP earns at least £98,599 a year, with ministers and select committee chairs earning even more. This 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 of an MP salary, so 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, being hired as advisers or consultants primarily because of members political connections and access is not only wrong and out of touch, but poses a genuine risk to public confidence in our democracy. And as we saw during the Tory lobbying scandals in 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 stream income streams is stark. Best illustrated, though by no means limited to the honourable member for Clacton.
I did contact him, Mr. Weston, 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. This 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. For example, teachers, doctors, nurses. This is a necessary step towards restoring trust and integrity within our political system.
The privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament should come with a singular commitment to serving the public and serving them alone.
Despite the obvious potential for conflicts of interest. Every MP earns at least £98,599 a year, with ministers and select committee chairs earning even more. This 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 of an MP salary, so 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, being hired as advisers or consultants primarily because of members political connections and access is not only wrong and out of touch, but poses a genuine risk to public confidence in our democracy. And as we saw during the Tory lobbying scandals in 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 stream income streams is stark. Best illustrated, though by no means limited to the honourable member for Clacton.
I did contact him, Mr. Weston, 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. This 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. For example, teachers, doctors, nurses. This is a necessary step towards restoring trust and integrity within our political system.
The privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament should come with a singular commitment to serving the public and serving them alone.
10:24
10:24
10:24
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Weston. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, and I really congratulate the honourable member for Leeds East for securing this important and very timely debate. And he opened it very well indeed. Being a Member of Parliament for my constituents of 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, Mr. Weston, I was an elected councillor and I was representing the wonderful people of Bredbury and Romiley, and that's classed as a second job under our current rules.
So I declared the allowance I received for the couple of months before I stood down, and the details of that can be seen on my register of interest. The people who voted us here don't do so just so that we can use it as a launching pad into a media career, or a consultancy, or corporate boardrooms. 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, and other members have given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the honourable member for Clacton, and I have indeed let him know in advance that I plan to mention him and his grifting, Mr.
Weston. He's been sitting for 300 days since we were. Those of us on the 2024 intake were elected, and when I was preparing my remarks, I saw that if you add together the hours he's declared. Having worked elsewhere, that's over 140 days on various other jobs since being first elected. And that might be understandable if, like many others, he'd spent that time when he's not here working on constituency work or fighting for those who elected him. But there's been reports in the mirror earlier this year flagging how many constituents felt that he was not around enough.
He spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB news, taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms like Blockworks.
So I declared the allowance I received for the couple of months before I stood down, and the details of that can be seen on my register of interest. The people who voted us here don't do so just so that we can use it as a launching pad into a media career, or a consultancy, or corporate boardrooms. 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, and other members have given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the honourable member for Clacton, and I have indeed let him know in advance that I plan to mention him and his grifting, Mr.
Weston. He's been sitting for 300 days since we were. Those of us on the 2024 intake were elected, and when I was preparing my remarks, I saw that if you add together the hours he's declared. Having worked elsewhere, that's over 140 days on various other jobs since being first elected. And that might be understandable if, like many others, he'd spent that time when he's not here working on constituency work or fighting for those who elected him. But there's been reports in the mirror earlier this year flagging how many constituents felt that he was not around enough.
He spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB news, taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms like Blockworks.
10:26
10:26
10:26
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Your advice and guidance chair. I'll move on to talking about those members who receive payments for posting on social media. Members of the UK Parliament should not be receiving payments from platforms like X, and I also note the register of interest for the member for Great Yarmouth, who. I've also advised I would be mentioning whose most recent donation shows that he's received more than £70,000 from X since his election to this place. Given the international nature of these companies revenue streams and the role Elon Musk has attempted to play in US politics and increasingly, his views expressed on UK politics, we should ensure that there are limitations in place to prevent potential income from these platforms.
Unduly influencing politicians. We know the way the algorithms push content that evokes more feeling as it drives engagement, and that means the more divisive and hate filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. And I've made some amendments to the representation of the people bill that would address this issue, and I would really welcome government support. It's also worth noting the amount of times various members who've already been mentioned have spoken in their role in this place, and for the honourable member for Clacton, that's less than 50 times in two years, and that includes all the points of orders and supplementary questions, considerably less than any other party leader.
Now, some MPs have second. Have a second job that's related to a previous career. As other have mentioned, within these walls, there are those who have had vastly different career backgrounds from those who were veterinarians to police officers. And there's a vast difference between being an MP, maintaining a medical licence, continuing to practise at the bar or keeping up their professional registration in nursing or social work. And as an MP, treating 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.
And so the Lib Dems don't feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs, as we do not believe that would be the right answer. That would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament, and that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians. 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 have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians, including, most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove, who's written to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign based billionaire.
My constituents elected me to do things like fight for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted to press for better rail services and to hold this government and any government to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch. And we've seen scandals and scandal after scandal under the last conservative government. Whether it was the resignation of Owen Paterson to Partygate, public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we're still paying the price for that failure.
Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they don't go far enough. MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategist's advisors or consultants, and this clearly demonstrates that there is a recognition that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs. But it's 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 the modernisation committee was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in the debate that launched it, and yet the government has so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including that related to second jobs. And I'd welcome any update from the Minister on progress and when we might expect it. Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our area and our constituents, and this is not a part time role.
That is the standard this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.
Unduly influencing politicians. We know the way the algorithms push content that evokes more feeling as it drives engagement, and that means the more divisive and hate filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. And I've made some amendments to the representation of the people bill that would address this issue, and I would really welcome government support. It's also worth noting the amount of times various members who've already been mentioned have spoken in their role in this place, and for the honourable member for Clacton, that's less than 50 times in two years, and that includes all the points of orders and supplementary questions, considerably less than any other party leader.
Now, some MPs have second. Have a second job that's related to a previous career. As other have mentioned, within these walls, there are those who have had vastly different career backgrounds from those who were veterinarians to police officers. And there's a vast difference between being an MP, maintaining a medical licence, continuing to practise at the bar or keeping up their professional registration in nursing or social work. And as an MP, treating 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.
And so the Lib Dems don't feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs, as we do not believe that would be the right answer. That would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament, and that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians. 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 have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians, including, most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove, who's written to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign based billionaire.
My constituents elected me to do things like fight for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted to press for better rail services and to hold this government and any government to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch. And we've seen scandals and scandal after scandal under the last conservative government. Whether it was the resignation of Owen Paterson to Partygate, public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we're still paying the price for that failure.
Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they don't go far enough. MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategist's advisors or consultants, and this clearly demonstrates that there is a recognition that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs. But it's 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 the modernisation committee was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in the debate that launched it, and yet the government has so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including that related to second jobs. And I'd welcome any update from the Minister on progress and when we might expect it. Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our area and our constituents, and this is not a part time role.
That is the standard this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.
10:30
10:31
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Weston, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And I want to begin by congratulating the honourable gentleman 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. And while we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban. I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. And we all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House, because there is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years.
The public rightly expects us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is indeed the case. However, if we were to consider a ban on second jobs, then we ought to be clear as to why and some. May have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, at the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs. Parliamentary and constituency work. Mr. Weston, I do not have an outside job.
However, before the general election I did serve 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. And while government posts and for that matter, house rules like chairs of select committees are necessary for a properly functioning government and Parliament, I would have struggled to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job. Now the same would be even more true of many ministerial positions.
Yet most ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. So if we accept that a minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of a government department with their duty to their electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a backbencher cannot balance a few hours a week of external professional practice. So if the primary problem isn't the time diverted from representing constituents, then maybe the issue is money. But if we go down that route, there is a dangerous trap of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs.
Now, few people would complain about the shadow Health Minister. My hon. Friend the member for Sleaford and North Hykeham continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician. And yes, I have informed her that I would be mentioning her. Her work is necessary for her to maintain her professional qualification. It adds immense real world value to her shadow ministerial role, and she properly declares her interest during relevant debates. Similarly, members across this House have often been rightly congratulated for their ongoing work as surgeons, GPS and nurses.
But those 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. When we look, of course, our give way.
The public rightly expects us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is indeed the case. However, if we were to consider a ban on second jobs, then we ought to be clear as to why and some. May have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, at the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs. Parliamentary and constituency work. Mr. Weston, I do not have an outside job.
However, before the general election I did serve 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. And while government posts and for that matter, house rules like chairs of select committees are necessary for a properly functioning government and Parliament, I would have struggled to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job. Now the same would be even more true of many ministerial positions.
Yet most ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. So if we accept that a minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of a government department with their duty to their electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a backbencher cannot balance a few hours a week of external professional practice. So if the primary problem isn't the time diverted from representing constituents, then maybe the issue is money. But if we go down that route, there is a dangerous trap of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs.
Now, few people would complain about the shadow Health Minister. My hon. Friend the member for Sleaford and North Hykeham continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician. And yes, I have informed her that I would be mentioning her. Her work is necessary for her to maintain her professional qualification. It adds immense real world value to her shadow ministerial role, and she properly declares her interest during relevant debates. Similarly, members across this House have often been rightly congratulated for their ongoing work as surgeons, GPS and nurses.
But those 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. When we look, of course, our give way.
10:34
10:34
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Member of Parliament for making a point that I was about to move on to in my speech, um, as I say, those jobs, some of them are. Are better remunerated are incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If those medical jobs are acceptable, then why not the kind of legal work that some members of legally and properly been paid to do as backbench MPs and if regular paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the government's current plans notably exempt, then it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work, advising and manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable, and I think the point the honourable lady was rightly making was we must differentiate between work and influence, because 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. That is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy. We have an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. And in July 2024, the new opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice. Of course.
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. That is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy. We have an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. And in July 2024, the new opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice. Of course.
10:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Where he is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy, could he perhaps expand on his view?As it seems to me that members of this House should be seen as being different from perhaps serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants, other public servants for whom, of course, there are restrictions on them taking outside commercial jobs to their core role. What is it that he thinks is different about members of Parliament?
10:36
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I think it's fundamentally comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as members of Parliament were elected to represent constituents and there it becomes a question of judgment as to what activities both conflict with that and prevent us doing that role, as well as we need to do. And I think some of the cases that have been highlighted today, I think most people would agree cross that line. Uh, the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing what is clearly a genuine problem.
The the Independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on this issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. And that inquiry is still underway. And so it would seem, Mr. Weston, the height of legislative impatience if we were patients, if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans whilst 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 allow the kind of activities that we happen to approve of, while preventing those which we find unpalatable, is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos.
It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents, better served because Mr. Weston, ultimately the best people to judge whether an MP is outside work is preventing them from being an effective member of Parliament. Are the voters in that MPs constituency if they have the full and proper information available?So let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see, and then let us trust the British public to look at that record, to weigh it against the service they receive and to render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.
The the Independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on this issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. And that inquiry is still underway. And so it would seem, Mr. Weston, the height of legislative impatience if we were patients, if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans whilst 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 allow the kind of activities that we happen to approve of, while preventing those which we find unpalatable, is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos.
It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents, better served because Mr. Weston, ultimately the best people to judge whether an MP is outside work is preventing them from being an effective member of Parliament. Are the voters in that MPs constituency if they have the full and proper information available?So let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see, and then let us trust the British public to look at that record, to weigh it against the service they receive and to render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.
10:38
10:38
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Mr. Weston. It's a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to reassure you before I begin, that I have raised with any member that I'll be mentioning today, uh, that I'll be referring to, that I have notified them. So thank you. Um, I'd like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the member for Leeds East for a really, really important debate today and for his long standing and committed and passionate campaigning on this important issue, I'd like to say, well, I'm looking forward to seeing his bill as well.
Um, and I'd like to say this is a time for, for changes that whose time has come. But actually it's a time that is long overdue. Um, and that's where we find ourselves here in this debate today. I would like to thank also all the members that have taken part in today's debate for their contributions, because, as I said, this is such an important and timely debate. Um, this government has been elected on a manifesto that committed to returning to a politics of service, something we've heard a lot from many colleagues here today.
Um, we want to ensure that public office holders are held to the highest standards, those standards that the public rightly expect of them. Colleagues will remember the damage to the trust that people place in their MPs caused by scandal after scandal in the last Parliament, from the lobbying scandals of Matt Hancock and Owen Paterson, Scott Benton all undermining the trust that people place in us to lead by example and on top of our commitment to further tighten the rules on second jobs. I'm really proud of the work this Labour government has undertaken so far.
As per our manifesto pledge, we have established the Independent Ethics and Integrity Commission with its own independent chair and in an expanded and ambitious remit to promote the highest standards in public life. I would like to thank the members of the EIC for their dedicated work. They have completed already to help strengthen standards in public life. However, turning to the important and specific topics of this debate, our manifesto also set out that, and I quote, 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 and I stress in the context of today's debate, urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents now. As I think my hon. Friend from Bolton West, described as glacial, I think we can be a little bit frustrated at the pace that we've seen on the second part of that manifesto commitment.
Um, subsequently. By in March this year by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, trying to put some urgency behind this, he said the government is committed to the principle that second, jobs for members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions such as maintaining professional qualifications. It is this government's view that MPs must prioritise their duty to Parliament and their constituents. The public would expect nothing less from us all. So again, a very clear indication from the Chief Secretary, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister of this government's view that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions.
So, as has already been referred to, I'm pleased that back in 2024, on taking office, we immediately instructed officials to work with House authorities on tightening rules to MPs and second jobs in line with our promises. Just a month after 24 election, we put a motion before the House, which closed two loopholes. Those loopholes had provided 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 had even been possible.
Uh, before we came to power. These rules clearly did not meet the public's expectations of what MPs should be focused on during their time in Parliament. Following this, the previous leader of the House of Commons, as chair of the modernisation Committee, wrote to the Committee on Standards, inviting them 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 they started their inquiry, and I would like to thank the current leader and his predecessor for their diligent work in this space and the support they have offered to the House as the inquiry has proceeded, including, I know the leader has written again in June this year to set out the government's expectations.
We think it's right that the Committee on Standards is at the heart of looking at the future roles governing the behaviour of MPs, given its deep expertise and its proven ability for members to work together on a cross-party basis to promote the highest standards in public life. But again, and I'd say, and I'll come back to this later on in my speech, I would encourage them to heed the words very clearly. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions and will be urging them, I'm sure, all to to increase the pace on their review.
As a debate has highlighted, there is obviously some discussion about what constitutes a second job or outside interests, and these can be varied. Um, I don't know if the honourable member for Hazel Grove saw my jaw hit the desk when she mentioned the social media income. I hadn't seen that. Uh, it's absolutely astonishing that MPs can basically profit from click bait and driving hits and likes again, I mean, the weather. Well, the public can can see quite clearly the contradiction and the conflict that that could ensue from that in terms of representing their constituents.
Um, so I thank her for raising that point. Um, I'd just like to set out on the basis now of, on the basis of the letter that the leader sent, um, in June to the committee, what the government wants to achieve and what we want the committee to focus on. We believe there are three core areas that need to be considered when determining whether an MP should be able to undertake an additional role. These are time, money and influence, I believe, and I hope all members agree, that being an MP is a huge and enormous privilege, one that I think for many of us, and I know this having.
Having lost and come back, nothing will ever eclipse the privilege that you get in this role. It's precious to all of us. I don't think it would be right for anyone to be elected to this place, and for their focus 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 long overdue and outdated. Victorian, as I've heard others say today, and in the view of this government, it has to change now.
How can it be right that, for example, the honourable member for Clacton, as we've heard, has 16 jobs and just yesterday revealed that he has paid 22,500 pounds per hour. That's just think about that, 22,500 pounds per hour. As a brand ambassador for gold trade, it's just absolutely blows my mind. The same member has taken more than £2 million on top of his parliamentary salary, he receives £400,000 for presenting shows on GB news up until March 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.
Um and as of March 2026, um, he has spent the equivalent of 140 working days on his second job, according to Byline Times. I'm not sure how anyone can see that as compatible with his obligations to the people of Clacton. As we've already heard today as well, these are just the things that we know about. Um, he was forced to or journalists uncovered the £5 million donation from a Thai crypto. Billionaire, which was not declared to the parliament. Sorry.
Um, and I'd like to say this is a time for, for changes that whose time has come. But actually it's a time that is long overdue. Um, and that's where we find ourselves here in this debate today. I would like to thank also all the members that have taken part in today's debate for their contributions, because, as I said, this is such an important and timely debate. Um, this government has been elected on a manifesto that committed to returning to a politics of service, something we've heard a lot from many colleagues here today.
Um, we want to ensure that public office holders are held to the highest standards, those standards that the public rightly expect of them. Colleagues will remember the damage to the trust that people place in their MPs caused by scandal after scandal in the last Parliament, from the lobbying scandals of Matt Hancock and Owen Paterson, Scott Benton all undermining the trust that people place in us to lead by example and on top of our commitment to further tighten the rules on second jobs. I'm really proud of the work this Labour government has undertaken so far.
As per our manifesto pledge, we have established the Independent Ethics and Integrity Commission with its own independent chair and in an expanded and ambitious remit to promote the highest standards in public life. I would like to thank the members of the EIC for their dedicated work. They have completed already to help strengthen standards in public life. However, turning to the important and specific topics of this debate, our manifesto also set out that, and I quote, 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 and I stress in the context of today's debate, urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents now. As I think my hon. Friend from Bolton West, described as glacial, I think we can be a little bit frustrated at the pace that we've seen on the second part of that manifesto commitment.
Um, subsequently. By in March this year by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, trying to put some urgency behind this, he said the government is committed to the principle that second, jobs for members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions such as maintaining professional qualifications. It is this government's view that MPs must prioritise their duty to Parliament and their constituents. The public would expect nothing less from us all. So again, a very clear indication from the Chief Secretary, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister of this government's view that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions.
So, as has already been referred to, I'm pleased that back in 2024, on taking office, we immediately instructed officials to work with House authorities on tightening rules to MPs and second jobs in line with our promises. Just a month after 24 election, we put a motion before the House, which closed two loopholes. Those loopholes had provided 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 had even been possible.
Uh, before we came to power. These rules clearly did not meet the public's expectations of what MPs should be focused on during their time in Parliament. Following this, the previous leader of the House of Commons, as chair of the modernisation Committee, wrote to the Committee on Standards, inviting them 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 they started their inquiry, and I would like to thank the current leader and his predecessor for their diligent work in this space and the support they have offered to the House as the inquiry has proceeded, including, I know the leader has written again in June this year to set out the government's expectations.
We think it's right that the Committee on Standards is at the heart of looking at the future roles governing the behaviour of MPs, given its deep expertise and its proven ability for members to work together on a cross-party basis to promote the highest standards in public life. But again, and I'd say, and I'll come back to this later on in my speech, I would encourage them to heed the words very clearly. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions and will be urging them, I'm sure, all to to increase the pace on their review.
As a debate has highlighted, there is obviously some discussion about what constitutes a second job or outside interests, and these can be varied. Um, I don't know if the honourable member for Hazel Grove saw my jaw hit the desk when she mentioned the social media income. I hadn't seen that. Uh, it's absolutely astonishing that MPs can basically profit from click bait and driving hits and likes again, I mean, the weather. Well, the public can can see quite clearly the contradiction and the conflict that that could ensue from that in terms of representing their constituents.
Um, so I thank her for raising that point. Um, I'd just like to set out on the basis now of, on the basis of the letter that the leader sent, um, in June to the committee, what the government wants to achieve and what we want the committee to focus on. We believe there are three core areas that need to be considered when determining whether an MP should be able to undertake an additional role. These are time, money and influence, I believe, and I hope all members agree, that being an MP is a huge and enormous privilege, one that I think for many of us, and I know this having.
Having lost and come back, nothing will ever eclipse the privilege that you get in this role. It's precious to all of us. I don't think it would be right for anyone to be elected to this place, and for their focus 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 long overdue and outdated. Victorian, as I've heard others say today, and in the view of this government, it has to change now.
How can it be right that, for example, the honourable member for Clacton, as we've heard, has 16 jobs and just yesterday revealed that he has paid 22,500 pounds per hour. That's just think about that, 22,500 pounds per hour. As a brand ambassador for gold trade, it's just absolutely blows my mind. The same member has taken more than £2 million on top of his parliamentary salary, he receives £400,000 for presenting shows on GB news up until March 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.
Um and as of March 2026, um, he has spent the equivalent of 140 working days on his second job, according to Byline Times. I'm not sure how anyone can see that as compatible with his obligations to the people of Clacton. As we've already heard today as well, these are just the things that we know about. Um, he was forced to or journalists uncovered the £5 million donation from a Thai crypto. Billionaire, which was not declared to the parliament. Sorry.
10:46
10:46
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I appreciate the chair's, uh, reflection. Thank you very much for that. And, um, yeah, I think it's I'll simply say that it's nice for some members of Parliament to see what they see as a safe and secure future. Um, which I'm sure many of our constituents, as we've heard today, would, would dearly love themselves. But my concern about the examples that I've just given here is that not just that it diminishes the individual member in the eyes of the public. And I know the honourable member for East Londonderry and, the shadow minister opposite have both said, of course, the onus is on the public to make their judgement.
I completely appreciate that that is true and the public will make their judgement. But actually things like that don't just diminish the individual member of Parliament. They diminish this place. They diminish our democracy, and they do a great disservice not just to the people of Clacton, but to the people of Britain as well. From the outset, I want to, um, just be clear that the government does believe there is a very, very clear difference as the honourable as the shadow minister opposite has mentioned, between a second job and a ministerial parliamentary role, such as being the chair of a select committee, not least because in performing these roles, members are accountable to Parliament and acting on behalf of the House to scrutinise the work of the government of the day.
As I've already said, the government does not believe MPs should be able to have a second job that poses a distraction from MPs primary duties to Parliament and their constituents. And the honourable member for Strangford, I think, used the word that shouldn't be able to compromise, and I think that's a similar sort of approach. It shouldn't be a distraction or compromise their 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, and members should be spending their time doing the best possible job representing their constituents who put their trust in them in the general election.
Secondly, the second principle is that any earning from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is actually the MPs primary source of income. MPs and the public, um, for example, can decide for themselves whether they're either or MPs. Sorry, should be able to decide if they are either brand ambassadors for gold bullion or ambassadors for the people that they represent. Thirdly, a job must not have an influence or be perceived as having an influence on an MPs behaviour and the way they undertake their parliamentary duties, so I hope members across the House feel they can get behind those three.
Pretty reasonable, I think, tests and standards, and I hope that they will reach out to the Standards Committee to continue to make sure their views are properly reflected in their considerations. I appreciate, as many others have said, that we also do have to be pragmatic about this and recognise that colleagues have had careers and, you know, many of us will need, again, careers outside of politics. Um, I recognise the house is enriched by the experience of these roles, as we've heard. And as the honourable member for Stourbridge raised as a as a nurse and those working in the NHS, and they do require individuals to maintain professional qualifications, which is why we've been clear that changes must include qualifying exemptions so the House can retain the expertise brought to it by those with successful careers before they come to this place.
But I do agree with my hon. Friend for York Central, um, because this cannot be a loophole that is exploited by individuals. And it's also important that some professions are not more equal than others. Um, everybody ought to have the ability to have a successful career after they leave here. And it cannot be used as an excuse to, to justify earning a second income at the um, that could be detrimental to your role as an MP. Um. So um, Mr.
Chair, um, just to conclude then the government, this government was elected on a manifesto that promised to change how our politics is conducted and to 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, to upholding standards in public life. Standards. Our constituents demand that we maintain, and this government remains committed to the promise we made to the country at the last general election. I am proud we implemented those immediate changes to lobbying, but as we've heard today, there is so, so much more to be done.
I welcome the ongoing work of the modernisation committee, and I look forward to the recommendations the Committee on Standards will make to this House. But I will say this very carefully and deliberately and as clearly as I can also, perhaps in the hope of catching the ear of, um, the next Prime Minister, this government does have the ability to draft and propose legislation. This government does have a big majority in the House. And I think, as I've already mentioned earlier, that parliamentarians here today and the government have both the power but crucially, the responsibility to protect this place and the privilege of being MP, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after.
So I very much look forward to the honourable member's bill. I look forward to all of us using our collective voices, working with the committees to sort this now. Um, because it is long, long overdue. I'd just like to thank honourable members for taking part in this debate today and for ensuring their constituents views on this really important issue has been heard here in this place.
I completely appreciate that that is true and the public will make their judgement. But actually things like that don't just diminish the individual member of Parliament. They diminish this place. They diminish our democracy, and they do a great disservice not just to the people of Clacton, but to the people of Britain as well. From the outset, I want to, um, just be clear that the government does believe there is a very, very clear difference as the honourable as the shadow minister opposite has mentioned, between a second job and a ministerial parliamentary role, such as being the chair of a select committee, not least because in performing these roles, members are accountable to Parliament and acting on behalf of the House to scrutinise the work of the government of the day.
As I've already said, the government does not believe MPs should be able to have a second job that poses a distraction from MPs primary duties to Parliament and their constituents. And the honourable member for Strangford, I think, used the word that shouldn't be able to compromise, and I think that's a similar sort of approach. It shouldn't be a distraction or compromise their 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, and members should be spending their time doing the best possible job representing their constituents who put their trust in them in the general election.
Secondly, the second principle is that any earning from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is actually the MPs primary source of income. MPs and the public, um, for example, can decide for themselves whether they're either or MPs. Sorry, should be able to decide if they are either brand ambassadors for gold bullion or ambassadors for the people that they represent. Thirdly, a job must not have an influence or be perceived as having an influence on an MPs behaviour and the way they undertake their parliamentary duties, so I hope members across the House feel they can get behind those three.
Pretty reasonable, I think, tests and standards, and I hope that they will reach out to the Standards Committee to continue to make sure their views are properly reflected in their considerations. I appreciate, as many others have said, that we also do have to be pragmatic about this and recognise that colleagues have had careers and, you know, many of us will need, again, careers outside of politics. Um, I recognise the house is enriched by the experience of these roles, as we've heard. And as the honourable member for Stourbridge raised as a as a nurse and those working in the NHS, and they do require individuals to maintain professional qualifications, which is why we've been clear that changes must include qualifying exemptions so the House can retain the expertise brought to it by those with successful careers before they come to this place.
But I do agree with my hon. Friend for York Central, um, because this cannot be a loophole that is exploited by individuals. And it's also important that some professions are not more equal than others. Um, everybody ought to have the ability to have a successful career after they leave here. And it cannot be used as an excuse to, to justify earning a second income at the um, that could be detrimental to your role as an MP. Um. So um, Mr.
Chair, um, just to conclude then the government, this government was elected on a manifesto that promised to change how our politics is conducted and to 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, to upholding standards in public life. Standards. Our constituents demand that we maintain, and this government remains committed to the promise we made to the country at the last general election. I am proud we implemented those immediate changes to lobbying, but as we've heard today, there is so, so much more to be done.
I welcome the ongoing work of the modernisation committee, and I look forward to the recommendations the Committee on Standards will make to this House. But I will say this very carefully and deliberately and as clearly as I can also, perhaps in the hope of catching the ear of, um, the next Prime Minister, this government does have the ability to draft and propose legislation. This government does have a big majority in the House. And I think, as I've already mentioned earlier, that parliamentarians here today and the government have both the power but crucially, the responsibility to protect this place and the privilege of being MP, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after.
So I very much look forward to the honourable member's bill. I look forward to all of us using our collective voices, working with the committees to sort this now. Um, because it is long, long overdue. I'd just like to thank honourable members for taking part in this debate today and for ensuring their constituents views on this really important issue has been heard here in this place.
10:51
10:51
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Weston. And I want to thank every single member of Parliament who has contributed to this debate. I want to thank the Minister for her very constructive and encouraging response. I think the message from this 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, they're undermining our democracy. And that's a very serious matter indeed. Trust and public confidence in politicians, in Parliament, in our democratic process, has never been lower.
So we have a historic duty to turn that around. And that means change. And that means, amongst 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's a full, comprehensive plan. I also hope to speak to the next Prime Minister about this plan, because to usher in a new era, I think this could be part of that new era. It could be part of a fresh start, showing that we're not all the same, showing that we defend our democracy, showing that we believe in public service and in a better kind of politics.
So thank you to every single honourable member who has come today and who has, uh, contributed to this debate. And thank you, Mr. Weston in the chair.
So we have a historic duty to turn that around. And that means change. And that means, amongst 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's a full, comprehensive plan. I also hope to speak to the next Prime Minister about this plan, because to usher in a new era, I think this could be part of that new era. It could be part of a fresh start, showing that we're not all the same, showing that we defend our democracy, showing that we believe in public service and in a better kind of politics.
So thank you to every single honourable member who has come today and who has, uh, contributed to this debate. And thank you, Mr. Weston in the chair.
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you for that. What time are we now?59. 41. I might have to. I'll do it when I'm actually. I've got this going. Order, order!I will call the vendor to move the motion. And I will then call the minister to respond. I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate, and the Minister.
There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention, for 30 minute debates. Order, order!To move the motion.
There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention, for 30 minute debates. Order, order!To move the motion.
11:00
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Weston. It's a pleasure to serve in this debate with you and and other colleagues. Can I begin by thanking everyone who has contacted me regarding the status and the future of reddish library, reddish baths, and more widely about investment across reddish. The strength of feeling on this issue locally is very 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, and I'm proud to represent this area. I welcome that this Labour government has increased central government funding for Stockport Council by 2028 2029. Stockport's core spending power will rise by 7.5%. However, I recognise that this is below the average increase for English councils. I have been consistently vocal in calling on the Labour government to deliver the fair funding that Stockport deserves.
After years of underinvestment, this uplift marks a clear change in direction compared to the coalition years when Stockport was hit by deep austerity cuts. I'm calling on the Liberal Democrat run Stockport council to take investment in reddish seriously. Nowhere is. More than happy to give way.
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, and I'm proud to represent this area. I welcome that this Labour government has increased central government funding for Stockport Council by 2028 2029. Stockport's core spending power will rise by 7.5%. However, I recognise that this is below the average increase for English councils. I have been consistently vocal in calling on the Labour government to deliver the fair funding that Stockport deserves.
After years of underinvestment, this uplift marks a clear change in direction compared to the coalition years when Stockport was hit by deep austerity cuts. I'm calling on the Liberal Democrat run Stockport council to take investment in reddish seriously. Nowhere is. More than happy to give way.
11:02
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I'm delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting its rightful attention in this place and in the main chamber. Does my constituency neighbour agree with me that it is genuinely disappointing that the government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and it has done overall, but that Stockport has been short changed. Stockport and he will know because it's in his constituency, has the least well off part of the whole of Greater Manchester. And yet, because we missed out by 0.1% on extra funding, that means services will have to be cut because of a decision by this Labour government.
11:02
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Can I thank can I thank her for the intervention?And she knows that I have been in meetings with her, pushing the government for more funding for Stockport. She also knows that I've just mentioned that the government should should go beyond what the 7.5% increase will deliver, and I fully agree with her that more deprived areas, more low income areas across Stockport, across Greater Manchester deserve more attention. We can't have a one size fits all approach, so I hope she knows that. Although of course, as a politician I will be making political points.
But my voting record and my record in Hansard shows that I will do what's best for Stockport. So, um, happy to. Take intervention from.
But my voting record and my record in Hansard shows that I will do what's best for Stockport. So, um, happy to. Take intervention from.
11:03
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
First of all, can I commend the honourable gentleman for Stockport for bringing this forward?And he's absolutely right to to press for his constituents. And does the honourable gentleman agree with me whether we're talking about an urban industrial town like reddish, or whether we're talking about a rural community. And, for instance, in my constituency, Strangford, the foundational rules of successful regeneration remain exactly the same. It requires targeted central government support. It requires modernised infrastructure. It requires revitalising our local high streets so that people can live, work and thrive in their own hometowns.
The honourable gentleman is trying very, very hard to do that. I support him and I wish him well.
The honourable gentleman is trying very, very hard to do that. I support him and I wish him well.
11:04
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, the honourable gentleman from Northern Ireland makes a very important point. I think investment in our high streets, having a thriving high street with independent local businesses, but also having thriving district centres is extremely important and reddish, we're quite lucky, has a wide range of fantastic independent local businesses, which I'm going to come to later on in my speech, so I thank him for the investment. Um, I'll go back to my speech, Mr. Weston. I'm calling on the Liberal Democrat run Stockport Council to take investment in reddish seriously.
Nowhere is the need for fair investment clearer than in reddish. And Stockport council cannot continue to overlook its need 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. This falls behind other parts of my constituency, where the average male life expectancy is 81 and average female life expectancy is 84. Residents have consistently raised concerns with me about ageing infrastructure, a lack of high quality public facilities and a lack of investment in the area.
People of reddish deserve good quality public amenities, 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. And sadly, this is continuing under a Liberal Democrat controlled local authority. This was 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, bedroom tax and so much more?I want to highlight something a reddish resident told me recently.
They said it feels like reddish is a cash cow. The residents pay lots in and get absolutely nothing in return. Across my constituency, there's 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 when it will be reopened by Stockport 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 repair charges in council owned car parks, including at Broadstone Road in Reddish, where charges were recently introduced, are hitting residents and small businesses hard, turning to reddish baths, this site includes the disused baths building, the former community centre and fire station and reddish library. The 1908 buildings, library, fire stations, 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 their esteem, or Mr. Weston, lack thereof, in which reddish is held by Stockport Council. Reddish baths closed in 2005 and have stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together and allowed young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill, and served as a much loved facility. Despite this, 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 Weiss and David Wilson, who work tirelessly for the wider community and have done lots of work on this issue with me. I recently ran a community survey, Mr. Weston in Reddish, asking residents to share their views on the future of reddish baths. Almost 1000 residents responded to my survey, offering some 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, and 43% chose the community cafe or meeting space.
The strongest guiding principles were promoting health and wellbeing, preserving historic architecture, expanding youth and family services. 65% want a plan that brings together the library, the baths, the 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's also a strong desire for shared community asset that serves all ages. However, Mr.
Weston residents also raise 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 and harmful to the site's heritage. Some residents, Mr. Weston also expressed distrust with Stockport Council due to previous delays and failed plans. Turning to reddish baths, I contacted the chief executive and the leader of council to reopen engagement on the further on the future of the baths site. I am grateful to the Chief Executive for doing a visit with me a few months back.
Across the five facilities in Stockport Borough. The public supply is 2648m square of water. To meet the recommended supply of 12 meter square per thousand population, Stockport would need another 990m square, meaning there's currently a clear water provision deficit. Not only has reddish lost its parts, we also have serious issues at Grand Central swimming Pool in our town centre. Sport England has been less than helpful in my inquiries. This is highly disappointing because Sport England receives a huge amount of funding from the British taxpayers.
Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening. Looking at 2024 2025 stats, only 73% of year seven pupils can swim 25m competently, just 67%. Mr. Weston, of children 5 to 16, can swim 25m unaided. That is 3000, or 3.5% fewer children, than 2017 to 2018. Turning to the library, Mr. Mr. Weston, only 19% of children and young people in North West read daily in their free time. This 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, and 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, providing support for members of the community who are digitally excluded with free WiFi provision computers and help with digital skills. Many people also rely on our library as a warm space.
I'm concerned that the urgent works identified for the library have still not been undertaken. Despite the importance of this facility to local community. I've been lucky enough, Mr. Weston to hold surgeries at the library, and I remember during my last surgery a few months back, 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 in Reddish Library for over three years, at a cost of over £26,000 to the taxpayer, including value added tax VAT.
This cost rises to over £30,000 paid by the people of Stockport. I'm 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 ten. This 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 the many bundled into one joint application despite needing thousands of pounds to stabilise the roof. In addition to other issues that I mentioned, Mr. Weston, the council did not inform me of this application. Had they done so, I would have been more than happy to to lobby the government lobby. The minister on behalf of the Council. But communication with elected officials, whether they be councillors or MPs, seems to be really poor from 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 1.6 million previously awarded. Many of my constituents feel strongly that reddish once again has been overlooked. To be clear, I welcome investment in all parts of Stockport, Mr. Weston, not just in my constituency but the Liberal Democrats, should be honest and upfront about overlooking some parts of our borough and prioritising other areas. Can I thank unison members?I'm a proud trade union member myself, and I refer the House to my register of interest.
Can I thank unison members working in Stockport libraries and across Stockport Council for all the work 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. This is attributed, amongst other factors, to the extraordinary knowledge, diligence and care demonstrated by Nicky and Belinda Reddish. As long serving librarians as we marked the national year of Reading this year, Mr. Weston, I also want to recognise the outstanding work of organisations such as Reading 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 doesn't leak to do so. Can I challenge the narrative being pushed by the Liberal Democrat Council leadership in the local press?We are told that this Labour government, who, by the way, is trying to address coalition years of austerity and cuts, has made a political decision on funding in respect of Stockport. But Mr. Weston, let me be clear, blaming this government who's been in power for less than two years, has become a convenient excuse for years of neglect and 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 in the back of the queue?Residents in areas like 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 like reddish reputedly feel overlooked and frankly, invisible?One cannot claim to stand for fairness while presiding over unequal outcomes.
Nowhere is the need for fair investment clearer than in reddish. And Stockport council cannot continue to overlook its need 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. This falls behind other parts of my constituency, where the average male life expectancy is 81 and average female life expectancy is 84. Residents have consistently raised concerns with me about ageing infrastructure, a lack of high quality public facilities and a lack of investment in the area.
People of reddish deserve good quality public amenities, 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. And sadly, this is continuing under a Liberal Democrat controlled local authority. This was 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, bedroom tax and so much more?I want to highlight something a reddish resident told me recently.
They said it feels like reddish is a cash cow. The residents pay lots in and get absolutely nothing in return. Across my constituency, there's 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 when it will be reopened by Stockport 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 repair charges in council owned car parks, including at Broadstone Road in Reddish, where charges were recently introduced, are hitting residents and small businesses hard, turning to reddish baths, this site includes the disused baths building, the former community centre and fire station and reddish library. The 1908 buildings, library, fire stations, 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 their esteem, or Mr. Weston, lack thereof, in which reddish is held by Stockport Council. Reddish baths closed in 2005 and have stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together and allowed young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill, and served as a much loved facility. Despite this, 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 Weiss and David Wilson, who work tirelessly for the wider community and have done lots of work on this issue with me. I recently ran a community survey, Mr. Weston in Reddish, asking residents to share their views on the future of reddish baths. Almost 1000 residents responded to my survey, offering some 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, and 43% chose the community cafe or meeting space.
The strongest guiding principles were promoting health and wellbeing, preserving historic architecture, expanding youth and family services. 65% want a plan that brings together the library, the baths, the 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's also a strong desire for shared community asset that serves all ages. However, Mr.
Weston residents also raise 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 and harmful to the site's heritage. Some residents, Mr. Weston also expressed distrust with Stockport Council due to previous delays and failed plans. Turning to reddish baths, I contacted the chief executive and the leader of council to reopen engagement on the further on the future of the baths site. I am grateful to the Chief Executive for doing a visit with me a few months back.
Across the five facilities in Stockport Borough. The public supply is 2648m square of water. To meet the recommended supply of 12 meter square per thousand population, Stockport would need another 990m square, meaning there's currently a clear water provision deficit. Not only has reddish lost its parts, we also have serious issues at Grand Central swimming Pool in our town centre. Sport England has been less than helpful in my inquiries. This is highly disappointing because Sport England receives a huge amount of funding from the British taxpayers.
Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening. Looking at 2024 2025 stats, only 73% of year seven pupils can swim 25m competently, just 67%. Mr. Weston, of children 5 to 16, can swim 25m unaided. That is 3000, or 3.5% fewer children, than 2017 to 2018. Turning to the library, Mr. Mr. Weston, only 19% of children and young people in North West read daily in their free time. This 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, and 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, providing support for members of the community who are digitally excluded with free WiFi provision computers and help with digital skills. Many people also rely on our library as a warm space.
I'm concerned that the urgent works identified for the library have still not been undertaken. Despite the importance of this facility to local community. I've been lucky enough, Mr. Weston to hold surgeries at the library, and I remember during my last surgery a few months back, 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 in Reddish Library for over three years, at a cost of over £26,000 to the taxpayer, including value added tax VAT.
This cost rises to over £30,000 paid by the people of Stockport. I'm 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 ten. This 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 the many bundled into one joint application despite needing thousands of pounds to stabilise the roof. In addition to other issues that I mentioned, Mr. Weston, the council did not inform me of this application. Had they done so, I would have been more than happy to to lobby the government lobby. The minister on behalf of the Council. But communication with elected officials, whether they be councillors or MPs, seems to be really poor from 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 1.6 million previously awarded. Many of my constituents feel strongly that reddish once again has been overlooked. To be clear, I welcome investment in all parts of Stockport, Mr. Weston, not just in my constituency but the Liberal Democrats, should be honest and upfront about overlooking some parts of our borough and prioritising other areas. Can I thank unison members?I'm a proud trade union member myself, and I refer the House to my register of interest.
Can I thank unison members working in Stockport libraries and across Stockport Council for all the work 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. This is attributed, amongst other factors, to the extraordinary knowledge, diligence and care demonstrated by Nicky and Belinda Reddish. As long serving librarians as we marked the national year of Reading this year, Mr. Weston, I also want to recognise the outstanding work of organisations such as Reading 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 doesn't leak to do so. Can I challenge the narrative being pushed by the Liberal Democrat Council leadership in the local press?We are told that this Labour government, who, by the way, is trying to address coalition years of austerity and cuts, has made a political decision on funding in respect of Stockport. But Mr. Weston, let me be clear, blaming this government who's been in power for less than two years, has become a convenient excuse for years of neglect and 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 in the back of the queue?Residents in areas like 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 like reddish reputedly feel overlooked and frankly, invisible?One cannot claim to stand for fairness while presiding over unequal outcomes.
11:14
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Else to blame and explain to the good people of radish why their neighborhood has. Been left behind. They're not. I have limited time. I'm already running. Maybe if I can. Later on. Um. They're not asking for special treatment. The people. They just want fairness. I ask that people of reddish get equal treatment. The same investment urgency that appears elsewhere in some areas of Stockport borough.
If the money is so tight, why does this neglect never seem to fall equally across Stockport borough?Why have the. While I have the floor, Mr. Weston. As a local MP, I would also expect my correspondence and freedom of Information requests to be dealt with promptly. The fact that I'm having to repeatedly chase responses from Stockport Council is unacceptable and inevitably leads me to question what level of service local residents are receiving. If inquiries from elected representatives like councillors and MPs are not being answered in a timely manner, it is reasonable to be concerned about the responsiveness and accountability experience by constituents.
Mr. Weston I made a Freedom of Information submission on 23rd of April. Stockport Council contacted me on 5th of May to say that they were unable to respond within 20 working days, so needed 40 working days. That was 22nd of June. That deadline that has come and gone. It's 1st of July. Today I have been told that I need to wait for a further for the information, so they can't even respond to FOI in a timely manner. It's just frankly unacceptable.
Turning to Lancashire Hill, it would be remiss of me not to mention Lancashire Hill, a development that was built with an ambitious vision of creating a thriving community which, despite decades of challenges, still retains that strong community spirit. Today, residents look out for one another and demonstrate remarkable resilience in the face of difficult circumstances. Yet it is clear that the buildings themselves are crying out for investment. Constituents regularly raise concerns about aging infrastructure, unreliable lifts, damp and mould, security issues, anti-social 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. I know my my neighbour is nodding at a time when the Labour government and Stockport's Mayoral Development Corporation are helping to deliver 8000 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 they rightly expect. Many constituents living on Lancashire Hill Estate feel that they deserve better and I agree with them. I would therefore welcome attention from the Minister regarding the acute challenges facing communities with significant need. Can I take this opportunity to 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'd also like to take her to Lancashire Hill to meet residents, see firsthand the issues, the challenges facing the community but also the extraordinary community spirit that endures there and to provide the investment needed to modernize the vital development so that families can enjoy the safe, secure, high quality homes they deserve. Stockport Council also has a duty of care to these residents at Lancashire Hill, and I want to see the council administration taking tangible action, tangible actions to Western for them. I'd like to conclude that reddish is a fantastic area with so many wonderful community groups, charities and faith groups.
Reddish provides food supplies and vital support for local people. The Friends of Reddish South Station campaigned tirelessly and passionately for better transport links and built in 1874, Holdsworth Working Men's Club is an essential community hub. Community spirit in this area is alive and well. I recently ran a competition for Small Business Saturday. Last year, Mr. Weston, to celebrate the work of small businesses in my constituency and the vast majority of nominations for small businesses came from reddish, including businesses such as Reddish Ale.
The last track coffee Shop, Ozzie's Cafe, Johnny's Cafe and so many more. Mr. Weston, I know you and I are good friends and you know I like cider, so if you. On your next visit to Stockport, I promised to take you to Reddish Oil for a lovely pint of cider. It's great to see the community spirit coming together to honor their contributions. I want to emphasize to the minister that communities such as reddish cannot be left behind. While the future funding decisions are made.
Initiatives like Pride in Place for 20 million. The £20 million for Brinnington awarded through Pride in Place is very welcome, and I'm so grateful to the government for awarding that. After years and years of decline in austerity by former governments. But it is essential that support is not concentrated only in a few areas, and that places like reddish also benefit from meaningful investment areas with high deprivation, ageing infrastructure, long standing underinvestment need targeted support if they 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, they must ensure that all parts of borough get a fair share of funding. Thank you, Mr. Weston.
If the money is so tight, why does this neglect never seem to fall equally across Stockport borough?Why have the. While I have the floor, Mr. Weston. As a local MP, I would also expect my correspondence and freedom of Information requests to be dealt with promptly. The fact that I'm having to repeatedly chase responses from Stockport Council is unacceptable and inevitably leads me to question what level of service local residents are receiving. If inquiries from elected representatives like councillors and MPs are not being answered in a timely manner, it is reasonable to be concerned about the responsiveness and accountability experience by constituents.
Mr. Weston I made a Freedom of Information submission on 23rd of April. Stockport Council contacted me on 5th of May to say that they were unable to respond within 20 working days, so needed 40 working days. That was 22nd of June. That deadline that has come and gone. It's 1st of July. Today I have been told that I need to wait for a further for the information, so they can't even respond to FOI in a timely manner. It's just frankly unacceptable.
Turning to Lancashire Hill, it would be remiss of me not to mention Lancashire Hill, a development that was built with an ambitious vision of creating a thriving community which, despite decades of challenges, still retains that strong community spirit. Today, residents look out for one another and demonstrate remarkable resilience in the face of difficult circumstances. Yet it is clear that the buildings themselves are crying out for investment. Constituents regularly raise concerns about aging infrastructure, unreliable lifts, damp and mould, security issues, anti-social 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. I know my my neighbour is nodding at a time when the Labour government and Stockport's Mayoral Development Corporation are helping to deliver 8000 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 they rightly expect. Many constituents living on Lancashire Hill Estate feel that they deserve better and I agree with them. I would therefore welcome attention from the Minister regarding the acute challenges facing communities with significant need. Can I take this opportunity to 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'd also like to take her to Lancashire Hill to meet residents, see firsthand the issues, the challenges facing the community but also the extraordinary community spirit that endures there and to provide the investment needed to modernize the vital development so that families can enjoy the safe, secure, high quality homes they deserve. Stockport Council also has a duty of care to these residents at Lancashire Hill, and I want to see the council administration taking tangible action, tangible actions to Western for them. I'd like to conclude that reddish is a fantastic area with so many wonderful community groups, charities and faith groups.
Reddish provides food supplies and vital support for local people. The Friends of Reddish South Station campaigned tirelessly and passionately for better transport links and built in 1874, Holdsworth Working Men's Club is an essential community hub. Community spirit in this area is alive and well. I recently ran a competition for Small Business Saturday. Last year, Mr. Weston, to celebrate the work of small businesses in my constituency and the vast majority of nominations for small businesses came from reddish, including businesses such as Reddish Ale.
The last track coffee Shop, Ozzie's Cafe, Johnny's Cafe and so many more. Mr. Weston, I know you and I are good friends and you know I like cider, so if you. On your next visit to Stockport, I promised to take you to Reddish Oil for a lovely pint of cider. It's great to see the community spirit coming together to honor their contributions. I want to emphasize to the minister that communities such as reddish cannot be left behind. While the future funding decisions are made.
Initiatives like Pride in Place for 20 million. The £20 million for Brinnington awarded through Pride in Place is very welcome, and I'm so grateful to the government for awarding that. After years and years of decline in austerity by former governments. But it is essential that support is not concentrated only in a few areas, and that places like reddish also benefit from meaningful investment areas with high deprivation, ageing infrastructure, long standing underinvestment need targeted support if they 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, they must ensure that all parts of borough get a fair share of funding. Thank you, Mr. Weston.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, Mr. Weston. I'd like to thank the honourable member for Stockport for securing this debate and thank um. I thank him for using the opportunity to highlight not only the brilliant things about his constituency in reddish, but also the challenges which he so strongly advocates needs, addressing 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 and health facilities, is central to this.
I know that this is particularly felt in neighborhoods across Stockport, including Redditch, which my hon. Friend has spoken about. Too many neighborhoods have been left behind and let down after decades of underinvestment and many, many years of austerity, and areas like Redditch have paid a heavy price. I know that there are political choices that have to be made, and the consequences of those choices of austerity years are still being felt by the constituents living in reading. The impact of years of decline has not been felt equally in my right hon.
Friend is absolutely right to highlight that, which is why it is crucial that government is relentless in focusing on growth and regeneration to raise living standards across the country, working in partnership to empower and invest in all the regions of the country. We can kick start growth and work to address those imbalances between, in, 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 the residents of Stockport will have benefited from a number of schemes from both funds, including benefiting from new employment spaces, improved rail access and walking and cycling routes all, of course, aimed at bolstering the local economy, connectivity and public health.
But as the Right Honourable member has said, too many of these legacy funds were pitting places against each other through competitive bidding, leaving places behind places like Redditch. And while these funds are coming to a close, the government has been looking at how local projects are funded through a longer term approach that provides sustainable and predictable support for local authorities. And Mr. Chair, the truth is it is elected local leaders who hold the expertise on how to invest in their communities. I feel this very, very strongly, having served as a local council leader.
And know, regardless of political parties, that the interests of the local communities is best understood by local leaders. And that is why the government has committed to a series of new devolved levers and flexible funds to regenerate places, including introducing new funds for mayoral strategic authorities. The Local Growth Fund has allocated 140 million to Greater Manchester over the next four years through its integrated settlement. It enables strategic, place based investment, meaning money will be targeted where it's needed most, addressing challenges for areas which need additional supports, getting projects off the ground.
We've also announced city investment funds, which would place for years through its integrated settlement. We've also announced city investment funds, which would place money directly into the hands of mayors, deliver new housing and get existing projects moving forward. Authorities the Local Growth Fund has allocated 140 million to Greater Manchester over the next four years through its integrated settlement. It enables strategic, place based investment, meaning money will be targeted where it's needed most, addressing challenges for areas which need additional supports, getting projects off the ground.
We've also announced city investment funds, which would place money directly into the hands of mayors, deliver new housing and get existing projects moving forward. Local authorities are, of course, essential partners in this, and we know that mayoral strategic authorities work closely with their constituent councils to shape priorities, as they should, to co-design. Intervention and to ensure that funding reflects local need. One example of new locally led delivery is the Pride and Place programme, which I welcome the honourable member referencing delivering £2 million per year for the next decade directly to the local community and bringing just on the other side of Friedrichsfelde County Country Park.
Local people, as I say, know what changes are needed for their communities to thrive. That's why the decision making on how those funds are spent sit with local neighbourhood boards who will decide how to spend that money, whether it's on local arts, culture, heritage, sports parks or something else that they think is important for their community.
I know that this is particularly felt in neighborhoods across Stockport, including Redditch, which my hon. Friend has spoken about. Too many neighborhoods have been left behind and let down after decades of underinvestment and many, many years of austerity, and areas like Redditch have paid a heavy price. I know that there are political choices that have to be made, and the consequences of those choices of austerity years are still being felt by the constituents living in reading. The impact of years of decline has not been felt equally in my right hon.
Friend is absolutely right to highlight that, which is why it is crucial that government is relentless in focusing on growth and regeneration to raise living standards across the country, working in partnership to empower and invest in all the regions of the country. We can kick start growth and work to address those imbalances between, in, 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 the residents of Stockport will have benefited from a number of schemes from both funds, including benefiting from new employment spaces, improved rail access and walking and cycling routes all, of course, aimed at bolstering the local economy, connectivity and public health.
But as the Right Honourable member has said, too many of these legacy funds were pitting places against each other through competitive bidding, leaving places behind places like Redditch. And while these funds are coming to a close, the government has been looking at how local projects are funded through a longer term approach that provides sustainable and predictable support for local authorities. And Mr. Chair, the truth is it is elected local leaders who hold the expertise on how to invest in their communities. I feel this very, very strongly, having served as a local council leader.
And know, regardless of political parties, that the interests of the local communities is best understood by local leaders. And that is why the government has committed to a series of new devolved levers and flexible funds to regenerate places, including introducing new funds for mayoral strategic authorities. The Local Growth Fund has allocated 140 million to Greater Manchester over the next four years through its integrated settlement. It enables strategic, place based investment, meaning money will be targeted where it's needed most, addressing challenges for areas which need additional supports, getting projects off the ground.
We've also announced city investment funds, which would place for years through its integrated settlement. We've also announced city investment funds, which would place money directly into the hands of mayors, deliver new housing and get existing projects moving forward. Authorities the Local Growth Fund has allocated 140 million to Greater Manchester over the next four years through its integrated settlement. It enables strategic, place based investment, meaning money will be targeted where it's needed most, addressing challenges for areas which need additional supports, getting projects off the ground.
We've also announced city investment funds, which would place money directly into the hands of mayors, deliver new housing and get existing projects moving forward. Local authorities are, of course, essential partners in this, and we know that mayoral strategic authorities work closely with their constituent councils to shape priorities, as they should, to co-design. Intervention and to ensure that funding reflects local need. One example of new locally led delivery is the Pride and Place programme, which I welcome the honourable member referencing delivering £2 million per year for the next decade directly to the local community and bringing just on the other side of Friedrichsfelde County Country Park.
Local people, as I say, know what changes are needed for their communities to thrive. That's why the decision making on how those funds are spent sit with local neighbourhood boards who will decide how to spend that money, whether it's on local arts, culture, heritage, sports parks or something else that they think is important for their community.
11:23
11:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
About local leaders being best placed to make decisions. We completely agree on that. But does she agree with me that when three in every £4 of revenue spending that Stockport Council spends is on either adults or children's social care, the number of choices that Stockport Council makes is far too limited.
11:24
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I entirely agree that local government funding has for too long been underfunded and we are, as a Labour government, having to respond to 14 years of deep, deep austerity. And if the pot was endless, having spent ten years in local government, of course I would want to see more. But you know, politics are full of choices. My Right Honourable member has said, and what you have in front of you is a choice being made by this government to make sure that we're targeting resources in the areas that are most needed.
And I think projects like Pride and Place demonstrate that a record amount of money given to local authorities in this country demonstrates that. But I also recognise that there is a lot more to do, which is why I welcome this debate from my right hon. Member, who is highlighting the need for more investment in Redditch. I was pleased to hear that since the launch of the Pride and Place. Fund, there has been really good progress being made, but as I say, there's there's there's more to do, and I.
And I hear the strong representation being made by my hon. Friend for for Redditch, I should also say, um, Mr. Chair, that I know that local services are a lifeline to many people up and down the country, um including Redditch and other parts of my right hon. Members constituency. It includes things like a decent library service. And can I just also pay tribute to the individuals that he referenced in his speech, some of whom I think are do this on a voluntary basis.
Um, and if it if it wasn't for the voluntary sector and individuals who, who decide to help communities through their activity, um, we would be far, far worse off as a, as a country. And I pay tribute to the individuals who referenced and also to the local council officers who work in those front line services, who care so deeply and passionately about things like the library services. Um, to conclude, Mr. Weston, we all agree that regeneration and protecting community assets is important. Investing in services, particularly those like libraries, is crucial.
Um, and so many communities up and down the country want to see more of that. The most effective way we can enshrine our communities to regeneration. Um, that is working for them to equip local leaders with the necessary skills and tools to make that happen is to make sure that we give them the voice and the levers they need. I'm pleased that we're seeing progress in, in the borough of Stockport through new flexible spending powers granted to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the new funds and announcements to generate growth in the city region and empowering the local community to deliver to and to place enhance through projects like Pride in Place.
But my right hon. Member is right. The corporation and co-production of services and regeneration with the leadership of Members of Parliament, with residents, with local authorities who in my experience, always have good intention, even if their political choices. We may not always agree with, is an opportunity to be able to shape a local place. The government approach recognises that different areas require different interventions tailored to local circumstances. And we're not. We must not just focus on the immediate challenges, but instead continue to ensure that there is funding in the right direction for the long term.
I very much welcome and accept the kind invitation from my right hon. Friend to visit Redditch and his constituency as a whole. I note I wasn't invited to drink cider, but I will invite myself to that visit too. Um, as long alongside the Hat Museum, I think you said um I would be delighted to. I'd be delighted to visit. Um. And I thank him once again for securing this important debate and for being such a strong champion for his constituents.
Very much.
And I think projects like Pride and Place demonstrate that a record amount of money given to local authorities in this country demonstrates that. But I also recognise that there is a lot more to do, which is why I welcome this debate from my right hon. Member, who is highlighting the need for more investment in Redditch. I was pleased to hear that since the launch of the Pride and Place. Fund, there has been really good progress being made, but as I say, there's there's there's more to do, and I.
And I hear the strong representation being made by my hon. Friend for for Redditch, I should also say, um, Mr. Chair, that I know that local services are a lifeline to many people up and down the country, um including Redditch and other parts of my right hon. Members constituency. It includes things like a decent library service. And can I just also pay tribute to the individuals that he referenced in his speech, some of whom I think are do this on a voluntary basis.
Um, and if it if it wasn't for the voluntary sector and individuals who, who decide to help communities through their activity, um, we would be far, far worse off as a, as a country. And I pay tribute to the individuals who referenced and also to the local council officers who work in those front line services, who care so deeply and passionately about things like the library services. Um, to conclude, Mr. Weston, we all agree that regeneration and protecting community assets is important. Investing in services, particularly those like libraries, is crucial.
Um, and so many communities up and down the country want to see more of that. The most effective way we can enshrine our communities to regeneration. Um, that is working for them to equip local leaders with the necessary skills and tools to make that happen is to make sure that we give them the voice and the levers they need. I'm pleased that we're seeing progress in, in the borough of Stockport through new flexible spending powers granted to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the new funds and announcements to generate growth in the city region and empowering the local community to deliver to and to place enhance through projects like Pride in Place.
But my right hon. Member is right. The corporation and co-production of services and regeneration with the leadership of Members of Parliament, with residents, with local authorities who in my experience, always have good intention, even if their political choices. We may not always agree with, is an opportunity to be able to shape a local place. The government approach recognises that different areas require different interventions tailored to local circumstances. And we're not. We must not just focus on the immediate challenges, but instead continue to ensure that there is funding in the right direction for the long term.
I very much welcome and accept the kind invitation from my right hon. Friend to visit Redditch and his constituency as a whole. I note I wasn't invited to drink cider, but I will invite myself to that visit too. Um, as long alongside the Hat Museum, I think you said um I would be delighted to. I'd be delighted to visit. Um. And I thank him once again for securing this important debate and for being such a strong champion for his constituents.
Very much.
11:28
14:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Moral issues with it. Ftos are told that we must deliver the message to all Coast Guard agency line that we are in support of the withdrawal of narration. Even if we do not believe in it or have 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 of Coast Guard stated you can get on the bus and 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 raise the concern that we will need to work extra. We were told, just suck it up by one assistant chief Coast Guard. We asked if extra hours and evenings incurred overtime would incur overtime and told absolutely not. We are working over our 37 hours for free and all because the UK government have made a decision and we need to deal with the consequences.
Another assistant chief Coast Guard shouted at delegates because we all asked too many questions, Mr. Shelbrooke. This is a position in which these changes are being driven. For as long as I have known it, the MCA has been a body with its challenges, but the situation that is described to me today is of another level altogether. To undertake changes of this nature and this scale in this way is unacceptable for any public body. For one that risks leaving coastal and island communities with no resilience and moments of crisis is not just unacceptable, it is unconscionable.
And that is why I make this earnest plea to the minister today 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 a way of recognising the work that crows 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 announcement, and appears to have leadership struggles at the top, with other of her senior officers. Mr. Shelbrooke, this is this is a matter which matters beyond any other measure to communities such as ours. I hope that the Minister will hear the simple ask that we make today. Understand from the sheer number of people that are represented here today, the importance that we attach to this and will act accordingly.
Thus insinuating that our full time jobs are at risk if we do not do as we are told. We raise the concern that we will need to work extra. We were told, just suck it up by one assistant chief Coast Guard. We asked if extra hours and evenings incurred overtime would incur overtime and told absolutely not. We are working over our 37 hours for free and all because the UK government have made a decision and we need to deal with the consequences.
Another assistant chief Coast Guard shouted at delegates because we all asked too many questions, Mr. Shelbrooke. This is a position in which these changes are being driven. For as long as I have known it, the MCA has been a body with its challenges, but the situation that is described to me today is of another level altogether. To undertake changes of this nature and this scale in this way is unacceptable for any public body. For one that risks leaving coastal and island communities with no resilience and moments of crisis is not just unacceptable, it is unconscionable.
And that is why I make this earnest plea to the minister today 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 a way of recognising the work that crows 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 announcement, and appears to have leadership struggles at the top, with other of her senior officers. Mr. Shelbrooke, this is this is a matter which matters beyond any other measure to communities such as ours. I hope that the Minister will hear the simple ask that we make today. Understand from the sheer number of people that are represented here today, the importance that we attach to this and will act accordingly.
14:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Order. I remind members that they should Bob if they wish to catch my eye. Members. Colleagues will be able to see just how many people are bobbing and we will be going to the front benches at 1528. I intend to start with a three minute limit to try and get in one speaker from each of the parties that may not be able to be done, but I will try and achieve that. So the question is that this House has considered HMRC guidance and renumeration of Coast Guard volunteers.
Patrick Hurley. Who's not here?Dame Griff.
Patrick Hurley. Who's not here?Dame Griff.
14:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And I'll try to keep to your limit. Now the work of the Coast Guard is absolutely vital to my constituency, of which is surrounded on three sides by water, with a long coastline and very treacherous estuaries, constantly shifting sands, huge tidal range, as well as its very attractive miles of beaches and coastal paths which draw locals and visitors to the waterside. There is a significant local seizure activity, attrition of cockle pickers and fishermen. And then there's very poor harbour, lots of small boat activity.
A small boat from Ferryside to llanstephan, and the many holiday visitors and the enjoying the beaches and the sea, often unaware of the dangers. The Coast Guard station is very busy covering not just the immediate area but helping out across Gower all the way from Llanstephan to Port Talbot. I was so horrified to hear the news that as from September mm Coast Guard will cut even the small financial token of appreciation given to the volunteer Coastguard Rescue officers for their amazing dedication and work, amounting to a mere £11 per hour during callouts.
Not even the National Living Wage.
A small boat from Ferryside to llanstephan, and the many holiday visitors and the enjoying the beaches and the sea, often unaware of the dangers. The Coast Guard station is very busy covering not just the immediate area but helping out across Gower all the way from Llanstephan to Port Talbot. I was so horrified to hear the news that as from September mm Coast Guard will cut even the small financial token of appreciation given to the volunteer Coastguard Rescue officers for their amazing dedication and work, amounting to a mere £11 per hour during callouts.
Not even the National Living Wage.
14:44
14:44
14:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I am concerned that that small allowance which you refer to for coast guards, is what prevents public service from becoming a personal financial penalty. And by removing this, we risk making it significantly harder to recruit and retain volunteers, particularly for new teams such as the Clydebank Coastguard Rescue Team and the new station in my constituency. It sets a worrying precedent and threatens the front line capability of our search and rescue team. Do you agree that we have to look at those changes before September?
14:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, indeed, I do just think how much time and effort our volunteer coastguard rescue officers put into making sure they can provide the very best of services and dovetail in with the other emergency services. They are real multitaskers and they are trained to a very high standard. They have to be multi-skilled. They're trained in search skills, up to police, search advisor, standard, trained to medical critical care standard. They have mud, mud, rescue, fitness or fire officer and do water rescue, entering the water in full PPE including steel toed boots trained for cliff and rescue helicopters.
In other words, they have to be really versatile, ready to go out in the most appalling rain and risk their lives. They give up their own time to do this training and it's no good just doing the training. They have to maintain the skills through practice sessions because lives depend on it. Now, whilst they get some training sessions with £11 per hour, the actual practice sessions every week, they have to just do as volunteers. And of course many of them have been extremely loyal, give many years of service and even had awards from the king for their service.
No one's pretending that volunteer Coast guards do it for the money, but a little something towards the cost and inconvenience they occur. I welcome the time of the cost of living crisis. Yes, they get some costs and mileage, but even there, there's a serious legal matter like having to pay business insurance for their own cars, stopping the payments in September looks exceedingly cynical, as if to say, well, make the most of your skills and dedication over the summer when we're expecting loads of visitors, perhaps more than ever because of the jet fuel fears.
And then come September, we'll make the cut, which we know might make some of you resign. And I tell you, they feel so insulted, so angry. And that's, to put it mildly. And who can blame them?And if HMM Coastguard think they'll be able to get new recruits?They're living in cloud cuckoo land. Nobody is going to do this after this treatment. Plus the fact you have to be a very special person to be able to do this type of work.
And gone are the days when big employers could release you. It's much more difficult now with far more people self-employed. So will the minister firstly pause the current cuts planned for September give time for a rethink and then, importantly, find a way that the volunteer coast guards will at least be as well rewarded financially as they are now, and I do not want any hiding behind legal issues. There must be ways of doing this. And could you also just clarify what is happening about the death in service for those who pass away while they are still volunteers?Serruys it would be greatly benefit the families of the deceased.
Now we simply cannot allow our dedicated volunteer coastguard rescue officers with all the service they have given and continue to give, to be kicked in the teeth like this. Lives depend on their goodwill and expertise, and we have a responsibility to ensure they are properly respected and rewarded for keeping all of us safe.
In other words, they have to be really versatile, ready to go out in the most appalling rain and risk their lives. They give up their own time to do this training and it's no good just doing the training. They have to maintain the skills through practice sessions because lives depend on it. Now, whilst they get some training sessions with £11 per hour, the actual practice sessions every week, they have to just do as volunteers. And of course many of them have been extremely loyal, give many years of service and even had awards from the king for their service.
No one's pretending that volunteer Coast guards do it for the money, but a little something towards the cost and inconvenience they occur. I welcome the time of the cost of living crisis. Yes, they get some costs and mileage, but even there, there's a serious legal matter like having to pay business insurance for their own cars, stopping the payments in September looks exceedingly cynical, as if to say, well, make the most of your skills and dedication over the summer when we're expecting loads of visitors, perhaps more than ever because of the jet fuel fears.
And then come September, we'll make the cut, which we know might make some of you resign. And I tell you, they feel so insulted, so angry. And that's, to put it mildly. And who can blame them?And if HMM Coastguard think they'll be able to get new recruits?They're living in cloud cuckoo land. Nobody is going to do this after this treatment. Plus the fact you have to be a very special person to be able to do this type of work.
And gone are the days when big employers could release you. It's much more difficult now with far more people self-employed. So will the minister firstly pause the current cuts planned for September give time for a rethink and then, importantly, find a way that the volunteer coast guards will at least be as well rewarded financially as they are now, and I do not want any hiding behind legal issues. There must be ways of doing this. And could you also just clarify what is happening about the death in service for those who pass away while they are still volunteers?Serruys it would be greatly benefit the families of the deceased.
Now we simply cannot allow our dedicated volunteer coastguard rescue officers with all the service they have given and continue to give, to be kicked in the teeth like this. Lives depend on their goodwill and expertise, and we have a responsibility to ensure they are properly respected and rewarded for keeping all of us safe.
14:48
14:48
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And I thank the Right Honourable member for Orkney and Shetland 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 they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham on Sea Coast Guard team who are deeply concerned about what this means for their future involvement. I will give way. Thank you.
Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham on Sea Coast Guard team who are deeply concerned about what this means for their future involvement. I will give way. Thank you.
14:49
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. I agree with her. I think those volunteers have been poorly treated. Those 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.
But the modest compensation did recognise the very real costs involved travel time away from work and the disruption to family life. Now 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 in the way that they have been. I would urge the government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer Coast guards, and I would be grateful if the minister could address 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. And is he satisfied with the engagement that there has been by the MCA with Volunteer Coast Guard teams?I will end Sir Alec by saying thank you to the Coast Guard volunteers in Burnham on Sea and across the country.
But the modest compensation did recognise the very real costs involved travel time away from work and the disruption to family life. Now 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 in the way that they have been. I would urge the government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer Coast guards, and I would be grateful if the minister could address 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. And is he satisfied with the engagement that there has been by the MCA with Volunteer Coast Guard teams?I will end Sir Alec by saying thank you to the Coast Guard volunteers in Burnham on Sea and across the country.
14:50
14:50
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Sir Alec. It's a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I want to pay tribute to the brilliantly dedicated and inspiringly selfless Coastguard rescue officers across the country, but in particular in my constituency of Folkestone, higher than Romney Marsh, who are represented here today in the gallery. For my constituents and the many visitors to our area who come to experience our brilliant and beautiful coastline, the Coast Guard makes a vital contribution to the ability of the emergency services to keep people safe, and I recently met with a number of volunteer officers from the folks from Romney Marsh Coastguard Rescue Teams.
They attend hundreds of incidents a year, including cliff rescues, and we have the white cliffs that go into Dover. And sadly, people use that to sometimes jump off and they sometimes it's necessary to to address what's going on at the top as well as at the bottom. There are missing persons. There are all sorts of issues where the police or the fire brigade can't reach them or won't reach them. And so the crows perform a absolutely vital role as part of the emergency services.
I will.
They attend hundreds of incidents a year, including cliff rescues, and we have the white cliffs that go into Dover. And sadly, people use that to sometimes jump off and they sometimes it's necessary to to address what's going on at the top as well as at the bottom. There are missing persons. There are all sorts of issues where the police or the fire brigade can't reach them or won't reach them. And so the crows perform a absolutely vital role as part of the emergency services.
I will.
14:52
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I entirely agree with my honourable friend. This is absolutely key, and one of the things that the Coast Guard officer said to me was that the money that they get helps to offset some of the costs. But really, and I think this sum, this this phrase sums it up. We don't do it for the money, but the money means we can do it. And when we're talking about. Sacrificing family time, as other members have said. And one officer said to me, I've actually left a wedding once to attend a callout.
This is the level of bravery and commitment that these individuals show, and they're showing this every day. And it's not the way to treat them. The approach of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has adopted. And so if we remove that recognition in those payments, like the crows that I've spoken to, I think it's obvious that availability will fall. Resilience decline will decline, and our coastal rescue services will simply start to disintegrate, which will put lives at risk. And I do echo the points made by others that actually the way that the MCA has dealt with this is very heavy handed.
It seems to me entirely procedurally irregular. And really there are very serious questions that they have to answer about the way they've gone about this. So I too have similar questions for the minister as those that have imposed by other honourable members. Does the minister know if the MCA has modelled the likely reduction in volunteer availability following these changes, or proposed changes to remuneration, particularly for high demand response teams like those in Folkestone and Romney Marsh?And if so, can we please see them?And does he know if they have carried out a safety impact assessment and will that be published?And critically, and this has also been raised by others, what meaningful engagement does he know the MCA have actually engaged in, including with unions such as the GMB and with serving officers, and is the government open to reviewing both the proposed model of employment and the removal of the call out fee for crows?In the light of that dialogue?Um, finally, Sir Alec, um, I, I do ask that as a proposer of the motion has asked that the, the implementation of these changes be paused so that we can understand the impacts on volunteer capacity, because ultimately we have to maintain the standard of the service.
We have to maintain the goodwill of those who everyday volunteer to keep people safe. That's in the interests of the country, and it's in the interests of all of those who put their lives on the line for that service. Thank you. Horror. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
This is the level of bravery and commitment that these individuals show, and they're showing this every day. And it's not the way to treat them. The approach of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has adopted. And so if we remove that recognition in those payments, like the crows that I've spoken to, I think it's obvious that availability will fall. Resilience decline will decline, and our coastal rescue services will simply start to disintegrate, which will put lives at risk. And I do echo the points made by others that actually the way that the MCA has dealt with this is very heavy handed.
It seems to me entirely procedurally irregular. And really there are very serious questions that they have to answer about the way they've gone about this. So I too have similar questions for the minister as those that have imposed by other honourable members. Does the minister know if the MCA has modelled the likely reduction in volunteer availability following these changes, or proposed changes to remuneration, particularly for high demand response teams like those in Folkestone and Romney Marsh?And if so, can we please see them?And does he know if they have carried out a safety impact assessment and will that be published?And critically, and this has also been raised by others, what meaningful engagement does he know the MCA have actually engaged in, including with unions such as the GMB and with serving officers, and is the government open to reviewing both the proposed model of employment and the removal of the call out fee for crows?In the light of that dialogue?Um, finally, Sir Alec, um, I, I do ask that as a proposer of the motion has asked that the, the implementation of these changes be paused so that we can understand the impacts on volunteer capacity, because ultimately we have to maintain the standard of the service.
We have to maintain the goodwill of those who everyday volunteer to keep people safe. That's in the interests of the country, and it's in the interests of all of those who put their lives on the line for that service. Thank you. Horror. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
14:55
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
See you in the chair. And I congratulate and thank the Right Honourable member for Orkney and Shetland, not just for securing this debate, but for the way that he opened it with 23 inhabited islands, innumerable uninhabited islands and with an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, my Argyll and Bute and South Lochaber constituency has 22 coast guard stations, more, I believe, than any other constituency in the UK. And so on behalf of everyone in this House, I want to say a sincere thank you to those dedicated, highly skilled, incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives at sea working out of Kilchoan Kames salon.
Col Tiree, Tobermory, Craig near the Ross of Mull, Jura, port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crennan, Tarbert GAA, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh. But across that vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of these Coast Guard stations are already understaffed and they have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is because of the low availability of suitable candidates. I know that MCA's plan to strip those vitally important volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will become another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in those rural areas.
So I want to add my voice to that growing number of people who are not just protesting the MCA's decision, but who are also calling on the UK government to become directly involved in this dispute and to use their influence to pause this decision, force this decision to be paused to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place so that a fair and equitable solution can be found, because whether they like it or not, the UK government have a hugely important role to play. Because although this decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department of Transport and ultimately to the Secretary of State.
And so should so should the government not intervene and pause the MCA's plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place?Then they will have to accept that there will be serious consequences, not just in terms of morale or recruitment and retention, but serious consequences for public safety, which will inevitably follow from the decision. If this decision is not reversed.
Col Tiree, Tobermory, Craig near the Ross of Mull, Jura, port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crennan, Tarbert GAA, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh. But across that vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of these Coast Guard stations are already understaffed and they have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is because of the low availability of suitable candidates. I know that MCA's plan to strip those vitally important volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will become another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in those rural areas.
So I want to add my voice to that growing number of people who are not just protesting the MCA's decision, but who are also calling on the UK government to become directly involved in this dispute and to use their influence to pause this decision, force this decision to be paused to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place so that a fair and equitable solution can be found, because whether they like it or not, the UK government have a hugely important role to play. Because although this decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department of Transport and ultimately to the Secretary of State.
And so should so should the government not intervene and pause the MCA's plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place?Then they will have to accept that there will be serious consequences, not just in terms of morale or recruitment and retention, but serious consequences for public safety, which will inevitably follow from the decision. If this decision is not reversed.
14:57
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Today, I would like to thank the honourable member for Orkney and Shetland for bringing forward this important debate in 2020. For Fleetwood and Coast Guard were officially recognised as the busiest in the UK, only four days ago, Fleetwood Coast Guard rescued officers spotted around 20 teenagers out in the sea, while some were able to get themselves out of the water safely, others were struggling. Coast Guardsmen rescued three of the children who were taken to hospital without our heroic, heroic Coast Guard, it could have been a lot worse.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to maintain the legal volunteer status of Coast Guard by removing their remuneration. This will have a terrible impact on my community and it cannot be allowed to happen. I give way.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to maintain the legal volunteer status of Coast Guard by removing their remuneration. This will have a terrible impact on my community and it cannot be allowed to happen. I give way.
14:58
14:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I do to. Make things even worse, according to the GMB members, was informed of the removal of the payment by a WhatsApp message. We all know that Coast Guard are not motivated by financial reward. They come into this role to serve their community and protect our residents and save lives. Coast guard 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 the remuneration is unsustainable for our Coast Guard, and we cannot afford to lose them.
14:59
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
The honourable member give way. I briefly coming from Falmouth in Cornwall, the Coast Guards are so crucial. The brilliant work they do is so important. I want to raise maybe a solution for the Minister to look at. Maybe HMRC could agree some sort of disturbance or disruption allowance that maybe volunteers could claim, because we have to ensure that these Coast Guard volunteers can continue with this absolutely vital work.
14:59
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I absolutely do agree, and I'm sure that he will be looking at it. Well, I hope so anyway. One Coast Guard wrote to me and stressed that removing this support, risked affecting availability, recruitment and retention. They warned that we may lose capacity in people in skills that would take years to rebuild. I have written to the CEO of the Maritime Coast Guard Agency to express my concerns, and I call on the government to ensure that a sustainable remuneration model is found.
We owe it to our coast guards to get this right. I would therefore appreciate if the Minister could answer the following questions. One had the government. Has the government considered options that would allow for remuneration while complying with employment law?Two how will the government ensure operational resilience if large numbers of coast guards leave and has the impact and has an impact assessment been done?And finally, does the government believe it is sustainable to rely on volunteers receiving expenses only?
We owe it to our coast guards to get this right. I would therefore appreciate if the Minister could answer the following questions. One had the government. Has the government considered options that would allow for remuneration while complying with employment law?Two how will the government ensure operational resilience if large numbers of coast guards leave and has the impact and has an impact assessment been done?And finally, does the government believe it is sustainable to rely on volunteers receiving expenses only?
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Of Gwynedd is highly dependent on tourism, especially in our coastal communities in the Green Peninsula and the Meirionnydd coast as well. Of course, as the uplands of Orrery. Just to give a snapshot of the degree of impact in terms of population numbers, the year round population of Abersoch is 600 people. This multiplies by 50 to 50,000 people in the summer. The volunteer rescue services and the salaried blue light teams are under immense pressure to deal with these numbers. 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 hands, people 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 coast Guard stations at Aberdaron, Abersoch, Bangor, Barmouth, Criccieth, Portland and. Tywyn, with at least 80 volunteer Coastguard rescue officers in the county. These Coastguard Rescue teams provide essential emergency response capability across the Welsh coastline, including search and rescue, missing person operations, flood response, cliff and mud rescues.
They coordinate with North Wales Police and the Transport Police, North Wales Fire and Rescue Service and the Welsh Ambulance Service, and also with volunteers from the RNLI and Mountain and cave rescue teams. They even attended the Talerddig train accident, where there was a fatality in 2020. For now, the public does not distinguish between these services. They see emergency responders, they say uniforms and the kit and they trust them sometimes with their lives.
Under such pressures requires a close knit response from people who know their local coast and country, like the back of their hands, people 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 coast Guard stations at Aberdaron, Abersoch, Bangor, Barmouth, Criccieth, Portland and. Tywyn, with at least 80 volunteer Coastguard rescue officers in the county. These Coastguard Rescue teams provide essential emergency response capability across the Welsh coastline, including search and rescue, missing person operations, flood response, cliff and mud rescues.
They coordinate with North Wales Police and the Transport Police, North Wales Fire and Rescue Service and the Welsh Ambulance Service, and also with volunteers from the RNLI and Mountain and cave rescue teams. They even attended the Talerddig train accident, where there was a fatality in 2020. For now, the public does not distinguish between these services. They see emergency responders, they say uniforms and the kit and they trust them sometimes with their lives.
15:02
15:02
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Coast guard. Coastguard Rescue officers responded to 171 incidents last year. And you know, my admiration goes out to them, as it does to my honourable members. Coast guard, Does my honourable member agree with me that my and my constituents view that maritime and coastguard agencies had a number of options available to them and just chose to blatantly ignore any of them, and instead put the burden on the shoulders and families. And this is not good enough.
15:03
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I agree with her entirely, and one of the things that's been suggested to me by a crow is to look at the model for retained firefighters, and I would wonder whether that's something that the minister might consider. Obviously, there will be certain issues with it, but there have been models suggested by the CRS themselves. So starting from the obvious evidence, I've already been able to give that we need cross. Let me pass on what they've told me about the proposed changes. Teams will be put under extra pressure when.
Not if some members can't attend because they'll be out of pocket whether they're working or whatever reason. The same exact same question will arise over essential training sessions. We will 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 this happens with the fire service. On occasion. Recruitment will be hit as new team members are required to do ten days training without remuneration.
This will reduce the pool of people who can afford and are willing to do this. Morale will fall even further. Crows already feel isolated and ignored, and I would like to quote what one crow told me, and we've been careful here because we didn't want to have their names on record, because we've already heard that they are being threatened by the by management, which is frankly an appalling. It's giving us a role here as MPs. We have to put the words, we have to say the words which really should be coming from their mouths.
And he told me 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's what these people do. Now, I have already asked the government and written questions whether it has assessed how many crows are likely to leave the service, the impact on public safety and the long term sustainability of the Coast Guard. If it were to operate on a wholly volunteer model.
The government has not provided me with any answers to these questions. Therefore, I ask them again to the minister today, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Not if some members can't attend because they'll be out of pocket whether they're working or whatever reason. The same exact same question will arise over essential training sessions. We will 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 this happens with the fire service. On occasion. Recruitment will be hit as new team members are required to do ten days training without remuneration.
This will reduce the pool of people who can afford and are willing to do this. Morale will fall even further. Crows already feel isolated and ignored, and I would like to quote what one crow told me, and we've been careful here because we didn't want to have their names on record, because we've already heard that they are being threatened by the by management, which is frankly an appalling. It's giving us a role here as MPs. We have to put the words, we have to say the words which really should be coming from their mouths.
And he told me 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's what these people do. Now, I have already asked the government and written questions whether it has assessed how many crows are likely to leave the service, the impact on public safety and the long term sustainability of the Coast Guard. If it were to operate on a wholly volunteer model.
The government has not provided me with any answers to these questions. Therefore, I ask them again to the minister today, and I look forward to hearing his response.
15:05
15:05
15:06
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you sir. Thank you to the Right Honourable member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. It is important to me that this is my first contribution. Excuse me. In this place, having only arrived last week as the first email that I ever had from a constituent after I took my place was on this very matter. And I have been absolutely inundated with them since. That just demonstrates, as so many have said this morning, this afternoon, how important this issue is to so many of our constituents in my coastal constituency of Arbroath and Ferry.
We have a coast guard station in Arbroath, which proudly serves the stretch of coast between Montrose and Dundee and is fundamental to the safety and protection of those in peril all the way to Saint Andrews. It is a busy corridor and the Coast Guard works closely with the RNLI in stations both in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, to save hundreds of lives every year. The volunteers who dedicate their time and lives are so much more than just volunteers. They are members of our community. In mine, as in everyone else's, who work day in, day out and deserve to be respected for that.
Coast guard teams are not only responding to traditional maritime emergencies. As many have said today. Increasingly, they are called to support incidents involving people experiencing, for example, severe mental health distress, including vulnerable individuals at risk near coastal areas, bridges, cliffs and waterways, which my constituency has in abundance. This is a very real decision which has very real consequences on people's lives, and not one which the constituents that have spoken to me feel has been dealt with with adequate respect or seriousness at. A time when communities, including my own, are facing pressures on mental health services, reductions in community outreach provisions, increased demands on emergency services, the Coast Guard is becoming an essential part of this crisis.
Response service. So I want to ask whether the minister accepts that highly trained respondents cannot simply be viewed as casual volunteers when they are being relied upon to undertake complex, distressing and very life saving interventions, as in coastal communities such as Angus, losing experienced crews would not just affect the rescue capacity, it would affect the wider safety nets available to people in their darkest moments. My final point is that morale is exceptionally low in my crew team in Arbroath, my constituents have conveyed to me that they feel this process has been done to them, not with them or for them.
With just two questionnaires circulated as they put badly drafted questionnaires. And that was the only basis with which they were able to convey their concerns. So what assessment has the government made of the impact that changing the status may have on recruitment, retention and the resilience of the coastal emergency response?Because these are the key questions that my constituents have.
We have a coast guard station in Arbroath, which proudly serves the stretch of coast between Montrose and Dundee and is fundamental to the safety and protection of those in peril all the way to Saint Andrews. It is a busy corridor and the Coast Guard works closely with the RNLI in stations both in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, to save hundreds of lives every year. The volunteers who dedicate their time and lives are so much more than just volunteers. They are members of our community. In mine, as in everyone else's, who work day in, day out and deserve to be respected for that.
Coast guard teams are not only responding to traditional maritime emergencies. As many have said today. Increasingly, they are called to support incidents involving people experiencing, for example, severe mental health distress, including vulnerable individuals at risk near coastal areas, bridges, cliffs and waterways, which my constituency has in abundance. This is a very real decision which has very real consequences on people's lives, and not one which the constituents that have spoken to me feel has been dealt with with adequate respect or seriousness at. A time when communities, including my own, are facing pressures on mental health services, reductions in community outreach provisions, increased demands on emergency services, the Coast Guard is becoming an essential part of this crisis.
Response service. So I want to ask whether the minister accepts that highly trained respondents cannot simply be viewed as casual volunteers when they are being relied upon to undertake complex, distressing and very life saving interventions, as in coastal communities such as Angus, losing experienced crews would not just affect the rescue capacity, it would affect the wider safety nets available to people in their darkest moments. My final point is that morale is exceptionally low in my crew team in Arbroath, my constituents have conveyed to me that they feel this process has been done to them, not with them or for them.
With just two questionnaires circulated as they put badly drafted questionnaires. And that was the only basis with which they were able to convey their concerns. So what assessment has the government made of the impact that changing the status may have on recruitment, retention and the resilience of the coastal emergency response?Because these are the key questions that my constituents have.
15:08
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
For securing this timely debate. As many members have already mentioned today, the Rescue Coast Guard Rescue Service is an essential component of our emergency services and this is certainly the case in South Dorset. From locating missing and vulnerable people responding to injured climbers, walkers and sailors, and tragically recovering those who have lost their lives. The coastguard rescue teams across South Dorset are highly skilled and essential to keeping local people and visitors safe along our Jurassic Coast. This is why I am incredibly concerned with the maritime and coastguard agencies.
Changes to volunteers remuneration following the Court of Appeal's judgment that was handed down earlier this year. Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset. They are particularly concerned that these proposed changes will harm the future. Recruitment of volunteers undermine morale within existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether. These 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 was awarded and recognised with a Queen's Gallantry Medal in 2017.
Yet despite this lifelong commitment to the Coast Guard Rescue Service, he told me that the proposed changes could leave him unable to dedicate the time and effort that he once did. As we move forward, I urge the minister to carefully consider the concerns of Coast Guard volunteers, both in South Dorset and across the country. I fear that without action and direct intervention, it is painfully clear from their stories that the real impact of these changes will be devastating for coastal communities across the country. We all know that the outcome of the Court of Appeals ruling is wholly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand for all of these volunteers.
We can and we must do better.
Changes to volunteers remuneration following the Court of Appeal's judgment that was handed down earlier this year. Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset. They are particularly concerned that these proposed changes will harm the future. Recruitment of volunteers undermine morale within existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether. These 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 was awarded and recognised with a Queen's Gallantry Medal in 2017.
Yet despite this lifelong commitment to the Coast Guard Rescue Service, he told me that the proposed changes could leave him unable to dedicate the time and effort that he once did. As we move forward, I urge the minister to carefully consider the concerns of Coast Guard volunteers, both in South Dorset and across the country. I fear that without action and direct intervention, it is painfully clear from their stories that the real impact of these changes will be devastating for coastal communities across the country. We all know that the outcome of the Court of Appeals ruling is wholly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand for all of these volunteers.
We can and we must do better.
15:10
15:10
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Right honourable member for Orkney and Shetland for once again speaking out for coastal communities. I rise today to speak on behalf of the brave, dedicated, selfless Coast Guard rescue officers, not just in my own constituency of Strangford, but right across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I'm very happy to. Yeah.
15:10
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I do think it is important. We do remember this impact actually has an effect across all of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland. Crow, who contacted me, said I am. 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. The honourable member agreed. It's their voices that need heard in this system.
15:11
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
That's the whole reason why we're here. Thank you for that intervention. It's because we are their voice in this place for them. Um, as a member of Parliament for Strangford from Portavogie down to Ballywalter, all around the shores of Strangford Lough and the Irish Sea, our people know the sea. They know the dangers of the sea. Volunteers who put themselves directly in harm's way to protect complete strangers. They are the very pinnacle of that noble public service.
I've been contacted by a number of constituents, frankly insulted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency decision to completely strip away their remuneration 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 in the dead of night, or respond to life and death emergencies. They balance these life saving responsibilities alongside their regular day jobs, their family commitments and their community involvement. And let's be very clear for the record, remuneration provided by the MCA was never, ever viewed as a luxury sell.
My fear, the fear of us all here is that the heavy handed withdrawal of payments has gone to absolutely decimate morale, and what we'll do to recruitment. What will it do to retention at a time when our coastguard teams are already stretched to the limit limit safeguarding lives. So I turn to the minister. Three, three asks of the minister very quickly. I ask him, I will give respect to the minister. Will there be a personal attack?Um, I ask him directly with the greatest respect, what assessment has this department actually made on the impact this policy change will have on volunteer recruitment?Secondly, are they just going to wait until a decision can't turn, can't turn out to emergency because they can't retain staff?
I've been contacted by a number of constituents, frankly insulted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency decision to completely strip away their remuneration 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 in the dead of night, or respond to life and death emergencies. They balance these life saving responsibilities alongside their regular day jobs, their family commitments and their community involvement. And let's be very clear for the record, remuneration provided by the MCA was never, ever viewed as a luxury sell.
My fear, the fear of us all here is that the heavy handed withdrawal of payments has gone to absolutely decimate morale, and what we'll do to recruitment. What will it do to retention at a time when our coastguard teams are already stretched to the limit limit safeguarding lives. So I turn to the minister. Three, three asks of the minister very quickly. I ask him, I will give respect to the minister. Will there be a personal attack?Um, I ask him directly with the greatest respect, what assessment has this department actually made on the impact this policy change will have on volunteer recruitment?Secondly, are they just going to wait until a decision can't turn, can't turn out to emergency because they can't retain staff?
15:13
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Cause they can't retain staff. And thirdly, what alternative mechanisms are being looked at right now to ensure these officers continue to receive appropriate recognition and support for the vital work that they do. We need solutions. We look to you to give us those solutions. I think that they we seek nothing less, and it's what we want for our constituents. Thanks very much.
15:13
15:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
On an issue that matters really so deeply to communities in south east Cornwall. And I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing the debate. This, truthfully, is about people. It's an issue 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.
And they don't ask whether it's convenient time. They simply respond. And some descriptions of this role simply do not reflect that reality. I've heard that the role publicly described as only a few hours a week or in a volunteer capacity, doesn't speak to that. Sleepless nights, multiple call outs, and they talk 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 amounts of personal time to maintain the skills that save other lives.
They're highly trained emergency responders carrying out category one response work, and they understand the spirit of volunteering and public service. 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 and the appropriate measure to deal with that must be engaged with. So I want to address Renumeration. They question why that training can be unpaid, why they often travel at expense, and what impacts that might have on family finances.
They want to do this job. They want to do it in the spirit of volunteering, but they must be recognised. And I ask the minister today not to view the issue just from one lens, but to engage with them, perhaps visit me in south east Cornwall and to undertake it in that spirit which is so important for our communities and.
And they don't ask whether it's convenient time. They simply respond. And some descriptions of this role simply do not reflect that reality. I've heard that the role publicly described as only a few hours a week or in a volunteer capacity, doesn't speak to that. Sleepless nights, multiple call outs, and they talk 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 amounts of personal time to maintain the skills that save other lives.
They're highly trained emergency responders carrying out category one response work, and they understand the spirit of volunteering and public service. 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 and the appropriate measure to deal with that must be engaged with. So I want to address Renumeration. They question why that training can be unpaid, why they often travel at expense, and what impacts that might have on family finances.
They want to do this job. They want to do it in the spirit of volunteering, but they must be recognised. And I ask the minister today not to view the issue just from one lens, but to engage with them, perhaps visit me in south east Cornwall and to undertake it in that spirit which is so important for our communities and.
15:15
15:16
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Congratulate my right hon. Friend the member for Orkney and Shetland, not only on securing this debate and putting a first class case in this regard, but also for somehow managing to contain his deep irritation in the way that this whole matter has been, has been handled. I do know the hon. The right hon. Gentleman too well, and and also warm congratulations to to the to the the honourable member for Arbroath and Broughton Ferry on an excellent first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate.
This service is clearly critical to a constituency like mine, with over 150 miles of coastline across west Cornwall and the Isles, the Isles of Scilly. There's a lot of heritage here as well, because, of course, I remember when the National Coastwatch institution was established in 1994, following the tragic deaths of two local fishermen whose boat sank off off the coast of the Lizard Peninsula at Bass Point. In fact, within. Within sight of the then closed or recent recently closed Coast Guard station, there at at Bass Point.
And although the National Coastwatch institution provides a vital, important, uh, you know, volunteer service, it doesn't in any way replace the Coast Guard. I will give way very briefly to my hon.
This service is clearly critical to a constituency like mine, with over 150 miles of coastline across west Cornwall and the Isles, the Isles of Scilly. There's a lot of heritage here as well, because, of course, I remember when the National Coastwatch institution was established in 1994, following the tragic deaths of two local fishermen whose boat sank off off the coast of the Lizard Peninsula at Bass Point. In fact, within. Within sight of the then closed or recent recently closed Coast Guard station, there at at Bass Point.
And although the National Coastwatch institution provides a vital, important, uh, you know, volunteer service, it doesn't in any way replace the Coast Guard. I will give way very briefly to my hon.
15:17
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My hon. Friend and Cornish neighbour for giving way. I'd just like to join him in commending the Cornish coast guard agencies, particularly Boscastle, Bude and Padstow. In my constituency and Boscastle, obviously in 2004, had their fair share of disasters. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there are other options and the. The MCA didn't consult. And there are actually other options that the government and the MC MCA could take, such as statutory retainers and other options.
15:17
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Absolutely. My my hon. Friend is absolutely right in that. I'll come on to that in just one second. I just wanted to get a quote from from some of the many, many crows who've been in contact with me, one saying that they, um, they make considerable personal financial sacrifices in order to respond to incidents whilst nobody joins the Coast Guard for financial gain. The current remuneration helps offset the real costs associated with responding, including loss of earnings, disruption to employment, interruption to family life, loss of sleep and the wider impacts.
The emergency responses can have. Many of the crows in my area are self-employed. Needless. Needless to say. Others have said that what they have. In fact, what what what the bosses have in fact done on this occasion, uh is is made us all redundant and re-employed us as volunteers. That's effectively what what what they what they they have done on this occasion. My hon. Friend makes the point about perhaps using the model of firefighter.
Um retained. Rather retained firefighters, um who are after all, recompense through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call outs and specific disturbance fees. And I think that is a good model indeed for, for the the MCA to be to be seriously looking at. I've given the minister advance notice of a large number of questions on the issue, and I will simply summarize some of them here, which is what level of consultation has been undertaken with crows prior to this announcement, and what alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI and indeed other other services.
Have been considered. What what workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact of on retention and availability?What operational Safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experienced skills and leadership capability?What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels in terms of their viability?How is the Coast Guard satisfied itself about public safety and what impact assessment has been undertaken about the resilience of the future of Coast rescue teams?As category one emergency call out order?
The emergency responses can have. Many of the crows in my area are self-employed. Needless. Needless to say. Others have said that what they have. In fact, what what what the bosses have in fact done on this occasion, uh is is made us all redundant and re-employed us as volunteers. That's effectively what what what they what they they have done on this occasion. My hon. Friend makes the point about perhaps using the model of firefighter.
Um retained. Rather retained firefighters, um who are after all, recompense through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call outs and specific disturbance fees. And I think that is a good model indeed for, for the the MCA to be to be seriously looking at. I've given the minister advance notice of a large number of questions on the issue, and I will simply summarize some of them here, which is what level of consultation has been undertaken with crows prior to this announcement, and what alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI and indeed other other services.
Have been considered. What what workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact of on retention and availability?What operational Safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experienced skills and leadership capability?What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels in terms of their viability?How is the Coast Guard satisfied itself about public safety and what impact assessment has been undertaken about the resilience of the future of Coast rescue teams?As category one emergency call out order?
15:20
15:20
15:20
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
May I also thank my honourable friend and member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate on an issue which I know concerns those living within my own constituency of South and East and Rochford. The South Essex coastline is one of my constituency's greatest assets. It is beloved by residents, dependent upon by our fishing community and a magnet for more than 7 million day visitors who flock to Southend alone each year. But as a beautiful but as beautiful as our coastline is, it can also be treacherous from from from unpredictable tides to shifting mudflats, protection from physical danger requires specialized skills and 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 East Beach, the marshes of Wallasea Island and, of course, Southend Pier. Rescue officers.
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 East Beach, the marshes of Wallasea Island and, of course, Southend Pier. Rescue officers.
15:21
15:21
15:21
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Bringing this important debate on what is frankly an outrageous and insulting decision by the M.T.A. I'd also like to pay tribute to the amazing work of the Coastguard rescue officers in Lyme Regis and West Bay and across the country. I want to 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 soften the substantial financial impact they incur. My crews tell me 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 compensate the children for the trip to the cinema that was abandoned. It helps recognise the Christmases, birthdays and family gatherings that are missed because they are out on a cliff in the sea, in the middle of a rescue, when the rest of us are at home. It's not a salary, it's recognition. And 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 replaces the sunglasses broken while performing CPR. It helps compensate the children for the trip to the cinema that was abandoned. It helps recognise the Christmases, birthdays and family gatherings that are missed because they are out on a cliff in the sea, in the middle of a rescue, when the rest of us are at home. It's not a salary, it's recognition. And 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.
15:22
15:22
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I think it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to thank the Right Honourable member for Orkney and Shetland for opening this debate and for bringing attention to this important matter. I will keep this brief, as most points have already been raised. Crows contacted me on this matter and there was a lot of, um, a real strength of feeling in relation to how, how this people have been treated. My constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran, we have got members of the Coastguard Rescue Service across Ardrossan, Cumbrae and Largs, and it is a very busy service.
Crows told me how they take pride in doing their vital role for the community, and feel that they should be able to continue to claim an hourly remuneration. Um, I'm just going to add in that currently coastguard rescue officers do safety checks and maintain equipment, as well as supporting the emergency services, searching for missing people, rescuing people who may be trapped in cliffs or drowning, and often dealing with people in very difficult and distressing situations. And it is only right that this should all be reviewed.
Crows told me how they take pride in doing their vital role for the community, and feel that they should be able to continue to claim an hourly remuneration. Um, I'm just going to add in that currently coastguard rescue officers do safety checks and maintain equipment, as well as supporting the emergency services, searching for missing people, rescuing people who may be trapped in cliffs or drowning, and often dealing with people in very difficult and distressing situations. And it is only right that this should all be reviewed.
15:23
15:23
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
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 them having to go out and answer calls. The East Coast Guard 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 can't 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 bay having to become dependent on teams at Exmouth and Lyme Regis, and the public do not distinguish between these organisations. When an emergency occurs and others. Thank you.
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 bay having to become dependent on teams at Exmouth and Lyme Regis, and the public do not distinguish between these organisations. When an emergency occurs and others. Thank you.
15:24
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you, Sir Alec. We are a proud seafaring nation and as Sir John Evelyn put it, the sea is England's element and the Coast Guard stand as the nation's eyes and ears. Along our shore. The West Somerset coast runs along the north of my constituency and the Bristol Channel, and in the Bristol Channel we have the second highest tidal range in the world. I asked the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, who now face greater vulnerability as a direct result of this decision, on what basis was it made?Because it looks like negligence.
But I fear the blame lies squarely with the MCA. These crows show extraordinary courage in the in the line of duty. And as we all know with courage, nothing is impossible.
But I fear the blame lies squarely with the MCA. These crows show extraordinary courage in the in the line of duty. And as we all know with courage, nothing is impossible.
15:25
15:25
15:25
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Chair, and thank you very much. The right hon. Friend from Orkney and Shetland. Um, just this weekend I was involved in a watch the Coast Guard rescuing a kayaker, um, very close to my house. And I got speaking to them and they brought me up to date on this position. There are 2 or 3 things to say. One is, um, it's clear that the MCA management have made a right mess of this, and they should put it on hold and they should follow the petition, which is calling for it to be held.
The second thing is, um, could the minister confirm to us when he does a sum up what discussions are happening of the HMRC on, for example, what the volunteer fire service, um their terms and remunerations are and whether, for example, an honorarium or stipend or some other already existing um policies could be adapted.
The second thing is, um, could the minister confirm to us when he does a sum up what discussions are happening of the HMRC on, for example, what the volunteer fire service, um their terms and remunerations are and whether, for example, an honorarium or stipend or some other already existing um policies could be adapted.
15:26
15:26
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Chair and thank you to my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. Beachy head sits in my constituency. It is, regrettably, one of the most visited suicide spots in the world. Every year, brave Coast Guard like 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 which threaten to decimate our Coast Guard service and threaten lives.
And so I would urge the Minister, on behalf of our brave crows, but also on behalf of those bereaved Beachy Head families, to pause these changes to object to the MCA's short sightedness and to ensure that our crows get the support that they deserve, and that our communities need.
And so I would urge the Minister, on behalf of our brave crows, but also on behalf of those bereaved Beachy Head families, to pause these changes to object to the MCA's short sightedness and to ensure that our crows get the support that they deserve, and that our communities need.
15:26
15:27
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. He truly is a champion that coastal communities like mine can rely on to stand up for them. And I think in square miles or in miles of coastline per square mile, he surely one of the most, or at least the top three most qualified members on this topic. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude and admiration for the work of the Volunteer Coast Guard in North Norfolk and across the country.
These brave teams, as we have heard, go out to situations many of us could not dream of handling and save lives on a regular basis. As weather improves and tourist season approaches, they'll no doubt be more and more callouts in the coming weeks. And because of their hard work, those enjoying our coast are much safer. It's also worth making clear that whatever the outcomes of these new changes, we will still have a Coast Guard. 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 which I fear is too rare in politics. I went out and I found the people that this matters to the most, and I spoke with them yesterday. I had several phone calls back to back with Coast Guard rescue officers based in some of North Norfolk's five coastguard rescue teams. Our coast guards have a fascinating range of backgrounds and experiences. They've fantastic diversity of skills and careers which contribute to their excellent teamwork. What was striking to me, and I think has to be at the heart of us, considering this was when young.
One chap said to me, I'll be honest with you, Steph, I don't even know. I didn't even know that we got paid when I first applied. And I heard it again and again. And we've heard it from members, honourable members and Right Honourable members this afternoon. The motivation for doing this is so far away from financial that many didn't even know that existed. But having that remuneration, that financial support to cover the lost hours of work, means they have the confidence to volunteer more and attend more callouts.
It's not just about working time which is lost that this remuneration supports, it's the cost of those missed meals with the family. Because the pager went off the plans that are cancelled so you can spring into action. It's far from huge recompense. About £30 for a call out of three hours or less. But it helps and it makes it viable for more people. It enables them to give up more of their time to volunteer, and it makes the service more resilient.
And we need them to attend desperately. One Coast Guard told me that when he started volunteering, his team received around 130 callouts. Last year, it was 150. Another team told me that they had just shy of 200 call outs, and were well on track to beat that this year. This is a vital service to my area and it's at this peak season handling multiple calls a day. A gentleman I spoke to told me how 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's also not just lifesaving rescuing they carry out. The Coast Guard's I spoke to told me about how they roll off and includes keeping the public safe from unexploded bombs, which are uncovered on our beaches. It's a weight of many hours for the bomb squad to arrive from Colchester into my constituency, during which time it's our Coast Guard who protect and secure the scene. It's an arduous task and not a glamorous or thrilling one.
But would any member here today prefer it if we just left bombs sitting on the beach and sort of hope for the best, or drew down on limited rural police resources instead?I'm not just showing up here to complain at the minister. I do have a lot of time for him, and without having explored other avenues. First, I too have spoken to the chief executive of the NCA, as did many other colleagues, and I do not feel reassured by what I heard. I asked the minister's boss, the Secretary of State, in fact, for answers on this.
When she came before the Transport Select Committee last week, and I was equally not reassured. It's really worrying when those at the highest level behind a decision like this simply cannot provide adequate answers or reasons that make someone like me living in and representing a coastal community truly believe that the future of our service is as safe as it needs to be. So I've asked or some asks for the minister, which I hope he can oblige with for my discussions with Coast Guards. I understand that two questionnaires or surveys were put before them, or put around about the time of the court case for potential changes in remuneration.
Can he place copies of them both in the library of the House, along with the summarised results?The MCA have relied on legal opinions for their claim that the court decision means they have no choice but to take this approach. Will he publish this also, the government say there will be a transition period to assess these changes. Could they instead assess these changes before launching into a transition period?Otherwise, this feels rather like a fait accompli for those volunteers. These plans seem half baked at best and penny pinching at worst.
This is a vital emergency service with, the government seems to think is not worth investing in. And that is wrong in my community. Most people are more likely to call on a Coast Guard than a copper, but the government would be seen as barmy if they suggested only paying for police by their mileage. I've seen some poor choices from the government in my couple of years here, but this is one that's made me the most worried. I truly think that the MCA and the government have not realised what they're doing here.
They've heard some legal advice and listened to some Treasury beancounters and decided that our service just can't be supported. Well, as I've heard today, this is just not good enough. There is time left in the Prime Minister's reign for one more U-turn. I urge the government please make it this.
These brave teams, as we have heard, go out to situations many of us could not dream of handling and save lives on a regular basis. As weather improves and tourist season approaches, they'll no doubt be more and more callouts in the coming weeks. And because of their hard work, those enjoying our coast are much safer. It's also worth making clear that whatever the outcomes of these new changes, we will still have a Coast Guard. 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 which I fear is too rare in politics. I went out and I found the people that this matters to the most, and I spoke with them yesterday. I had several phone calls back to back with Coast Guard rescue officers based in some of North Norfolk's five coastguard rescue teams. Our coast guards have a fascinating range of backgrounds and experiences. They've fantastic diversity of skills and careers which contribute to their excellent teamwork. What was striking to me, and I think has to be at the heart of us, considering this was when young.
One chap said to me, I'll be honest with you, Steph, I don't even know. I didn't even know that we got paid when I first applied. And I heard it again and again. And we've heard it from members, honourable members and Right Honourable members this afternoon. The motivation for doing this is so far away from financial that many didn't even know that existed. But having that remuneration, that financial support to cover the lost hours of work, means they have the confidence to volunteer more and attend more callouts.
It's not just about working time which is lost that this remuneration supports, it's the cost of those missed meals with the family. Because the pager went off the plans that are cancelled so you can spring into action. It's far from huge recompense. About £30 for a call out of three hours or less. But it helps and it makes it viable for more people. It enables them to give up more of their time to volunteer, and it makes the service more resilient.
And we need them to attend desperately. One Coast Guard told me that when he started volunteering, his team received around 130 callouts. Last year, it was 150. Another team told me that they had just shy of 200 call outs, and were well on track to beat that this year. This is a vital service to my area and it's at this peak season handling multiple calls a day. A gentleman I spoke to told me how 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's also not just lifesaving rescuing they carry out. The Coast Guard's I spoke to told me about how they roll off and includes keeping the public safe from unexploded bombs, which are uncovered on our beaches. It's a weight of many hours for the bomb squad to arrive from Colchester into my constituency, during which time it's our Coast Guard who protect and secure the scene. It's an arduous task and not a glamorous or thrilling one.
But would any member here today prefer it if we just left bombs sitting on the beach and sort of hope for the best, or drew down on limited rural police resources instead?I'm not just showing up here to complain at the minister. I do have a lot of time for him, and without having explored other avenues. First, I too have spoken to the chief executive of the NCA, as did many other colleagues, and I do not feel reassured by what I heard. I asked the minister's boss, the Secretary of State, in fact, for answers on this.
When she came before the Transport Select Committee last week, and I was equally not reassured. It's really worrying when those at the highest level behind a decision like this simply cannot provide adequate answers or reasons that make someone like me living in and representing a coastal community truly believe that the future of our service is as safe as it needs to be. So I've asked or some asks for the minister, which I hope he can oblige with for my discussions with Coast Guards. I understand that two questionnaires or surveys were put before them, or put around about the time of the court case for potential changes in remuneration.
Can he place copies of them both in the library of the House, along with the summarised results?The MCA have relied on legal opinions for their claim that the court decision means they have no choice but to take this approach. Will he publish this also, the government say there will be a transition period to assess these changes. Could they instead assess these changes before launching into a transition period?Otherwise, this feels rather like a fait accompli for those volunteers. These plans seem half baked at best and penny pinching at worst.
This is a vital emergency service with, the government seems to think is not worth investing in. And that is wrong in my community. Most people are more likely to call on a Coast Guard than a copper, but the government would be seen as barmy if they suggested only paying for police by their mileage. I've seen some poor choices from the government in my couple of years here, but this is one that's made me the most worried. I truly think that the MCA and the government have not realised what they're doing here.
They've heard some legal advice and listened to some Treasury beancounters and decided that our service just can't be supported. Well, as I've heard today, this is just not good enough. There is time left in the Prime Minister's reign for one more U-turn. I urge the government please make it this.
15:33
15:33
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you, Sir Alec. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always. And I'd like to begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing today's debate. Quite a feat given the Department for transport were not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He has managed to secure a debate on an issue I know has caused serious concerns, not just for all of our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us.
And I speak as a member of Parliament, representing a seat that is about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England. The changes to the remuneration of Coast Guard volunteers has raised fundamental questions about the future of the service. We have heard that clearly from all sides of the House today, and I would also like to thank my colleagues who have attended today's debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the Coast Guard. That included, and I know he's had to go to run the drop in on this matter.
My hon. Friend for the Isle of Wight East, I welcome his informative comments about this process that he has given in the main chamber during other sessions, given his own constituents role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right. The question about how Coast Guard, the Coast Guard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the Coast Guard 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.
This turns us to the issue which underpins the debate. What happens if we no longer have those volunteers?We know that the 3000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public, so it is integral that they remain part of the service for as long as the Coast Guard has existed. There have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the Coast Guard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy.
It included payments and allowances. This involved 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 Coast Guard and the volunteer life saving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the department conduct internal reviews of the role auxiliaries should play in the service, compared to those working full time. This shows that the relationship between the state and the Coast Guard has changed throughout the years, with an evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring people can volunteer while maintaining incentives so that the Coast Guard 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.
And I speak as a member of Parliament, representing a seat that is about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England. The changes to the remuneration of Coast Guard volunteers has raised fundamental questions about the future of the service. We have heard that clearly from all sides of the House today, and I would also like to thank my colleagues who have attended today's debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the Coast Guard. That included, and I know he's had to go to run the drop in on this matter.
My hon. Friend for the Isle of Wight East, I welcome his informative comments about this process that he has given in the main chamber during other sessions, given his own constituents role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right. The question about how Coast Guard, the Coast Guard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the Coast Guard 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.
This turns us to the issue which underpins the debate. What happens if we no longer have those volunteers?We know that the 3000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public, so it is integral that they remain part of the service for as long as the Coast Guard has existed. There have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the Coast Guard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy.
It included payments and allowances. This involved 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 Coast Guard and the volunteer life saving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the department conduct internal reviews of the role auxiliaries should play in the service, compared to those working full time. This shows that the relationship between the state and the Coast Guard has changed throughout the years, with an evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring people can volunteer while maintaining incentives so that the Coast Guard 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.
15:35
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I'm about to suspend the sitting due to a division in the Commons. I will aim well. I will aim to come back before the ten minutes which is due after the last division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, shadow minister, minister and the right hon. Gentleman. Orkney and Shetland are here. We will start as quickly as we can. That will be as a maximum ten minutes after the last Division. May I remind members that if they have spoken, they do need to come back to the chamber.
However, if I do start slightly earlier, I will give you that leeway. Um, but I do expect everybody who has spoken to be back in this chamber ten minutes after the start of the last division sitting suspended order. Content to restart proceedings. Call Shadow Minister Greg Smith.
However, if I do start slightly earlier, I will give you that leeway. Um, but I do expect everybody who has spoken to be back in this chamber ten minutes after the start of the last division sitting suspended order. Content to restart proceedings. Call Shadow Minister Greg Smith.
16:08
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you, sir Alec. Back from the division break. We can think about the possible impact of the court judgment and the government's decision. It is. I would put it to the House. Crazy that the government has made this decision affecting our brave Coast Guard rescue officers. Later this year, we face the prospect of huge, huge numbers of our Coast Guard personnel leaving because this government has failed them. Now I appreciate I do appreciate this, that the minister has reiterated in multiple written answers that this was not a decision that the government wanted to take.
16:09
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
For the service and 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. I believe it's important to reflect on those because while they show that steps were on the face of it taken, I am unsure about the level of consideration they actually demonstrate. The government seemed to have sought to understand the models, but have reverted to the simplest option. There needs to be a comprehensive explanation of the thought processes within the department.
For example, if we consider the actions stemming from the legal decision, what steps were then taken to establish a path forward?Can the minister explain how much time was taken by the government to analyse the legal decision, and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate?Reflecting on that point, I acknowledge that the Minister has said the suggestion came from the MCA and that the government accepted it. However, the MCA's own annual report for 2020 425 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, and I quote, a lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change. The ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce legal 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. The quote ends. I hope the minister can clarify whether this remains the case, because this issue of Renumeration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could pose consequences for legislation.
If the MCA was considering this 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 would hope that this proposal did not merely stem from the department's own legal team. Furthermore, the minister's previous responses have referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I've missed something, the government have failed to publish significant analysis on the impact on volunteer numbers.
Because of this decision. From the outside, there seems to have been a choice by the government not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and the full reasoning. Then this exacerbates worries among those hard working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay, but who also get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. I think this is reflected in the comments of one anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would, and I quote, damage morale and weaken the service.
I sale this, recognising that there is no simple option for the government, but we cannot ignore that they have taken a decision, one with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of this change, I ask the minister if there is anything that can be done to delay this while the government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified. Meanwhile, the government have known the outcome of this case since January. The judgement on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages.
Since that time, we've not seen anything as detailed from the government. The government should have anticipated this decision from the court, and we believe they need to put together a solution that does not see droves of people leaving our Coast Guard service. Until then, the current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved across the House of Commons. 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 they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our Coast Guard.
For example, if we consider the actions stemming from the legal decision, what steps were then taken to establish a path forward?Can the minister explain how much time was taken by the government to analyse the legal decision, and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate?Reflecting on that point, I acknowledge that the Minister has said the suggestion came from the MCA and that the government accepted it. However, the MCA's own annual report for 2020 425 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, and I quote, a lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change. The ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce legal 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. The quote ends. I hope the minister can clarify whether this remains the case, because this issue of Renumeration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could pose consequences for legislation.
If the MCA was considering this 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 would hope that this proposal did not merely stem from the department's own legal team. Furthermore, the minister's previous responses have referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I've missed something, the government have failed to publish significant analysis on the impact on volunteer numbers.
Because of this decision. From the outside, there seems to have been a choice by the government not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and the full reasoning. Then this exacerbates worries among those hard working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay, but who also get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. I think this is reflected in the comments of one anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would, and I quote, damage morale and weaken the service.
I sale this, recognising that there is no simple option for the government, but we cannot ignore that they have taken a decision, one with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of this change, I ask the minister if there is anything that can be done to delay this while the government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified. Meanwhile, the government have known the outcome of this case since January. The judgement on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages.
Since that time, we've not seen anything as detailed from the government. The government should have anticipated this decision from the court, and we believe they need to put together a solution that does not see droves of people leaving our Coast Guard service. Until then, the current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved across the House of Commons. 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 they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our Coast Guard.
16:13
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you, Sir Alec, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Firstly, I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for bringing this debate. And, Sir Alec, I'm sure you'll agree it has been a useful one, informed by honest exchanges. And I want to be clear with honourable members and the crows, who I know will be watching this debate about how we got to this moment and about what happens next. But for those observing this debate who might be wondering exactly who it is that we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are.
Put simply, they are the people who are there when you need them the most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. Crows are the ones who could rescue you or your loved ones if you're trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud and struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. And Sir Alec.
They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable. Recovering people who. It has not been possible to save, to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, chair, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I would like to personally thank all of them for their service. I'd be gladto give way.
Put simply, they are the people who are there when you need them the most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. Crows are the ones who could rescue you or your loved ones if you're trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud and struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. And Sir Alec.
They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable. Recovering people who. It has not been possible to save, to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, chair, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I would like to personally thank all of them for their service. I'd be gladto give way.
16:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm grateful to the Minister for his recognition. I am sure his words will have been heard and appreciated. 17% of crows are now members of the GMB. The threshold for voluntary recognition by the agency would be 10%, would he, as a Labour minister, agree with me, as a Liberal Democrat, that this would be a good moment for the AMC to recognise the GMB as a union for crows?
16:15
16:16
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank the Right Honourable member for his contribution and also for the points he made earlier, which I will come to address. I'm pleased to say that I've met with the GMB and spoke to them about the increase in their membership resulting from this decision, and I'm happy to work with them on an ongoing basis. The suggestion that he proposes in his intervention speaks to a recognition of worker status, and later in my remarks, I'm going to speak to what I believe are some of the drawbacks of that approach.
But he's welcome to intervene on me again at that point to see if he wants to address anything else. But first, chair, I would like to address some of the specific points that have been made over the course of this debate. And first, I would like to come back to the original remarks by the right Honourable member. Firstly, I'd like to pick up on something he said about not being allowed to meet in his Coast Guard centre, something which I personally find very concerning, and that's been echoed by a couple of comments that have been made by honourable members across the House, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me, so I might be able to form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.
He also speaks specifically about the impact for his rural and island constituency. Something that has been raised eloquently by many members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. It is, of course, the case that the average number of hours that are volunteered by a crow in this country is 3.5 hours, but for many, they will volunteer for 35 hours a month. And that's especially the case if you live in a rural constituency or an island constituency, where you have to respond to those frequent callouts that the Right Honourable member described, and I'm very cognizant of that disparity, but also the differences in experience which underpin how crows are approaching this matter.
And next, I would like to turn to the the serious points that he raises around consultation and engagement from the the MCA. Can I just say, chair, that we take complaints incredibly seriously and we have very well established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns raised. He mentioned in his remarks, sharing some of that anonymous testimony with me, and I'd be grateful if he would do so. I also just want to briefly turn to a point made by my hon. Friend the member for around.
Death and service and injury benefit. The CRS Injury Benefit Compensation Scheme is for volunteers. It provides, and this is important. Will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty, and this includes provision for compensation for dependents in the event of death. And I'm glad that she's allowed me to put that point on the record. Next, I would like to turn to the point raised by my hon.
Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth. Falmouth about a specific question around HMRC disturbance allowances. I'd be happy to take that point away and write to her on the specifics of it. And next, I would just like to briefly turn to the remarks from the honourable member for South East Cornwall. She is right to point to the fact that although the operating model by which crows do their work is a volunteer model, these are people responding to emergency situations who, as she remarks, wear the badge of a government agency and do phenomenal work.
And they should be perceived as such. And for doing so, and in that sense, she is right to say that it doesn't do justice to the scale of the contribution that they make. And a number of points have been made. Sir Alec around retained firefighters and how that would map over potentially to crow status, retained firefighters have a number of characteristics of the work that they do, which in my view, might cause severe complications for crows, where it's been mapped across that I think honourable members should be cognisant of.
The first is that retained fire service people are employees. They have contractual limitations, such as living a certain distance from the station. That's an important factor to bear in mind. They also have to respond within 5 to 7 minutes, depending on the station, to the emergency that they are faced with. That creates a very different system around the mutuality of the obligation for the CRS, and I just think those are important considerations to bear in mind. The Right Honourable member also asked me to say specifically what engagement has taken place.
I will list it for him, and I know that there has been a debate about whether it goes far enough, and the character of the consultation, but just for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video, five updates on CRS online, and that is alongside a pattern of regular engagement around other issues regarding equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow up. There was another really important issue that was raised around modelling the potential impacts. An impact assessment, combined incident demand data, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CR availability are most likely to occur.
Very briefly, I will give way.
But he's welcome to intervene on me again at that point to see if he wants to address anything else. But first, chair, I would like to address some of the specific points that have been made over the course of this debate. And first, I would like to come back to the original remarks by the right Honourable member. Firstly, I'd like to pick up on something he said about not being allowed to meet in his Coast Guard centre, something which I personally find very concerning, and that's been echoed by a couple of comments that have been made by honourable members across the House, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me, so I might be able to form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.
He also speaks specifically about the impact for his rural and island constituency. Something that has been raised eloquently by many members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. It is, of course, the case that the average number of hours that are volunteered by a crow in this country is 3.5 hours, but for many, they will volunteer for 35 hours a month. And that's especially the case if you live in a rural constituency or an island constituency, where you have to respond to those frequent callouts that the Right Honourable member described, and I'm very cognizant of that disparity, but also the differences in experience which underpin how crows are approaching this matter.
And next, I would like to turn to the the serious points that he raises around consultation and engagement from the the MCA. Can I just say, chair, that we take complaints incredibly seriously and we have very well established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns raised. He mentioned in his remarks, sharing some of that anonymous testimony with me, and I'd be grateful if he would do so. I also just want to briefly turn to a point made by my hon. Friend the member for around.
Death and service and injury benefit. The CRS Injury Benefit Compensation Scheme is for volunteers. It provides, and this is important. Will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty, and this includes provision for compensation for dependents in the event of death. And I'm glad that she's allowed me to put that point on the record. Next, I would like to turn to the point raised by my hon.
Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth. Falmouth about a specific question around HMRC disturbance allowances. I'd be happy to take that point away and write to her on the specifics of it. And next, I would just like to briefly turn to the remarks from the honourable member for South East Cornwall. She is right to point to the fact that although the operating model by which crows do their work is a volunteer model, these are people responding to emergency situations who, as she remarks, wear the badge of a government agency and do phenomenal work.
And they should be perceived as such. And for doing so, and in that sense, she is right to say that it doesn't do justice to the scale of the contribution that they make. And a number of points have been made. Sir Alec around retained firefighters and how that would map over potentially to crow status, retained firefighters have a number of characteristics of the work that they do, which in my view, might cause severe complications for crows, where it's been mapped across that I think honourable members should be cognisant of.
The first is that retained fire service people are employees. They have contractual limitations, such as living a certain distance from the station. That's an important factor to bear in mind. They also have to respond within 5 to 7 minutes, depending on the station, to the emergency that they are faced with. That creates a very different system around the mutuality of the obligation for the CRS, and I just think those are important considerations to bear in mind. The Right Honourable member also asked me to say specifically what engagement has taken place.
I will list it for him, and I know that there has been a debate about whether it goes far enough, and the character of the consultation, but just for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video, five updates on CRS online, and that is alongside a pattern of regular engagement around other issues regarding equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow up. There was another really important issue that was raised around modelling the potential impacts. An impact assessment, combined incident demand data, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CR availability are most likely to occur.
Very briefly, I will give way.
16:20
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you. Sir Alec, he raises a really important point about crows feeling that their voice has been heard across the United Kingdom. I'll be sure to take that away and ensure it informs my further engagement going forward. But just for the benefit of the House, I'd just like to speak a little more about modelling of potential impacts. It 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 all crows are very diverse and it would therefore not be possible to model all the possibilities of how 3000 people would respond to these changes. However, I do have a little more to say to this that I will turn to now. I would like to inform the House that 29 crows have left the service since the announcement was given. Three of those have stated that that is because of the change that has been implemented. That is not to say that others have not and have not reported it, and I wouldn't want to argue that that is the case, but I hope that information is useful for the House.
A broader point was made by the honourable member for Bridgwater and others about operational resilience. I would just like to reassure them that His Majesty's Coast Guard does have contingency plans and measures in place, and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, and that includes aviation, aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats. Um, to turn back to the situation we face today, Sir Alec, on the 14th of January, as many members will know, a judgement was handed down by the Court of Appeal which changed the status of crows for many years.
The MCA has provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of doing such important work, an arrangement that, I should note, was not, and is not typical for the voluntary sector. And whilst not all crows chose to claim this, the court found that because the MCA had been providing regular payments to crows following call outs and because this remuneration took them beyond simply being reimbursed for their expenses, they were deemed to be workers within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Now, this has fundamentally changed the nature of the crows role.
Crow crows, who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could do so alongside their primary employment, are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities which they did not sign up for. And I would like to just be clear about what this could mean. Worker designation could push crows into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. These threats to people continuing as crows, are the ones we have been working hard and expressly to avoid.
So this judgment chair has clarified the law, and the law must now be upheld. And if we want. Yeah, I would give away.
The individual circumstances of all crows are very diverse and it would therefore not be possible to model all the possibilities of how 3000 people would respond to these changes. However, I do have a little more to say to this that I will turn to now. I would like to inform the House that 29 crows have left the service since the announcement was given. Three of those have stated that that is because of the change that has been implemented. That is not to say that others have not and have not reported it, and I wouldn't want to argue that that is the case, but I hope that information is useful for the House.
A broader point was made by the honourable member for Bridgwater and others about operational resilience. I would just like to reassure them that His Majesty's Coast Guard does have contingency plans and measures in place, and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, and that includes aviation, aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats. Um, to turn back to the situation we face today, Sir Alec, on the 14th of January, as many members will know, a judgement was handed down by the Court of Appeal which changed the status of crows for many years.
The MCA has provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of doing such important work, an arrangement that, I should note, was not, and is not typical for the voluntary sector. And whilst not all crows chose to claim this, the court found that because the MCA had been providing regular payments to crows following call outs and because this remuneration took them beyond simply being reimbursed for their expenses, they were deemed to be workers within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Now, this has fundamentally changed the nature of the crows role.
Crow crows, who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could do so alongside their primary employment, are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities which they did not sign up for. And I would like to just be clear about what this could mean. Worker designation could push crows into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. These threats to people continuing as crows, are the ones we have been working hard and expressly to avoid.
So this judgment chair has clarified the law, and the law must now be upheld. And if we want. Yeah, I would give away.
16:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The minister knows that these. These changes are due to come in in September. He will be aware of the feeling across this House and the opposition to these changes. The Department of Transport does have the power to suspend this, and it does not have to take place. Will he therefore take that opportunity to suspend this to allow for meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing this through?
16:24
16:24
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank him for that. Contribution. And I would say to him that I am committed to continuing to engage with the crows, with trade unions and with members of Parliament on this important issue. Those risks that I've just outlined around worker status exist now. And I think that is an important thing to consider ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether it was in September or later in the year or at some other point. But I will come back to that specific point around timing at the end of my remarks, and I'll make some progress, I'm afraid, and perhaps I'll come back to the honourable member later.
And if we do believe in this House, that crows should retain the right to remain as volunteers, then it is the case that the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I want to 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. And let me finish this point. 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 which I know that honourable members have also been speaking about, would require new and complex primary legislation, which would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there was, but there is no simple solution to this situation. And on that note, I will give way to the honourable member.
And if we do believe in this House, that crows should retain the right to remain as volunteers, then it is the case that the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I want to 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. And let me finish this point. 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 which I know that honourable members have also been speaking about, would require new and complex primary legislation, which would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there was, but there is no simple solution to this situation. And on that note, I will give way to the honourable member.
16:25
16:25
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I've heard the honourable gentleman's point on this issue, and I will go away after today and have a conversation with my officials about what it is appropriate to be able to share with MPs who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter. Um, so, uh, very. Briefly. And then I will make some progress.
16:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
All of the points which the minister is making applies to retained firefighters. And to simply say that you cannot transpose appropriately, that that is a framework agreement between the NCA and, and Crows, simply because they have to be called out within a 5 to 7 minute. I mean, those kind of details can be altered simply by using the framework. If it's if it's possible, in the case of retained farmworkers, there's no reason why it can't be transposed to the crows.
16:26
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank him for his intervention. But those considerations and how they would affect the lives of crows. I know he is not saying this, but they are not immaterial. And it is my understanding, although I'm 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, which we would, of course need to work through and couldn't be done just with the wish of doing so.
And with that, I will make some progress. These reasons, which I've set out, are the reasons why the MCA was compelled to accept the court's judgement and, having done so, needed to take immediate action to comply based on operational judgements and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model. They recommended moving to a pure volunteer system, which paid expenses so that crows did not have to choose between being a crow or their primary employment. This was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option.
And as this decision has been communicated to cross, it is only natural to that. It would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve something that has been powerfully articulated in the contributions today. Now, in the time since this decision was made, I've listened to and reflected on the points raised by my colleagues and to those raised during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impacts of this on the operational capacity of the Coast Guard.
Coast guard Rescue Service, and I hope I've gone some way to addressing those concerns in my response. However, it is also important to recognise that the alternative of moving to a worker model would also require a fundamentally different model, and would also likely lead to crows having to leave the service which which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity. This is. Therefore, I'm afraid I won't take any more interventions. I've got to get through my remarks. This is I won't give.
I've given away plenty of times. This is therefore a complex challenge that we must all work through together. Chair, we do not want to be in a situation where employers cannot continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see crows 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 crows, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems that they face, and in fact could create many new ones.
But we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers, and we have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out. At this stage, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed and to fellow members, for all the excellent points that they have raised. I can assure him that this debate has resonated strongly with me. I'll reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our Coast Guard volunteers can be recognised.
I've heard the deep concerns of the Crow 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, and I thank everybody for their contributions today. Thank you.
And with that, I will make some progress. These reasons, which I've set out, are the reasons why the MCA was compelled to accept the court's judgement and, having done so, needed to take immediate action to comply based on operational judgements and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model. They recommended moving to a pure volunteer system, which paid expenses so that crows did not have to choose between being a crow or their primary employment. This was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option.
And as this decision has been communicated to cross, it is only natural to that. It would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve something that has been powerfully articulated in the contributions today. Now, in the time since this decision was made, I've listened to and reflected on the points raised by my colleagues and to those raised during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impacts of this on the operational capacity of the Coast Guard.
Coast guard Rescue Service, and I hope I've gone some way to addressing those concerns in my response. However, it is also important to recognise that the alternative of moving to a worker model would also require a fundamentally different model, and would also likely lead to crows having to leave the service which which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity. This is. Therefore, I'm afraid I won't take any more interventions. I've got to get through my remarks. This is I won't give.
I've given away plenty of times. This is therefore a complex challenge that we must all work through together. Chair, we do not want to be in a situation where employers cannot continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see crows 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 crows, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems that they face, and in fact could create many new ones.
But we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers, and we have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out. At this stage, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed and to fellow members, for all the excellent points that they have raised. I can assure him that this debate has resonated strongly with me. I'll reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our Coast Guard volunteers can be recognised.
I've heard the deep concerns of the Crow 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, and I thank everybody for their contributions today. Thank you.
16:29
16:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. Denying you. Can I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate. I thank them and recognise in particular the contribution for the honourable lady from Arbroath and Broughty Ferry welcomed her to the community of Westminster Hall. I did not remember to count early enough, but I think we had at least 32 members of Parliament in the chamber at the start. And in addition. In addition, I had indications from the honourable members from the Heron and the Near South Devon, Scarborough and Whitby and Gower, that they would have been here also.
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I do hope that nobody then goes back and looks at the footage of me when it was wearing, inadvertently leaving my jacket open in that manner. Um. I was saying there were another a number of others who were wanting to be here. I listened to the minister and he's telling me, he's telling us all, in fact, that the problem is the law. And I'm thinking to myself, my goodness, if only there were something that the government could do about the law.
Um. I don't honestly know what the answer is here. And I'm not without sympathy for the position in which the minister finds himself. Um, but I do know what it isn't and it isn't to take the terms and conditions that people have served under up until now and take them away, and to treat them with the utter disregard that the chief executive and the senior management in the MCE are doing. I would suggest to him again, what we need to do is to pause this work again properly, talk to the cross in a respectful and engaging manner, and then come back with something that focuses not on the process argument that we've heard and we understand, but actually 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.
Um. I don't honestly know what the answer is here. And I'm not without sympathy for the position in which the minister finds himself. Um, but I do know what it isn't and it isn't to take the terms and conditions that people have served under up until now and take them away, and to treat them with the utter disregard that the chief executive and the senior management in the MCE are doing. I would suggest to him again, what we need to do is to pause this work again properly, talk to the cross in a respectful and engaging manner, and then come back with something that focuses not on the process argument that we've heard and we understand, but actually 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.
16:32
16:32
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The question is that this House has considered HMRC guidance and renumeration of Coast Guard volunteers. As many of their opinions say, are for the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Alex Brewer to move the motion. And then I will call the minister to respond. I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate, and the minister. There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as this is the convention for 30 minute debate.
Alex Brewer to move the motion.
Alex Brewer to move the motion.
16:33
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I beg to move that the House has considered the adequacy of early years funding in Hampshire, and it is an honor to serve with you in the chair, sir. 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. The national conversation about free childcare too often misses. The question is not simply whether Hampshire has enough childcare places. On paper, it is 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 the workforce to deliver that sustainably.
Those are two very different questions. And today I want to address both of them. Let's be clear about the scale of the pressure that this sector is under. Rising costs are hammering providers, 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 rose by 19% this year alone. On top of a 59% jump in business rates.
Education analysis published in May this year found that, on average, providers took in just £1 and a penny for every pound they spent in 2025 and nearly half 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 already operating on wafer thin margins is left absorbing more and more tax rises. I will give way.
Those are two very different questions. And today I want to address both of them. Let's be clear about the scale of the pressure that this sector is under. Rising costs are hammering providers, 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 rose by 19% this year alone. On top of a 59% jump in business rates.
Education analysis published in May this year found that, on average, providers took in just £1 and a penny for every pound they spent in 2025 and nearly half 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 already operating on wafer thin margins is left absorbing more and more tax rises. I will give way.
16:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Can I?Can I commend them for bringing this forward?And she's right to highlight the issue of the funding shortfall. A funding shortfall across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But what it's doing is it's forcing nurses to close, drives up childcare costs and stops parents from returning to the workforce. Does the honourable lady agree that government needs to make this a priority within education, to ensure that the children are educated and that parents can cope with the pressures that presently under?
16:35
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention and yes, I absolutely agree that that is the summary of exactly the position. When we think of of early years, most of us automatically, of course, think of nurseries, but in many areas of the country, and especially in north east Hampshire, many families rely on local childminders. Earlier this month, a constituent of mine, Lorna, told me that after almost 26 years running her childminding business, she must close it because of mounting financial pressures. She has loved this job, but the lack of any promise of a better financial future has left her with no choice.
Ambition we hold for this system more places, better outcomes, proper support for children with additional needs depends on a stable, skilled and well supported workforce. Parents don't use the language of workforce policy, of course, but they feel its consequences all the same. They feel it 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. This leaves early years settings particularly exposed to sudden changes, such as the increase in employer National Insurance contributions. 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. Reflects many of these challenges in microcosm.
It is a large county spanning urban, rural, and coastal communities. Hampshire County Council's own childcare Sufficiency assessment points to the same challenges expanding supply. To meet the extended 30 hour entitlement. Tackling recruitment and retention and ensuring rising demand does not squeeze out those 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 a great headline, but it has to be deliverable.
As of September 2025, the county council projected Hampshire would need an additional 2100 childcare places in wards where supply is already limited. Just to meet the 30 hour per week promise. And this promise isn't all it's made out to be. 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. And the rate for three and four year olds 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 in their own work. It's often more expensive to have both parents working. This is not good for our economy. Like any business, cash flow is key, and providers across my constituency of North east Hampshire tell me 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, which, when combined with low or no profit margins, sets the scene for instability and uncertainty. Young children, working parents and childcare providers all need stability in the sector to provide to thrive. But the circumstances are far from ideal for this. Nowhere is the funding gap starker than for those 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 syndrome and their families.
So this is an issue I have seen up close from both sides of the school gate. Providers tell me the pathway to secure support is long and difficult to navigate, and by the time a child is identified, their needs are already often very high. Does arrive frequently pays only for an enhanced ratio, which is no substitute for the 1 to 1 specialist care 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 that 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 our families and for society. And 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 actually arrive, to be enough and to be on time.
A place on a spreadsheet is not the same as a place of family can use, and 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.
Ambition we hold for this system more places, better outcomes, proper support for children with additional needs depends on a stable, skilled and well supported workforce. Parents don't use the language of workforce policy, of course, but they feel its consequences all the same. They feel it 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. This leaves early years settings particularly exposed to sudden changes, such as the increase in employer National Insurance contributions. 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. Reflects many of these challenges in microcosm.
It is a large county spanning urban, rural, and coastal communities. Hampshire County Council's own childcare Sufficiency assessment points to the same challenges expanding supply. To meet the extended 30 hour entitlement. Tackling recruitment and retention and ensuring rising demand does not squeeze out those 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 a great headline, but it has to be deliverable.
As of September 2025, the county council projected Hampshire would need an additional 2100 childcare places in wards where supply is already limited. Just to meet the 30 hour per week promise. And this promise isn't all it's made out to be. 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. And the rate for three and four year olds 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 in their own work. It's often more expensive to have both parents working. This is not good for our economy. Like any business, cash flow is key, and providers across my constituency of North east Hampshire tell me 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, which, when combined with low or no profit margins, sets the scene for instability and uncertainty. Young children, working parents and childcare providers all need stability in the sector to provide to thrive. But the circumstances are far from ideal for this. Nowhere is the funding gap starker than for those 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 syndrome and their families.
So this is an issue I have seen up close from both sides of the school gate. Providers tell me the pathway to secure support is long and difficult to navigate, and by the time a child is identified, their needs are already often very high. Does arrive frequently pays only for an enhanced ratio, which is no substitute for the 1 to 1 specialist care 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 that 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 our families and for society. And 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 actually arrive, to be enough and to be on time.
A place on a spreadsheet is not the same as a place of family can use, and 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.
16:41
16:41
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Sir Alec, it's an honour to serve under your chairship, and I really thank the honourable member for North East Hampshire for bringing this important debate to us this afternoon, and I thank all members who are present as well. I would like to start by thanking all of the wonderful staff who work in early years settings in her constituency and across Hampshire. They do a brilliant job and they give all of our children the very best possible start in life, and I think that they deserve all of our thanks and recognition.
I would also just like to say she makes a number of very fair points, which I shall address throughout my speech this afternoon. But I would just like to say from the outset that for the very first time in a long time, this government has prioritised the early years. We've put record investment in the early years, £9.5 billion next year. We've got record and stretching targets to ensure that record proportions of children are ready for school. We're opening family hubs, best start family hubs across our country, and network sites encourage integration between our local services and our local early education providers, and through our best start in life strategy, we're really clear that we're determined to have the back of providers and ensure that the workforce is brilliantly supported, to continue to do such a fantastic job for our children and young people.
Um, the points that she raised in her speech, I do address in my remarks. So I shall move on to my substantive speech. So I do think it's important just to start my that she raised in her speech, I do address in my remarks. So I shall move on to my substantive speech. Sir Alec, um this Labour government, as I've just said, has 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 such a fantastic job for our children and young people.
So I do think it's important just to start my remarks by situating us in, in that important context. Um, the points that she raised in her speech, I do address in my remarks. So I shall move on to my substantive speech, sir Alec, um, this Labour government, as I've just said, has 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, we're also giving every child excellent quality of early education, which they need to thrive later on.
Well, I'm happy to give you.
I would also just like to say she makes a number of very fair points, which I shall address throughout my speech this afternoon. But I would just like to say from the outset that for the very first time in a long time, this government has prioritised the early years. We've put record investment in the early years, £9.5 billion next year. We've got record and stretching targets to ensure that record proportions of children are ready for school. We're opening family hubs, best start family hubs across our country, and network sites encourage integration between our local services and our local early education providers, and through our best start in life strategy, we're really clear that we're determined to have the back of providers and ensure that the workforce is brilliantly supported, to continue to do such a fantastic job for our children and young people.
Um, the points that she raised in her speech, I do address in my remarks. So I shall move on to my substantive speech. So I do think it's important just to start my that she raised in her speech, I do address in my remarks. So I shall move on to my substantive speech. Sir Alec, um this Labour government, as I've just said, has 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 such a fantastic job for our children and young people.
So I do think it's important just to start my remarks by situating us in, in that important context. Um, the points that she raised in her speech, I do address in my remarks. So I shall move on to my substantive speech, sir Alec, um, this Labour government, as I've just said, has 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, we're also giving every child excellent quality of early education, which they need to thrive later on.
Well, I'm happy to give you.
16:43
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Sir. Alec, um, my hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Would you agree with me that there's genuine excitement and joy from families when they see the benefits of this investment?And she and I both witnessed this in our own community in reading. And indeed, we're building on the government is building on a great tradition in that local authority. And I wish other local authorities invested to that extent because.
16:44
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour especially for giving me the opportunity to thank the fantastic earlier staff in my constituency in reading, West Berkshire, and across reading, who do a brilliant job for our children. Um, and I know as a constituency MP as well as a minister, 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 such a transformational difference for them as they grow older. Um, the work that we're doing is only thanks to the brilliant work from our early education sector, who have worked tirelessly to deliver the very large expansion that we've had of childcare and make it such a success.
And so we do have a responsibility to ensure that the sector is financially sustainable, to deliver the entitlements and high quality early years provision going forward. That's why we are investing record amounts in early education and why, through our proposals, we are having the back of the sector in 2020 627. We expect to provide over £9.5 billion for the early years entitlements, more than doubling annual public investment in the early years compared to 2020 324. We're 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 forecast cost pressures on the sector, including the National Living Wage, and take into account the wider workforce pressures felt by the sector that the honourable lady mentioned um in her remarks. 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 funding rate for the nine months to two year old entitlements by 4.28%. This 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 in Hampshire.
There's also been a benefit from these rate increases. The rates set for Hampshire have seen increases of 3.6% for 3 to 4 year olds, 2.9% for two year olds, 2.8% for under twos. This means government paid rates for Hampshire are £6.38 for 3 to 4 year olds, £8.73 for two year olds and £11.81 for under twos. This is compared um fairly to. Favourably with average rates, which are just marginally above those figures. This demonstrates, I think, Sir Alec, our commitment to properly funding our early years settings to continue to deliver on this vital mission.
Hourly rates will vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and different costs of delivering provision across the country. These rates are calculated using the early Years National Funding formula, which is used to target funding to local authorities where it's needed most, and we believe that approach is fair, efficient and transparent. We do, of course, keep funding rates under review, and I can assure her that the team will have listened carefully to the points that she has made today, and she may also be interested to know that as we committed to in the best start in life strategy, we plan to review early years funding and consult on changes to how we distribute that funding.
And I'd welcome her contribution to that review. This consultation will begin imminently, and I would ask her and everybody here today to encourage their constituents to to feed in. 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 early years. Pupil premium in 2526. This year we increased early years pupil Puma rates by 15%, equivalent to up to £655 per eligible child per year.
And we also expect to spend over £90 million on maintained nursery school supplementary funding in 2027. The best start in life strategy. Sir Alec sets out our plan to boost uptake of the 15 our entitlements to two, three and four year olds by working with local authorities and family hubs and tracking data through the Local outcomes Framework. And she mentioned in her speech the vital issue of Send. And so to help support children with Send, a further £47 million is being provided in 2627 to support greater inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities.
As part of our three year, £1.6 billion inclusive mainstream Fund. This is on top of mandatory Sen inclusion funds, which through which providers can access support to meet children with early and emerging needs in their settings and 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 educational professionals through experts at hand.
And I assure her that on this vital issue, we are working tirelessly to ensure that every child with additional needs gets the help and support that they need. Um, Sir Alec, the honourable lady also talked about the vital importance of the workforce, and we know that we must invest in the workforce to ensure that we have the best possible future for early education system in this country. And that's one of the reasons why earlier this month, we launched a four and a half, 5000 payment to attract and retrain, retain qualified nursery teachers in the communities that need them most, starting in ten areas and expanding to 30 later this year.
This scheme will boost outcomes for children and allow more families to access their funded childcare entitlement. Alongside this, we committed in the B-cell strategy to continue to support the sector to grow and professionalise, and I can ensure I can assure members that work on that is continuing at pace. Sir Alec, our record expansion of childcare means that this government now funds around 80% of childcare hours in this country, which I think is a remarkable figure and in effect 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 that Autumn budget 2025 that the Department is leading across government review into early education and childcare support provided by different parts of the government, and our review will set out a new vision for the early education and care system, one which builds children's life chances and supports parents. WorkChoices one which is simpler and easier to use for both providers and parents. Improving access and impact of the government's investment in children and families, and I look forward to engaging with colleagues from across the House as we make progress on that review, and I also look forward to engaging widely with the sector, which I think is wonderfully diverse.
And I really think it's important for me to say at the despatch box how much we value the many private nurseries and voluntary nurseries that are operating at a brilliant level to provide such a great service for our children and young people, and they will be at the heart of that review in any future system. Um, Sir Alec, I would like to conclude by again thanking all members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate this afternoon. And what is clear is 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 do recognise the challenge faced by some in the sector, particularly around the costs providers face and funding distribution, and that is why we are continuing to work closely with them to refine our funding approach through consultation, and to just always make sure we're listening to the sector. So I'm grateful to the honourable lady through our consultation and our review, we can ensure our early education system fulfils the ambition we all have for it. This is about more than childcare. It's about opportunity and life chances, and I remain confident that working together, we can deliver a system that truly meets the needs of every child and every family.
And so we do have a responsibility to ensure that the sector is financially sustainable, to deliver the entitlements and high quality early years provision going forward. That's why we are investing record amounts in early education and why, through our proposals, we are having the back of the sector in 2020 627. We expect to provide over £9.5 billion for the early years entitlements, more than doubling annual public investment in the early years compared to 2020 324. We're 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 forecast cost pressures on the sector, including the National Living Wage, and take into account the wider workforce pressures felt by the sector that the honourable lady mentioned um in her remarks. 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 funding rate for the nine months to two year old entitlements by 4.28%. This 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 in Hampshire.
There's also been a benefit from these rate increases. The rates set for Hampshire have seen increases of 3.6% for 3 to 4 year olds, 2.9% for two year olds, 2.8% for under twos. This means government paid rates for Hampshire are £6.38 for 3 to 4 year olds, £8.73 for two year olds and £11.81 for under twos. This is compared um fairly to. Favourably with average rates, which are just marginally above those figures. This demonstrates, I think, Sir Alec, our commitment to properly funding our early years settings to continue to deliver on this vital mission.
Hourly rates will vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and different costs of delivering provision across the country. These rates are calculated using the early Years National Funding formula, which is used to target funding to local authorities where it's needed most, and we believe that approach is fair, efficient and transparent. We do, of course, keep funding rates under review, and I can assure her that the team will have listened carefully to the points that she has made today, and she may also be interested to know that as we committed to in the best start in life strategy, we plan to review early years funding and consult on changes to how we distribute that funding.
And I'd welcome her contribution to that review. This consultation will begin imminently, and I would ask her and everybody here today to encourage their constituents to to feed in. 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 early years. Pupil premium in 2526. This year we increased early years pupil Puma rates by 15%, equivalent to up to £655 per eligible child per year.
And we also expect to spend over £90 million on maintained nursery school supplementary funding in 2027. The best start in life strategy. Sir Alec sets out our plan to boost uptake of the 15 our entitlements to two, three and four year olds by working with local authorities and family hubs and tracking data through the Local outcomes Framework. And she mentioned in her speech the vital issue of Send. And so to help support children with Send, a further £47 million is being provided in 2627 to support greater inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities.
As part of our three year, £1.6 billion inclusive mainstream Fund. This is on top of mandatory Sen inclusion funds, which through which providers can access support to meet children with early and emerging needs in their settings and 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 educational professionals through experts at hand.
And I assure her that on this vital issue, we are working tirelessly to ensure that every child with additional needs gets the help and support that they need. Um, Sir Alec, the honourable lady also talked about the vital importance of the workforce, and we know that we must invest in the workforce to ensure that we have the best possible future for early education system in this country. And that's one of the reasons why earlier this month, we launched a four and a half, 5000 payment to attract and retrain, retain qualified nursery teachers in the communities that need them most, starting in ten areas and expanding to 30 later this year.
This scheme will boost outcomes for children and allow more families to access their funded childcare entitlement. Alongside this, we committed in the B-cell strategy to continue to support the sector to grow and professionalise, and I can ensure I can assure members that work on that is continuing at pace. Sir Alec, our record expansion of childcare means that this government now funds around 80% of childcare hours in this country, which I think is a remarkable figure and in effect 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 that Autumn budget 2025 that the Department is leading across government review into early education and childcare support provided by different parts of the government, and our review will set out a new vision for the early education and care system, one which builds children's life chances and supports parents. WorkChoices one which is simpler and easier to use for both providers and parents. Improving access and impact of the government's investment in children and families, and I look forward to engaging with colleagues from across the House as we make progress on that review, and I also look forward to engaging widely with the sector, which I think is wonderfully diverse.
And I really think it's important for me to say at the despatch box how much we value the many private nurseries and voluntary nurseries that are operating at a brilliant level to provide such a great service for our children and young people, and they will be at the heart of that review in any future system. Um, Sir Alec, I would like to conclude by again thanking all members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate this afternoon. And what is clear is 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 do recognise the challenge faced by some in the sector, particularly around the costs providers face and funding distribution, and that is why we are continuing to work closely with them to refine our funding approach through consultation, and to just always make sure we're listening to the sector. So I'm grateful to the honourable lady through our consultation and our review, we can ensure our early education system fulfils the ambition we all have for it. This is about more than childcare. It's about opportunity and life chances, and I remain confident that working together, we can deliver a system that truly meets the needs of every child and every family.
16:51
17:02
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
You. Chair. It's always a pleasure to serve under you, Alec. I rise to move that this House has considered government support for the fishing industry to the rich fishing and coastal heritage of my constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is second to none, home to the largest whitefish port in Europe at Peterhead and the largest shellfish port at Fraserburgh, not Bridlington, as some people claim. This corner of the north of the north east of Scotland is a key part of our nation's fishing industry and a very significant part of the industry in these islands.
It's why I was so keen, Minister, to invite your former colleague and minister at Defra to Scotland and to extend this invitation to my constituency, and it's why I hope that you, too, can accept this invitation when your diary allows, you can see with your own eyes and meet the experts who nurture and maintain this historic industry against myriad challenges during these volatile geopolitical and economic times, I. Hope, too, that it will be valuable in understanding why there is such feeling of disappointment and anger at how the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund has been allocated in Scotland.
Less than 8% of the funding. £28 million out of a £360 million pot. Let's 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 MP for Makerfield, otherwise known as the presumptive Prime Minister, is really serious about the devolution of power, of decision making, of growth in every postcode and hope in every heart, let him look at this issue, let him listen to Councillor Ian Bell, chair of the Northeast Fisheries Development Partnership, when she says a fair allocation would at minimum be consistent with the 46% share that Scotland previously received from European Union, funds allocated at that time.
And why is there still so much anger about all of this in Scotland and in my constituency?Because, chair, this Westminster government here tried to blame the Scottish Government for the Barnett ization of the fund. So we asked the Scottish Office to show us where, in their discussions this had been asked for by submitting a Freedom of Information request. And this is what we got. And I have six pages of this.
It's why I was so keen, Minister, to invite your former colleague and minister at Defra to Scotland and to extend this invitation to my constituency, and it's why I hope that you, too, can accept this invitation when your diary allows, you can see with your own eyes and meet the experts who nurture and maintain this historic industry against myriad challenges during these volatile geopolitical and economic times, I. Hope, too, that it will be valuable in understanding why there is such feeling of disappointment and anger at how the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund has been allocated in Scotland.
Less than 8% of the funding. £28 million out of a £360 million pot. Let's 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 MP for Makerfield, otherwise known as the presumptive Prime Minister, is really serious about the devolution of power, of decision making, of growth in every postcode and hope in every heart, let him look at this issue, let him listen to Councillor Ian Bell, chair of the Northeast Fisheries Development Partnership, when she says a fair allocation would at minimum be consistent with the 46% share that Scotland previously received from European Union, funds allocated at that time.
And why is there still so much anger about all of this in Scotland and in my constituency?Because, chair, this Westminster government here tried to blame the Scottish Government for the Barnett ization of the fund. So we asked the Scottish Office to show us where, in their discussions this had been asked for by submitting a Freedom of Information request. And this is what we got. And I have six pages of this.
17:05
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Can I just gently remind the honourable member that, first of all, we do not use the words you. I am not responsible for any of it. You speak through the chair so that we can maintain a calmness in the chamber. And second of all, you are not allowed to use Aids and props. You may describe the aid and prop, but please do not hold it up as if that is going to be recognised. Seamus.
17:06
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
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 now in subsequent correspondence between the Scottish Office and the chair of the FPA, it is admitted that it was a Treasury decision in 2024, not a Scottish Government decision, a Treasury decision. In this letter, it is admitted that the allocation in no way reflects the size and strength of the industry in the north east of Scotland. But in this correspondence, the Scottish Office Minister says that she is too busy to meet with the chair of the FPA, 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 this falls short of what is needed is, to put it mildly, perhaps. If the UK government had actually engaged fully with the industry in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Government, there would have been. There would have been made more aware of this.
But, Minister, you now have 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 this allocation unfair and indefensible. He adds that Scottish Water 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, and I quote, 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. Fortunately, and I was pleased to note the excellent Efra Select Committee's report on resetting the relationship with fishing communities, which was critical of how this fund had been allocated and recommended that the UK government should work collaboratively with the devolved government on the design and allocation of the fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector.
For the allocations in year two. Now, in common with my colleagues on the Appg, I look forward to their forthcoming sectoral action plan being co-ordinated by the former Minister of State at Defra, the Right Honourable Member for Cambridge. 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 Scottish 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 labour shortages.
Which brings me to the UK government's reluctance on a Scottish bespoke visa for our catching and processing sector. Fishing in the North east is affected by major labour shortages and the knock on impact to growth, and building a successful and prosperous future are very negative. I'm currently in a nonsense factory game of email ping pong with the Department of Work and Pensions on their insistence that skilling up domestic labour is the answer to these shortages. Let me share some reality for the DWP and the Home Office.
The reality is that the North East fishing industry can't 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 endeavor for already stretched businesses. This is not just a Scottish issue. Just ask my cross-party colleagues in Northern Ireland. The honourable member for Strangford knows exactly what I'm speaking about.
On another front, Ian got the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Pelagic Association points out that the on going situation on 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. This is crucial since mackerel is the most valuable in terms of tonnage to Scottish fisheries, and so the autumn negotiations are crucial for Scotland. All of these issues point to the need for the UK government to take a far more supportive role, with the Scottish fishing industry, and in order to do that, it needs to listen to industry concerns to rebuild this trust, boost economic growth and to do so with policies that rise to the challenges outlined and which reflect solutions to the realities that they face, bypassing the sector, overriding the Scottish Government and playing funding games with invaluable investment is just not good enough.
The time for a more positive reset is well past June now Scottish. Government support for fishing industry is extensive. Since the launch of the Marine Fund Scotland 7070 million has been awarded to almost 400 projects across Scotland, enabling total investment of 154 million. Everything from supporting new entrants, the on board observers programme, the promotion of Scottish Seafood safety training, Covid 19 recovery funding to 855 vessels, emergency harbour repairs and much, much more targeted economic link measures have, for example, led to an additional £58 million worth of mackerel and herring lambda into Scotland, helping to drive record landed values at Peterhead Port.
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 this falls short of what is needed is, to put it mildly, perhaps. If the UK government had actually engaged fully with the industry in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Government, there would have been. There would have been made more aware of this.
But, Minister, you now have 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 this allocation unfair and indefensible. He adds that Scottish Water 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, and I quote, 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. Fortunately, and I was pleased to note the excellent Efra Select Committee's report on resetting the relationship with fishing communities, which was critical of how this fund had been allocated and recommended that the UK government should work collaboratively with the devolved government on the design and allocation of the fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector.
For the allocations in year two. Now, in common with my colleagues on the Appg, I look forward to their forthcoming sectoral action plan being co-ordinated by the former Minister of State at Defra, the Right Honourable Member for Cambridge. 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 Scottish 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 labour shortages.
Which brings me to the UK government's reluctance on a Scottish bespoke visa for our catching and processing sector. Fishing in the North east is affected by major labour shortages and the knock on impact to growth, and building a successful and prosperous future are very negative. I'm currently in a nonsense factory game of email ping pong with the Department of Work and Pensions on their insistence that skilling up domestic labour is the answer to these shortages. Let me share some reality for the DWP and the Home Office.
The reality is that the North East fishing industry can't 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 endeavor for already stretched businesses. This is not just a Scottish issue. Just ask my cross-party colleagues in Northern Ireland. The honourable member for Strangford knows exactly what I'm speaking about.
On another front, Ian got the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Pelagic Association points out that the on going situation on 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. This is crucial since mackerel is the most valuable in terms of tonnage to Scottish fisheries, and so the autumn negotiations are crucial for Scotland. All of these issues point to the need for the UK government to take a far more supportive role, with the Scottish fishing industry, and in order to do that, it needs to listen to industry concerns to rebuild this trust, boost economic growth and to do so with policies that rise to the challenges outlined and which reflect solutions to the realities that they face, bypassing the sector, overriding the Scottish Government and playing funding games with invaluable investment is just not good enough.
The time for a more positive reset is well past June now Scottish. Government support for fishing industry is extensive. Since the launch of the Marine Fund Scotland 7070 million has been awarded to almost 400 projects across Scotland, enabling total investment of 154 million. Everything from supporting new entrants, the on board observers programme, the promotion of Scottish Seafood safety training, Covid 19 recovery funding to 855 vessels, emergency harbour repairs and much, much more targeted economic link measures have, for example, led to an additional £58 million worth of mackerel and herring lambda into Scotland, helping to drive record landed values at Peterhead Port.
17:12
17:12
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
And expansion at Fraserburgh and Peterhead, for example. And these are the kind of capital projects that need cooperation between our two governments in the interests of both Scotland and the UK. And so to conclude, Mr. Chair, I should be very grateful if the Minister could address the following four questions, either in his closing remarks or in correspondence with me at a later date. First of all, can our fish processing industry colleagues be included in the energy intensive industry scheme?This is something which your former minister was pressing hard on, and I lobbied her strongly on that point.
And she understood. Secondly, does the minister understand that the current Home Office, 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 SPS agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export?I will, of course.
And she understood. Secondly, does the minister understand that the current Home Office, 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 SPS agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export?I will, of course.
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I have no brief to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. Of course, our policy is very clear. We do 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. I will reiterate my third point. Can the Minister reassure the Scottish industry that the European Union will not use the forthcoming SPS agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export our excellent products?And finally, can he support the re-establishment of the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group and actively investigate doing so?I beg to move.
17:14
17:14
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
First of all, can I thank you for the pleasure to serve on your chairmanship and a special thank you to the honourable colleague for Aberdeenshire North and Moray Ace for his presentation of the of the debate. It's a real pleasure to work alongside the honourable gentleman to address some of the issues in relation to visas, in relation to quotas and many of the other things that the honourable gentleman has referred to. He and I have had separate meetings, I understand, with the Immigration Minister tap. So I think the minister might want to engage with that minister and where we are with the visa issues, I think it's quite a positive meeting that we had, because we did feel that there was a way forward.
So I want to thank the minister, who's not here in absence for that. Uh, obviously, I'm going to speak very specifically on the, uh, the Northern Ireland fishing sector in 2024. The Northern Ireland fishing industry generates some £50 million in landing values and employed 445 people full time and supported some 6500 jobs ashore across Northern Ireland's rural and coastal communities. The impact of fishing in Northern Ireland is massive, as it is in the Honourable Gentleman constituency in Scotland and across all of Scotland. Of course, fishing is woven into the very fabric of Northern Ireland's identity culturally rich, diverse, shipped by a maritime heritage that stretches back to the 14th century when Northern Irish Northern Irish fishing 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 understated enough. Fishing is at the heart of the cultural identity of coastal communities, and without fishing, these communities lose their soul, their identity and their pride, and I represent them. The village of Portavogie in Strangford. Uh. I don't represent directly the village of Ardglass and. But the member who does doesn't attend here, so therefore he would be taking part in this on behalf of them through the the, the Anglo North Fish Producers Organisation.
I represent all three ports, the Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish Sea fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas. Proposed bans on bottom towed gear and offshore renewable development, and new restrictions imposed by the Isle of Man authorities. Um, all of these, uh, to the issues, the industry, the, the Northern Ireland industry has lost some 9000km of fishing grounds in the Irish Sea over the past couple of decades through a combination of marine protected areas, active and consented windfarm developments, and other, uh, spatial restrictions.
This is over half of the land area of Northern Ireland, and it's threatening the sustainability of the remaining fishing grounds through displacement of fishing effort into an ever decreasing area. The two greatest current concerns of the industry are the ongoing data consultation on management measures, restricting bottom trawling and marine protected areas in the Northern Ireland offshore region, which threatens a further loss of key fishing grounds for the fleet and secondly, which goes back to the issue that the honourable gentleman referred to in the UK skilled worker visas. Um the Northern Ireland offshore areas are crucial to the fleet.
Uh, and and particularly to those vessels with crew employed via the transit visa mechanism who can only fish outside the 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'm very pleased to see the minister here. Minister always gives us helpful responses and that they will test them again. Uh, but can I just say to gentlemen, gentlemen, please, uh, if he would engage with the immigration minister that we met, because I think there is a the minister came up with some ideas, which I think the industry are sympathetic to.
And as an MP, as you know, Sir Alec and all of us here know as well it's about solutions. And we do believe that there is a solution there. And I know that the honourable member for Aberdeenshire, North and East, and I will be very, very keen to see that particular suggestion that he has made to us as a potential way forward, um, and also I'd urge government to support a balanced planning system which protects fishing and our fishermen as a legitimate food producing and does a vital for the UK's fishing industry, access to the Isle of Man waters for Northern Ireland vessels with any crew or transit or UK skilled worker visas has disadvantaged us greatly, so we are, uh, directly concerned about that.
Um the um Northern Ireland industry of course, wants to work with the Home Office to co-design a visa system that is fit for purpose, uh, meets the needs of, of government and industry and delivers a sustainable seafood supply chain for the future. The honourable gentleman who introduced the debate, he and I and others in this chamber today wish to work with the the Home Office to to do that very thing, to co-design a visa system that is fit for purpose, to do nothing risks an industry at the heart of Northern Ireland's coastal communities, which provides jobs, delivers economic growth and is core to the culture of pride and identity of local fishing villages.
And can I just mention a quick point of, if you don't mind, Sir Alec, in relation to oil prices?Uh, they have been a real bugbear for for the sector back home. Low oil prices are now starting to come down. The increase in cost of fuel has had a significant impact on the operating costs of fishing vessels and therefore profitability. Uh, pre the Iranian war, um, fuel would have represented an average between 15% at the top end. And at the top end, 30% of operating costs.
The price increases during the war meant that they, they, they rose to 50% of operating costs. And it's quite unsustainable, unsustainable. Uh, in conclusion, fishing communities in Northern Ireland 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 essentially it. Financial stress as well as mental health issues for them and their families. Food security as well as economic security will depend on being able to maintain a sustainable fishing industry with Northern Ireland.
With the right foresight and committed cross-government policy, I believe this industry, both of us, all of us believe that this uncertainty will be able to sustain itself, remain productive and remain also the cornerstone that has been for centuries within the communities that live long along our coast. By ignoring the concerns of the Northern Ireland fishing communities, our rich heritage could be lost. That would be irreplaceable. I know the minister will never ignore us. We will make sure you don't. Sorry that the Minister won't.
And in relation to that, can I thank my friend and colleague for producing the debate, and I look very much forward to others who will. And indeed, the honourable lady, who has become quite a quite a a regular in Westminster Hall today. Uh, so I want to congratulate her as well. Uh, it's a real pleasure to see, uh, a person who does her maiden speech yesterday and comes to Westminster Hall twice. I better watch out. Thank you.
So I want to thank the minister, who's not here in absence for that. Uh, obviously, I'm going to speak very specifically on the, uh, the Northern Ireland fishing sector in 2024. The Northern Ireland fishing industry generates some £50 million in landing values and employed 445 people full time and supported some 6500 jobs ashore across Northern Ireland's rural and coastal communities. The impact of fishing in Northern Ireland is massive, as it is in the Honourable Gentleman constituency in Scotland and across all of Scotland. Of course, fishing is woven into the very fabric of Northern Ireland's identity culturally rich, diverse, shipped by a maritime heritage that stretches back to the 14th century when Northern Irish Northern Irish fishing 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 understated enough. Fishing is at the heart of the cultural identity of coastal communities, and without fishing, these communities lose their soul, their identity and their pride, and I represent them. The village of Portavogie in Strangford. Uh. I don't represent directly the village of Ardglass and. But the member who does doesn't attend here, so therefore he would be taking part in this on behalf of them through the the, the Anglo North Fish Producers Organisation.
I represent all three ports, the Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish Sea fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas. Proposed bans on bottom towed gear and offshore renewable development, and new restrictions imposed by the Isle of Man authorities. Um, all of these, uh, to the issues, the industry, the, the Northern Ireland industry has lost some 9000km of fishing grounds in the Irish Sea over the past couple of decades through a combination of marine protected areas, active and consented windfarm developments, and other, uh, spatial restrictions.
This is over half of the land area of Northern Ireland, and it's threatening the sustainability of the remaining fishing grounds through displacement of fishing effort into an ever decreasing area. The two greatest current concerns of the industry are the ongoing data consultation on management measures, restricting bottom trawling and marine protected areas in the Northern Ireland offshore region, which threatens a further loss of key fishing grounds for the fleet and secondly, which goes back to the issue that the honourable gentleman referred to in the UK skilled worker visas. Um the Northern Ireland offshore areas are crucial to the fleet.
Uh, and and particularly to those vessels with crew employed via the transit visa mechanism who can only fish outside the 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'm very pleased to see the minister here. Minister always gives us helpful responses and that they will test them again. Uh, but can I just say to gentlemen, gentlemen, please, uh, if he would engage with the immigration minister that we met, because I think there is a the minister came up with some ideas, which I think the industry are sympathetic to.
And as an MP, as you know, Sir Alec and all of us here know as well it's about solutions. And we do believe that there is a solution there. And I know that the honourable member for Aberdeenshire, North and East, and I will be very, very keen to see that particular suggestion that he has made to us as a potential way forward, um, and also I'd urge government to support a balanced planning system which protects fishing and our fishermen as a legitimate food producing and does a vital for the UK's fishing industry, access to the Isle of Man waters for Northern Ireland vessels with any crew or transit or UK skilled worker visas has disadvantaged us greatly, so we are, uh, directly concerned about that.
Um the um Northern Ireland industry of course, wants to work with the Home Office to co-design a visa system that is fit for purpose, uh, meets the needs of, of government and industry and delivers a sustainable seafood supply chain for the future. The honourable gentleman who introduced the debate, he and I and others in this chamber today wish to work with the the Home Office to to do that very thing, to co-design a visa system that is fit for purpose, to do nothing risks an industry at the heart of Northern Ireland's coastal communities, which provides jobs, delivers economic growth and is core to the culture of pride and identity of local fishing villages.
And can I just mention a quick point of, if you don't mind, Sir Alec, in relation to oil prices?Uh, they have been a real bugbear for for the sector back home. Low oil prices are now starting to come down. The increase in cost of fuel has had a significant impact on the operating costs of fishing vessels and therefore profitability. Uh, pre the Iranian war, um, fuel would have represented an average between 15% at the top end. And at the top end, 30% of operating costs.
The price increases during the war meant that they, they, they rose to 50% of operating costs. And it's quite unsustainable, unsustainable. Uh, in conclusion, fishing communities in Northern Ireland 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 essentially it. Financial stress as well as mental health issues for them and their families. Food security as well as economic security will depend on being able to maintain a sustainable fishing industry with Northern Ireland.
With the right foresight and committed cross-government policy, I believe this industry, both of us, all of us believe that this uncertainty will be able to sustain itself, remain productive and remain also the cornerstone that has been for centuries within the communities that live long along our coast. By ignoring the concerns of the Northern Ireland fishing communities, our rich heritage could be lost. That would be irreplaceable. I know the minister will never ignore us. We will make sure you don't. Sorry that the Minister won't.
And in relation to that, can I thank my friend and colleague for producing the debate, and I look very much forward to others who will. And indeed, the honourable lady, who has become quite a quite a a regular in Westminster Hall today. Uh, so I want to congratulate her as well. Uh, it's a real pleasure to see, uh, a person who does her maiden speech yesterday and comes to Westminster Hall twice. I better watch out. Thank you.
17:22
17:22
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Tough, tough act to follow, as always. But thank you, Sir Alec, for chairing this debate. And thank you to my honourable the honourable member for Aberdeenshire North and East for securing this debate. There are many across this House, and I know because I have followed this issue closely before I came into this chamber, who have spoken out in support of the fishing industry and the fishing industry in Scotland. But I must pay tribute to my honourable friend specifically for being such a consistent champion and for continuing to ensure that the difficulties and challenges that fishermen and women face in Scotland, in his constituency and in mine, continue to be raised here in this place.
My coastal constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has a proud fishing history, as many others do in the chamber today, and 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, however, overfishing led to fishing quotas and from the 1970s this led to a steep decline and that has impacted the town of Arbroath, not just through the fishermen and women and their families, but deeper into the economy, the businesses and surrounding industries which rely on the fishermen and women.
And that is something that we're still really feeling today in Arbroath, the last boat to catch haddock or cod in Arbroath, which was once the town's prize catch, stopped sailing in 2013. And because of this, most of the famous Arbroath Smokies are now made with haddock, which has landed 90 miles north in Peterhead. Now 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. Because as well.
As being a core fishing industry in Arbroath, were also a very deeply proud fish and chip community. And the impact of this industry and on the hospitality industry, because of the lack of UK government support for the fishing industry, as I said in my opening remarks, is deeply felt in my constituency, and that's what I want to briefly address in this debate, is that side of the impact on the fishing industry in Scotland, because you cannot separate the experiences, the fishing sector with the experiences of the hospitality sector. In my constituency, they are one and the same.
Now I feel compelled to say in in what is now my second debate today, that, um, I am proud that in Arbroath I believe we have the best fish and chips in Scotland and therefore the world. Um, but the experiences of my constituents who are trying to run viable businesses that rely on fish and the fishing industry is very challenging. And even in the past week of, of being in this place since I was elected, I have had so many emails and letters from people who rely on the fishing industry in my constituency saying that they are absolutely at a loss and they are so concerned for what was once a proud, proud industry in Arbroath and the future that that currently has, not least because of the lack of support they feel is coming from this Labour government.
Yes I will.
My coastal constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has a proud fishing history, as many others do in the chamber today, and 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, however, overfishing led to fishing quotas and from the 1970s this led to a steep decline and that has impacted the town of Arbroath, not just through the fishermen and women and their families, but deeper into the economy, the businesses and surrounding industries which rely on the fishermen and women.
And that is something that we're still really feeling today in Arbroath, the last boat to catch haddock or cod in Arbroath, which was once the town's prize catch, stopped sailing in 2013. And because of this, most of the famous Arbroath Smokies are now made with haddock, which has landed 90 miles north in Peterhead. Now 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. Because as well.
As being a core fishing industry in Arbroath, were also a very deeply proud fish and chip community. And the impact of this industry and on the hospitality industry, because of the lack of UK government support for the fishing industry, as I said in my opening remarks, is deeply felt in my constituency, and that's what I want to briefly address in this debate, is that side of the impact on the fishing industry in Scotland, because you cannot separate the experiences, the fishing sector with the experiences of the hospitality sector. In my constituency, they are one and the same.
Now I feel compelled to say in in what is now my second debate today, that, um, I am proud that in Arbroath I believe we have the best fish and chips in Scotland and therefore the world. Um, but the experiences of my constituents who are trying to run viable businesses that rely on fish and the fishing industry is very challenging. And even in the past week of, of being in this place since I was elected, I have had so many emails and letters from people who rely on the fishing industry in my constituency saying that they are absolutely at a loss and they are so concerned for what was once a proud, proud industry in Arbroath and the future that that currently has, not least because of the lack of support they feel is coming from this Labour government.
Yes I will.
17:25
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
Thank the honourable member for taking the intervention. I asked the member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East whether the SNP policy was still to rejoin the EU and rejoin the hated Common Fisheries policy, and he failed to answer that question. Could the honourable member maybe try and answer that one?
17:25
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
As my honourable friend is undoubtedly aware, as the honourable member for Aberdeenshire North and East is not able to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. Neither am I, but he will be aware that our policy very much is to rejoin the EU that rejoining the EU. There is support that comes from the fishing industry that is currently unavailable because of the conservatives policy of pulling out of that. And one of the things that my constituents have raised to me is that there are challenges that are being faced by them in terms of exports and in terms of support for their industry.
That would not be felt if not for the damaging consequences of Brexit. And I'm sure that comes to no surprise to the honourable member to hear me say that. Now, if I can continue by explaining one of the experiences that one of the businesses in my constituency has felt recently, the Bell Rock is famous not just in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry for its fish, but from across Scotland, and folk come from all over to experience their fish suppers which they provide, and the fish that they use used to be caught just off the coast in Arbroath.
But the owner of the Bell Rock told me recently that the fresh fish that they buy has increased in price by over 30%. This is mainly due to higher fuel costs. Another matter which the current UK Labour government is unwilling and unable to address, which is having detrimental impacts for the fishing industry, but also because there are fewer boats going out and it's no longer commercially viable to do so. That's largely because there are no incentives for and support for these small fishing industries, which used to be so profitable.
Bell Rock are also paying the same price or more for smaller fish than they used to receive. Because of this inconsistent price and size of fish. Many of the fish shops in my constituency are turning to frozen at sea. Fish generally supported, supplied by larger companies and using fish from overseas, which also reduces the reliance on local producers and processors. I will.
That would not be felt if not for the damaging consequences of Brexit. And I'm sure that comes to no surprise to the honourable member to hear me say that. Now, if I can continue by explaining one of the experiences that one of the businesses in my constituency has felt recently, the Bell Rock is famous not just in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry for its fish, but from across Scotland, and folk come from all over to experience their fish suppers which they provide, and the fish that they use used to be caught just off the coast in Arbroath.
But the owner of the Bell Rock told me recently that the fresh fish that they buy has increased in price by over 30%. This is mainly due to higher fuel costs. Another matter which the current UK Labour government is unwilling and unable to address, which is having detrimental impacts for the fishing industry, but also because there are fewer boats going out and it's no longer commercially viable to do so. That's largely because there are no incentives for and support for these small fishing industries, which used to be so profitable.
Bell Rock are also paying the same price or more for smaller fish than they used to receive. Because of this inconsistent price and size of fish. Many of the fish shops in my constituency are turning to frozen at sea. Fish generally supported, supplied by larger companies and using fish from overseas, which also reduces the reliance on local producers and processors. I will.
17:27
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Can I commend the honourable for that?But matter to my mind and probably with it as well this week I think there's been a record price for the Cod Supper. Uh. 1151 I think was the price in the paper this week. Uh, that would be an indicator. I remember I can go back further than most. Of course, I can remember when. 1150 would have bought you maybe a fish supper for four people, maybe even more.
But for one, it really does put pressure on the hospitality sector.
But for one, it really does put pressure on the hospitality sector.
17:28
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank the honourable member for that, and it highlights, as I pointed out in the beginning, how deeply this is being felt across many different industries, not just those who are going out and catching the fish themselves. As my honourable friend mentioned in his opening remarks, the pitiful and arguably insulting allocation of funds from the UK government to support the fishermen and women in Scotland not only fails to reflect their contribution to the fishing sector, but it fails to hold up other businesses and industries which rely on that. This is just.
An example of other destructive labour policies, such as the tax on jobs, which means that businesses in my constituency are really struggling and it cannot be the case that a historic and integral fishing industry on an island nation can be allowed to struggle and decline, whilst the UK government sits back and does nothing. From my experience speaking to my constituents, it's not a lack of willing nor a lack of demand for the fish in Scotland. But the situation that we are in. As my honourable friend outlined, purely relies on the lack of engagement from the UK government to experience what is happening to the fishing industry in Scotland and to provide adequate um, policies in place to support them.
Thank you Laura.
An example of other destructive labour policies, such as the tax on jobs, which means that businesses in my constituency are really struggling and it cannot be the case that a historic and integral fishing industry on an island nation can be allowed to struggle and decline, whilst the UK government sits back and does nothing. From my experience speaking to my constituents, it's not a lack of willing nor a lack of demand for the fish in Scotland. But the situation that we are in. As my honourable friend outlined, purely relies on the lack of engagement from the UK government to experience what is happening to the fishing industry in Scotland and to provide adequate um, policies in place to support them.
Thank you Laura.
17:29
17:29
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Thank you, sir Alex. It's, uh it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And also I must congratulate the honourable member for Aberdeen North and Murray East on on securing this debate and making a very strong case on behalf of his region in, in Scotland. Um he particularly focused on the, on the, on the fishing and, and Coastal Growth Fund, which of course is he understands is 360,000,000/12 years. Therefore, it is spread over a very long time. And when one looks at it across the whole of the UK, it's quite um significantly thinly spread on, on an annual basis.
And certainly as far as the, the way in which um, especially coastal communities have been left following following Brexit, which, which he, he mentioned, uh, certainly we found, for example, in, in Cornwall where we were entitled to objective one aid, uh, following. We were promised at that stage that we would have equivalent funds from the, from, from, from the Treasury to make up for the, for the loss of, of EU aid, which was equivalent to £100 million a year coming into, into Cornwall was the one of. The most deprived regions in Europe, not just not just the the the UK that.
And we've got to this year and there are no funds at all. The. So, um, over the, over the years that that replacement is simply not, not happened. And certainly the paltry amount which is available through the Fisheries and Coastal Growth Fund when it's spread around the country, is, as he rightly says, is a is a relatively small fund. I mean, it's welcome. Nevertheless, we're we one one shouldn't one shouldn't decry the government for not for not making the offer there.
And one entirely understands, of course, in addition to that, that the purpose of the of the fund is to, is to provide, uh, support. For for, for, um, well, the aims to, to, to modernise the fishing industry, the seafood sector, building resilience and supporting coastal communities. And I would hope that the minister would ensure that, that the funds go to those areas which need it most, rather than simply allocating it, uh, if you like, on a flat line basis across the country, simply on the, on, on, on the existing size of the fishing, the fishing industry, because not all, not all communities.
Um, are doing, are doing as well as one another. Um, nevertheless, I also congratulate the honourable member for Strangford for, for, um, for, again contributing to his, I don't know how many he must be chalking up a world record of um debates within, within, within Westminster Hall and certainly emphasising the social and cultural consequences as well as the economic consequences of, of, of the fishing industry to the, to the Strangford um to, to his, his part of Northern Ireland and, and again, to congratulate the honourable member for the new honourable member for, for Arbroath and uh, Broughty Ferry, um who is already proving herself to be hyperactive, her second, uh, her second debate within, within this chamber today, uh, and, and a very telling contribution and, and certainly illustrating brilliantly, I thought the, the, the, the impact of changes in recent years and indeed the demise, one has to acknowledge of the, of the haddock fishery and its consequences on the on the community there.
So, so so so my, my congratulations to her on, on, on that as well. Um, I was going to say that in certainly as far as going forward with, with the, with the future of the fishing industry, one has to recognise. And acknowledge that the best type of fishing policy is one where, where politicians don't need to get involved. And indeed, scientists and, and, and fishermen and, and marine conservationists work together within a framework where, where, where, um, politicians kind of create an environment in which they can come to agreement with regard to the future management of, of stocks.
And certainly I remember in my early days as a member of the what was then the Agriculture Select Committee, where we visited a number of, of countries, including Spain and Iceland and others, where it was quite evident in those countries. The relationship between the scientists and the fishermen was much better established than it was in this country, where in fact, scientists were seen in at that stage, at least within the industry, as some kind of enemy to the industry, that that the presumption was that they were working to shut the commercial fishery, I mean, wrong, wrong, wrong presumption that they were working to, to shut the the, the commercial fishery down.
Now, those relationships have significantly improved, I have to say, and indeed in Cornwall, um, have recently, uh, this this year in April this year established the Cornwall Fisheries Science Board, which is indeed an initiative of the fishing industry itself. What we need to see is a great deal more of those kind of positive initiatives. The fact that we're now looking at the 10th year anniversary of the after the Brexit referendum, it is appropriate that we we we reflect on that. And if I have a moment of Sir Alec to, to, to simply cover um that, that, that that issue as it has been referred to on a number of occasions.
So certainly as someone who campaigned for remain, I had to acknowledge during the debates, which we had at the time, that there was one sector where one could easily identify that there is a potential for that sector to thrive and improve under Brexit circumstances, and that would be the fishing industry. If there was an opportunity to regain control of the certainly out to the to the 12 mile limit. But indeed that is not. Well, very briefly, I don't want to test the patience of Sir Alex.
And certainly as far as the, the way in which um, especially coastal communities have been left following following Brexit, which, which he, he mentioned, uh, certainly we found, for example, in, in Cornwall where we were entitled to objective one aid, uh, following. We were promised at that stage that we would have equivalent funds from the, from, from, from the Treasury to make up for the, for the loss of, of EU aid, which was equivalent to £100 million a year coming into, into Cornwall was the one of. The most deprived regions in Europe, not just not just the the the UK that.
And we've got to this year and there are no funds at all. The. So, um, over the, over the years that that replacement is simply not, not happened. And certainly the paltry amount which is available through the Fisheries and Coastal Growth Fund when it's spread around the country, is, as he rightly says, is a is a relatively small fund. I mean, it's welcome. Nevertheless, we're we one one shouldn't one shouldn't decry the government for not for not making the offer there.
And one entirely understands, of course, in addition to that, that the purpose of the of the fund is to, is to provide, uh, support. For for, for, um, well, the aims to, to, to modernise the fishing industry, the seafood sector, building resilience and supporting coastal communities. And I would hope that the minister would ensure that, that the funds go to those areas which need it most, rather than simply allocating it, uh, if you like, on a flat line basis across the country, simply on the, on, on, on the existing size of the fishing, the fishing industry, because not all, not all communities.
Um, are doing, are doing as well as one another. Um, nevertheless, I also congratulate the honourable member for Strangford for, for, um, for, again contributing to his, I don't know how many he must be chalking up a world record of um debates within, within, within Westminster Hall and certainly emphasising the social and cultural consequences as well as the economic consequences of, of, of the fishing industry to the, to the Strangford um to, to his, his part of Northern Ireland and, and again, to congratulate the honourable member for the new honourable member for, for Arbroath and uh, Broughty Ferry, um who is already proving herself to be hyperactive, her second, uh, her second debate within, within this chamber today, uh, and, and a very telling contribution and, and certainly illustrating brilliantly, I thought the, the, the, the impact of changes in recent years and indeed the demise, one has to acknowledge of the, of the haddock fishery and its consequences on the on the community there.
So, so so so my, my congratulations to her on, on, on that as well. Um, I was going to say that in certainly as far as going forward with, with the, with the future of the fishing industry, one has to recognise. And acknowledge that the best type of fishing policy is one where, where politicians don't need to get involved. And indeed, scientists and, and, and fishermen and, and marine conservationists work together within a framework where, where, where, um, politicians kind of create an environment in which they can come to agreement with regard to the future management of, of stocks.
And certainly I remember in my early days as a member of the what was then the Agriculture Select Committee, where we visited a number of, of countries, including Spain and Iceland and others, where it was quite evident in those countries. The relationship between the scientists and the fishermen was much better established than it was in this country, where in fact, scientists were seen in at that stage, at least within the industry, as some kind of enemy to the industry, that that the presumption was that they were working to shut the commercial fishery, I mean, wrong, wrong, wrong presumption that they were working to, to shut the the, the commercial fishery down.
Now, those relationships have significantly improved, I have to say, and indeed in Cornwall, um, have recently, uh, this this year in April this year established the Cornwall Fisheries Science Board, which is indeed an initiative of the fishing industry itself. What we need to see is a great deal more of those kind of positive initiatives. The fact that we're now looking at the 10th year anniversary of the after the Brexit referendum, it is appropriate that we we we reflect on that. And if I have a moment of Sir Alec to, to, to simply cover um that, that, that that issue as it has been referred to on a number of occasions.
So certainly as someone who campaigned for remain, I had to acknowledge during the debates, which we had at the time, that there was one sector where one could easily identify that there is a potential for that sector to thrive and improve under Brexit circumstances, and that would be the fishing industry. If there was an opportunity to regain control of the certainly out to the to the 12 mile limit. But indeed that is not. Well, very briefly, I don't want to test the patience of Sir Alex.
17:35
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Friend for giving way, and I'll just make a brief intervention because my local fishermen in North Cornwall have been waiting for three years now for Ifca and Defra to implement a by law to restrict vessels above 12m inshore Cornish waters of six nautical miles. So does my hon. Friend agree that this is urgently needed and it would actually do exactly what he's been calling for to restrict those larger vessels, um, and help to manage the stocks that he's talking about.
17:36
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Making that point. And indeed, I mean, had we secured control between the six and 12 mile limit as a, which is what was promised at the time, but has not been had not been delivered then then then one one could see circumstances in which which local ifcas and local management. And indeed the government would agree that within the six six mile limit that we. There would be an opportunity to actually achieve this. In winding up Sir Alex, I would simply say that it's always very telling, isn't it, that that after flotilla's up the Thames and people and certain campaigners using the fishing industry as the poster boy of the Brexit campaign, that on occasions like this, when they should be coming along to explain what happened as a result of the promises that they made, they are, they're they're they're conspicuous by their absence.
They're not here to answer for themselves, for the claims that they, they made at the time. Where are they?They should be here to explain why it is that the industry is still indeed struggling post post-Brexit. So I think on those in those circumstances, I will leave my remarks there, sir. Alex, thank you very much.
They're not here to answer for themselves, for the claims that they, they made at the time. Where are they?They should be here to explain why it is that the industry is still indeed struggling post post-Brexit. So I think on those in those circumstances, I will leave my remarks there, sir. Alex, thank you very much.
17:37
17:37
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Thank you, Sir Alec. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank the member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for bringing forward today this important debate. Fishing isn't just an industry to many, it is a way of life passed from one generation to the next. It's why so many people in our fishing communities look 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.
That was a 12 year extension of the existing arrangements. Now, the government said that this would be in return for British participation in the Security Action for Europe Defence Fund. But despite repeated questions, 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, and you might think, Sir Alec, that the government would have thought about that possibility before signing away those important fishing rights.
It would seem they've got nothing in return. Minister therefore, confirm whether the government will renegotiate with the EU and return those 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 upon those decisions. Sir Alec, I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund and claim it demonstrates the government's commitment to the sector.
But fishermen across the country feel very differently. The environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have raised serious concerns about the government's approach in relation to this fund. It found that ministers have not clearly explained why £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 so.
I ask the minister directly what are the objectives of this fund?How will we measure success?What outcomes will demonstrate to fishing communities that this money has delivered meaningful change?And what happens if those objectives are not met?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.
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, 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 little more than a sticking plaster. Additionally, the economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities, published earlier this year shows there has been a 135,000 decrease in tonnage for this year's quota compared to last year.
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 Iraq-iran war pushed up fuel prices and the Chancellor's May statement on the Iran war support did not help fishers at all. Fishing industry is vital for our food security and deserves proper support from the government to address the financial pressures and uncertainty. Certainty. Many fishing communities now face the.
Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of access to our own water and Britain's rights as an independent, sovereign coastal state. I would urge the government to do the same. Thank you.
That was a 12 year extension of the existing arrangements. Now, the government said that this would be in return for British participation in the Security Action for Europe Defence Fund. But despite repeated questions, 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, and you might think, Sir Alec, that the government would have thought about that possibility before signing away those important fishing rights.
It would seem they've got nothing in return. Minister therefore, confirm whether the government will renegotiate with the EU and return those 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 upon those decisions. Sir Alec, I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund and claim it demonstrates the government's commitment to the sector.
But fishermen across the country feel very differently. The environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have raised serious concerns about the government's approach in relation to this fund. It found that ministers have not clearly explained why £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 so.
I ask the minister directly what are the objectives of this fund?How will we measure success?What outcomes will demonstrate to fishing communities that this money has delivered meaningful change?And what happens if those objectives are not met?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.
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, 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 little more than a sticking plaster. Additionally, the economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities, published earlier this year shows there has been a 135,000 decrease in tonnage for this year's quota compared to last year.
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 Iraq-iran war pushed up fuel prices and the Chancellor's May statement on the Iran war support did not help fishers at all. Fishing industry is vital for our food security and deserves proper support from the government to address the financial pressures and uncertainty. Certainty. Many fishing communities now face the.
Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of access to our own water and Britain's rights as an independent, sovereign coastal state. I would urge the government to do the same. Thank you.
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:43
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Very grateful to the member for Aberdeenshire North and Murray East for the opportunity to take my first fisheries debate, being able to set out the priority that I place on this industry is timely. I also congratulate the member for the timings of today's debate. I would assume he is not an English football fan. Uh, may I also welcome the two new members to their place in for contributing so successfully this afternoon, having proudly grown up in a coastal community now representing one with a small fishing port in my constituency, and a father who regularly would take me out sea fishing, I'm delighted to have been appointed as the new Fisheries Minister, and I'm excited to have the chance to support the fishing industry to help it adapt to the opportunities and challenges ahead.
The honourable member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East makes a number of very specific points and I wanted to assure him early on into my closing speech that I'm very happy to write to him on the specifics of the points that he has made this afternoon. As ever, the member for Strangford raises some helpful points on immigration policy and visas, and he will recognise that such matters are matters for the Home Office to comment on. But I can assure him this afternoon that the Department is in regular conversation with counterparts in the Home Office about the concerns industry and members have raised today, and I have already met with my equivalent minister in Northern Ireland.
He will know the seriousness. I placed that relationship with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I can assure him I will do the same in this new ministerial role. For me, chair, fishing is not just an industry and fishermen are not just businessmen. They and their industry are important to the vitality economically, socially and also culturally to many coastal communities across the United Kingdom. And before I go further, it's customary to pay tribute to those in the fishing community who have been injured or tragically lost their lives at sea in what can be a very dangerous industry.
On Sunday, I attended a memorial for seafarers and my thoughts are with all those that 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 industry remains essential, and I welcome the efforts from industry and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to drive progress in this important area. Chair of fishing fleets across the UK are incredibly diverse, as we've heard this afternoon, from small day boats like those in my constituency of Portsmouth South to large trawlers like those in the constituency of the honourable member for Aberdeenshire North and Murray East and across our nation, each and every one of these vessels, their crew and those on shore supporting them, 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, and I'm deeply proud to be able 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. Having met with the SF only this week and they have given me valuable insights into the opportunities that are presented to the fishing industry and the solutions to some of the challenges. I'm just going to make some progress.
I strongly believe that working with those who are in industry know best the solutions and how to deliver lasting change. Should I be listening to and working with industry itself?And I'm looking forward to getting out on the quay side, accepting the honourable member's invitation to visit his constituency, engaging with fish markets and processing facilities to see first hand what fishermen and those working across the supply chain have to say about our world class fish and seafood. I will give way.
The honourable member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East makes a number of very specific points and I wanted to assure him early on into my closing speech that I'm very happy to write to him on the specifics of the points that he has made this afternoon. As ever, the member for Strangford raises some helpful points on immigration policy and visas, and he will recognise that such matters are matters for the Home Office to comment on. But I can assure him this afternoon that the Department is in regular conversation with counterparts in the Home Office about the concerns industry and members have raised today, and I have already met with my equivalent minister in Northern Ireland.
He will know the seriousness. I placed that relationship with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I can assure him I will do the same in this new ministerial role. For me, chair, fishing is not just an industry and fishermen are not just businessmen. They and their industry are important to the vitality economically, socially and also culturally to many coastal communities across the United Kingdom. And before I go further, it's customary to pay tribute to those in the fishing community who have been injured or tragically lost their lives at sea in what can be a very dangerous industry.
On Sunday, I attended a memorial for seafarers and my thoughts are with all those that 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 industry remains essential, and I welcome the efforts from industry and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to drive progress in this important area. Chair of fishing fleets across the UK are incredibly diverse, as we've heard this afternoon, from small day boats like those in my constituency of Portsmouth South to large trawlers like those in the constituency of the honourable member for Aberdeenshire North and Murray East and across our nation, each and every one of these vessels, their crew and those on shore supporting them, 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, and I'm deeply proud to be able 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. Having met with the SF only this week and they have given me valuable insights into the opportunities that are presented to the fishing industry and the solutions to some of the challenges. I'm just going to make some progress.
I strongly believe that working with those who are in industry know best the solutions and how to deliver lasting change. Should I be listening to and working with industry itself?And I'm looking forward to getting out on the quay side, accepting the honourable member's invitation to visit his constituency, engaging with fish markets and processing facilities to see first hand what fishermen and those working across the supply chain have to say about our world class fish and seafood. I will give way.
17:47
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Comes the invitations. Obviously your previous ministers all made a journey to Portavogie. And can I extend the same invitation?If the minister is not going anywhere in holidays during the summer, please come to Portavogie. Very, very welcome. You'll get all the best scampi in the world whenever we're there. On that. But that's by the way. So if you have a spare time, a spare day, please come to Portavogie. You'll be very welcome.
17:48
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
My hon. Friend is a teased me to visit Northern Ireland, knowing that scampi is my favourite dish of choice on a Friday. So perhaps that will be a visit that we can get into to my diary sooner rather than later. Chair, I'm very much aware that the fishing industry faces a multitude of opportunities and challenges, and as we've 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 sustainable environmentally, economically and socially, and I will be considering how to address pressure on fish stocks carefully as we enter the autumn peak of negotiations with other coastal states for fishing opportunities, I will give way.
At the heart of this is a recognition that for the fishing industry to thrive, it has to be sustainable environmentally, economically and socially, and I will be considering how to address pressure on fish stocks carefully as we enter the autumn peak of negotiations with other coastal states for fishing opportunities, I will give way.
17:48
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
I thank the Minister for an intervention. One of the challenges our fishermen face is now is the high cost of fuel in Ireland. The government has announced a €15 million package fuel aid package for fishermen in France. A similar scheme has been announced. So can I ask the Minister if the UK government will consider a similar scheme to help our fishermen with the high cost of fuel?
17:49
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank the new member for his intervention. I was waiting for an invitation to visit him in Scotland, but perhaps that will come later on. But I'm very alive to the issues around costs, and he will know the interventions that the Treasury have made already on on red diesel, which will benefit the fishing community. And I continue to monitor the situation closely, working with industry on on potential solutions. Chair, the extreme temperatures that we've seen this summer have focused attention, rightly on climate change, and we must take this more seriously.
The fishing industry is going to need to adapt to the impacts of stocks, where we see new species flourish in our waters, and stocks which have traditionally fished move away. Also on my mind, as covered in the debate today, 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 this government has introduced to support the sector right across the United Kingdom, shaping how that fund is used in future years is a priority, and having met with my ministerial colleagues in the devolved governments already, I know that they will be thinking about this to.
The context on these issues is important. The fund is. In addition to the largest real term spending review settlement for the devolved governments of any settlement since devolution. And importantly, devolution means all governments have the autonomy to shape their funds in a way that works best for their nation. And I am confident that by working together, we can ensure the UK seafood industry has a bright future for generations to come. I will give way.
The fishing industry is going to need to adapt to the impacts of stocks, where we see new species flourish in our waters, and stocks which have traditionally fished move away. Also on my mind, as covered in the debate today, 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 this government has introduced to support the sector right across the United Kingdom, shaping how that fund is used in future years is a priority, and having met with my ministerial colleagues in the devolved governments already, I know that they will be thinking about this to.
The context on these issues is important. The fund is. In addition to the largest real term spending review settlement for the devolved governments of any settlement since devolution. And importantly, devolution means all governments have the autonomy to shape their funds in a way that works best for their nation. And I am confident that by working together, we can ensure the UK seafood industry has a bright future for generations to come. I will give way.
17:50
17:50
17:51
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I'd politely say to the Shadow Minister, I take no lectures from the party opposite that saw the fishing community decimated with broken promises, fishing numbers down, economic damage done and a dramatic decline in exports. I certainly take no lectures from him in terms of his party's record on these issues. I want to briefly touch on some of the government's achievements since 2024. First off, reminder that despite a difficult scientific backdrop, the UK has secured access to 640 000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for the 2026 fishing year, worth just over an estimated £1 billion based on historic landing prices, and our Fisheries Management plan set out how to maintain or restore fish stocks to sustainable levels.
The UK programme is well underway and being delivered in close collaboration with fishing industry and other stakeholders. We've been working with industry in England to understand its priorities and those of coastal communities, and this is helping to shape the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. It is already driving growth for the future and 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 around £15 million in grants.
These 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, and over the summer, we will be working closely with the sector to consider the scientific advice and to understand their perspectives and requirements for the next year. Our export markets are vital, with 2020 for seafood exports worth £2.1 billion supporting jobs not just at sea but across the supply chain, and we are working at pace towards a new SPS agreement with the EU, aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027.
This will make it easier to sell British fish to a largest trading partner and strengthen the economies of our coastal communities. We will continue to set out our own rules outside of 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, helping fisheries get their products on the shelves quicker and more cheaply. We're looking to allow UK shellfish exports currently banned, and that's a big win for producers.
We also export beyond the EU and backing export success through a 1.5 billion per year seafood export package funded from the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. It will make UK businesses the best placed to take advantage of trading relationships, opening new opportunities for growth and trade. Now, turning to issues raised on managing the marine space. Last year gave a steer to Defra, gave a steer to the Crown Estate on the key risks and issues associated with future offshore wind development in the English Sea.
This was informed by the Marine Partial privatisation programme and has helped the Crown Estate to unlock offshore wind in a way that considers all marine sectors fisheries and protects the marine environment. So in conclusion, chair, I'm proud to represent a coastal community and have this opportunity to help shape fishing's contribution to coastal communities, food security and the wider economy. And I look forward to working with the honourable member and all colleagues in the long term to ensure that we have a sustainable future for fishing across the whole of the United Kingdom.
The UK programme is well underway and being delivered in close collaboration with fishing industry and other stakeholders. We've been working with industry in England to understand its priorities and those of coastal communities, and this is helping to shape the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. It is already driving growth for the future and 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 around £15 million in grants.
These 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, and over the summer, we will be working closely with the sector to consider the scientific advice and to understand their perspectives and requirements for the next year. Our export markets are vital, with 2020 for seafood exports worth £2.1 billion supporting jobs not just at sea but across the supply chain, and we are working at pace towards a new SPS agreement with the EU, aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027.
This will make it easier to sell British fish to a largest trading partner and strengthen the economies of our coastal communities. We will continue to set out our own rules outside of 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, helping fisheries get their products on the shelves quicker and more cheaply. We're looking to allow UK shellfish exports currently banned, and that's a big win for producers.
We also export beyond the EU and backing export success through a 1.5 billion per year seafood export package funded from the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. It will make UK businesses the best placed to take advantage of trading relationships, opening new opportunities for growth and trade. Now, turning to issues raised on managing the marine space. Last year gave a steer to Defra, gave a steer to the Crown Estate on the key risks and issues associated with future offshore wind development in the English Sea.
This was informed by the Marine Partial privatisation programme and has helped the Crown Estate to unlock offshore wind in a way that considers all marine sectors fisheries and protects the marine environment. So in conclusion, chair, I'm proud to represent a coastal community and have this opportunity to help shape fishing's contribution to coastal communities, food security and the wider economy. And I look forward to working with the honourable member and all colleagues in the long term to ensure that we have a sustainable future for fishing across the whole of the United Kingdom.
17:54
17:54
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you, Sir Alec. Very remiss of me not to welcome the minister to his place earlier, and I formally do so now. Um, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the debate today. Um, a small number of speakers, but, uh, it's not about volume. It's about quality. Lots of reference in the debate to broken promises, too many broken promises, I'm afraid. And let's hope that the future, uh, will will result in promises kept.
And I wish the minister well in his endeavours in that regard, the shadow minister made some very, uh, searching questions during his speech, and I fully agree with them in terms of some some outcomes that will, uh. Flow from, from the questions that were, that were asked, particularly in relation to the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. I was particularly interested in the minister's reply to the member for Strangford in relation to immigration, and it sounds very much as if there might be some dialogue, productive dialogue in the future.
Let's hope so. Um, and I was also very heartened to hear that, that he takes great pride in this industry and that he has a family heritage there to, to draw on. That's wonderful. Um, and I do, um, I do endorse the remarks that were made, um, about fuel, the fuel cost to the industry, but also the dangers that our fishermen and women face when they go to sea. It is a very dangerous occupation. Finally, Sir Alec, I do want to take issue with the one part of the excellent contribution from the member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, when she claimed to have the best fish and chip shop in the world.
Many people in this place, and indeed in the in the main chamber will have laid claim to that title, but I can assure her there are many fish and chip shops in my constituency that believe they. They have that title, not least Findlay's in Fraserburgh. So with that, I will, uh. Rest there, Sir Alex. Thank you.
And I wish the minister well in his endeavours in that regard, the shadow minister made some very, uh, searching questions during his speech, and I fully agree with them in terms of some some outcomes that will, uh. Flow from, from the questions that were, that were asked, particularly in relation to the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. I was particularly interested in the minister's reply to the member for Strangford in relation to immigration, and it sounds very much as if there might be some dialogue, productive dialogue in the future.
Let's hope so. Um, and I was also very heartened to hear that, that he takes great pride in this industry and that he has a family heritage there to, to draw on. That's wonderful. Um, and I do, um, I do endorse the remarks that were made, um, about fuel, the fuel cost to the industry, but also the dangers that our fishermen and women face when they go to sea. It is a very dangerous occupation. Finally, Sir Alec, I do want to take issue with the one part of the excellent contribution from the member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, when she claimed to have the best fish and chip shop in the world.
Many people in this place, and indeed in the in the main chamber will have laid claim to that title, but I can assure her there are many fish and chip shops in my constituency that believe they. They have that title, not least Findlay's in Fraserburgh. So with that, I will, uh. Rest there, Sir Alex. Thank you.