Lilian Greenwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I can tell the hon. Member that FRAs have been piloted to ensure that they are genuinely frictionless before implementation and that they are targeted at those showing signs of harm, rather than simply those spending high amounts safely. The FRA pilot found that only 3% of all gambling accounts would be subject to an FRA where their losses were significant enough to warrant it, and 97% of checks would be frictionless without any change to customer experience. Nevertheless, if there is further information that the hon. Member requires, I am sure he will follow that up. I conclude by reiterating our commitment to working with a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, on this issue. We will continue to do what we can to ensure that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible and does not exacerbate the risks of gambling-related harm. I am grateful for the contributions from all hon. Members today; it has been a genuinely interesting and constructive discussion. The Government look forward to continuing this work in the months ahead.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member will know, we are currently consulting on measures to protect young people from online harms. He is aware of that work, which is continuing. Of course we want to protect children and young people, but we need to make sure that any measures we bring in will be effective. We recognise that the regulatory framework must keep pace with technological change. That is why we are working with the Gambling Commission and the ASA to ensure that existing rules are applied to new and emerging channels. We are also clear that all policy and regulatory decisions must be made after considering a wide range of impartial, accurate and up-to-date research about the scale and impact of gambling advertising. We must ensure that our interventions are as impactful as possible. As Members may be aware, last year we introduced the landmark statutory gambling levy, which has raised just under £120 million in its first year. This funding will be ringfenced solely for independent research into and prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms; 20% of the funding collected will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, which includes research on the impacts of gambling advertising. We will therefore consider next steps in the context of this strengthening evidence base. Where appropriate, our approach will also include comparison with regulation in other jurisdictions. A number of suggestions were made, and examples have been given of the way in which other countries are doing this. However, just because a particular country has moved further than us on advertising restrictions, that does not mean that we should automatically attempt to match it. We should instead be guided by the lessons that such jurisdictions offer, and we should consider what has and has not worked. An important point that I want to stress is that if we decide to encourage or take further action on advertising, we want to do so in a way that is supported by the evidence available. We should avoid putting in place too many restrictions that could have unintended consequences. Where standards can be raised in a careful way, we should look to do that. The Government remain open-minded about how that can be done, and we will reflect on the points that have been raised today, including in the important contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I want to address a couple of questions that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised concerns about the introduction of financial risk assessments. FRAs of online gambling customers are a widely supported principle and a key consumer protection measure from the White Paper. We are aware of concerns about so-called operator affordability checks; new financial risk checks would replace those and are better for customers and for racing. The Department has worked closely with the Gambling Commission throughout, to ensure that FRAs remain in line with the clear principles in the White Paper. If the Gambling Commission decides to introduce FRAs, it will work with operators on guidance. That guidance will ensure a proportionate approach when deciding how to manage consumers where financial risk is present and the customer continues to spend at a high level. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also asked a number of specific questions. I will ensure that, where I have not already dealt with them in my speech, he receives a response in writing.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for her question, and I will ensure that she receives a written response. By bringing together industry, platforms, regulators and Government, we will identify ways to clamp down on illegal advertising. We hope to ensure that exposure to illegal gambling advertising is reduced, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Gambling Commission also continues to engage with online platforms to support the removal of illegal gambling content, which remains an ongoing priority. An additional £26 million has also been allocated to the Gambling Commission across the next three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. More recently, we announced our intention to consult on banning sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. By reducing awareness of and exposure to unlicensed operators, such a ban would further protect vulnerable consumers from the unregulated illegal market. It is important that we do what we can to ensure that all advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. Where there is evidence to support it, the Government would like to see more action being taken to ensure that advertising does not adversely affect the young and vulnerable. In the coming months, we will continue to explore this alongside our wider work on reducing gambling-related harms.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate, standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this debate and setting out their concerns so clearly and thoughtfully. We have had a genuine debate, with an exchange of different viewpoints on this important issue. I recognise that gambling advertising is a key area of focus for the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many other Members of this House, who have met the Gambling Minister to discuss the issue. The Government thank all Members for their ongoing work in this area, as their contributions are vital for informing the development of Government policy. I note that the APPG this week published a report setting out its case for change, and I know that the Gambling Minister will want to consider that work carefully. I also note the passionate call from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for gambling to be considered from a public health perspective. This Government are committed to supporting a gambling industry that is modern, responsible and sustainable. However, the industry must also demonstrate that it can operate without exacerbating harm among the most vulnerable. Getting that balance right is crucial. We are focused on further enhancing protections for those at risk of harm, but we also want to enable the sector to bring value through providing jobs, boosting the economy and providing a leisure activity for adults to enjoy. That is why, since the election, we have been focused on supporting the licensed sector to further enhance protections for the young and vulnerable. This has included raising standards in a number of areas to ensure that gambling advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. However, we also recognise that, as a legitimate industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, the gambling industry should also be able to advertise the services that it offers. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) set out that case in his contribution. Let me start by explaining the robust rules in place to regulate gambling advertising. All gambling operators in the UK must comply with advertising codes, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, independently of Government. These advertising codes apply across all platforms, including broadcast, online and social media. When the ASA deems that the codes have been breached, the Gambling Commission has the power to take enforcement action. These mandatory advertising codes are further supplemented by the voluntary industry code for socially responsible advertising, which has been strengthened in recent years. This code includes a number of measures such as the whistle-to-whistle ban, which prohibits gambling advertising during the pre-watershed televised broadcast of live sports events. I note the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen has raised about its effectiveness, and I also note the statistics shared by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). In the past two years, the Gambling Commission has introduced a range of new controls to regulate gambling advertising. These new measures further raise standards to better protect vulnerable people from harmful gambling practices. From 1 May 2025, operators have been required to provide customers with options to opt-in to the specific types of marketing they wish to receive. This choice gives customers greater control in order to lessen the risk of harm. From January this year, the Gambling Commission has also banned operators from bundling different gambling products—such as betting and slots—into single incentives. This is because mixed promotional offers were often confusing and led customers to engage in higher-risk gambling behaviours. This measure boosts fairness and openness to ensure advertising does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling. I am aware that a number of Members have focused specifically on advertising standards within sports, and we know how important that issue is. Since the election, we have seen a number of developments in the regulation of gambling marketing and advertising within sports. These include gambling sponsorship codes of conduct within all major sports, and the landmark introduction of the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. These changes reduce the prominence of gambling advertising within mainstream football matches, acknowledging that the connection between sport and gambling must be managed with care. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over time. The Government are also conscious of the need to be vigilant and responsive to the fast-evolving digital landscape. I want to address directly the concerns raised about social media, which are likely front of mind for many Members, particularly given its potential impact on children and young people. I want to be clear that gambling advertising on social media must adhere to the same standards set for other mediums. This means that advertising rules apply in full to paid social media adverts, to operators’ own social media content, to content marketing and to affiliate marketing carried out on their behalf. However, they do not apply to editorial content, which is not deemed to be selling a product or service. Advertising codes also require operators to ensure that targeting is used responsibly, using tools available on platforms to exclude under-18s and other vulnerable groups from exposure wherever possible. Where operators fall short of these standards, the ASA can take action or refer to the Gambling Commission for possible enforcement action. We continue to work across Government, with platforms and with industry to measure the effectiveness of these rules. Last year, the ASA significantly strengthened its rules specifically to address the rise of influencer marketing. That includes a change to prohibit any influencers or personalities with social media followings totalling more than 100,000 under-18s across different platforms from advertising gambling. The further strengthening of these rules ensures that children’s exposure to gambling is limited, and that gambling is not marketed to them by aspirational figures as a risk-free pastime or lifestyle choice. This sets higher standards to prevent gambling-related harm. Nevertheless, I recognise that many Members would like the ASA to go further in its regulation of the sector. I know that the Gambling Minister is meeting the ASA shortly, and I am sure she will raise some of the issues we have discussed today. I am also sure that she will be paying attention to this debate. We are also very conscious of the need to address the illegal market, and specifically the advertising of illegal gambling in an ever-changing digital landscape, which a number of Members have mentioned. Advertising is one of the primary advantages that licensed operators have to distinguish themselves from operators in the unlicensed sector, particularly when the risks associated with the illegal market are growing. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), made that argument this afternoon. Although estimates suggest that, historically, the illegal market in the UK has been relatively small, the issue of illegal gambling is of course a concern for this Government. That is why, since the Budget, we have increased efforts to tackle the illegal market. As the websites and advertisements of unlicensed operators can fall outside the scope of the robust rules that we have in place for licensed operators, we are paying particular attention to the issue of illegal gambling advertising through the work of our illegal gambling taskforce.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to mountain rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. [ Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 4WC.] As a number of hon. Members have rightly said, it is important to recognise that resilience is not only about equipment or interoperability; it is about people. Search and rescue can be physically demanding, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned a search and rescue volunteer who sadly lost his life. I certainly offer my condolences to him and his community, who will have been affected by that terrible incident. We know that it can be incredibly physically demanding work, but it can also be emotionally challenging, particularly for volunteers who balance the responsibility alongside family life and employment. That is why mental health and wellbeing principles for SAR volunteers have now been published on gov.uk, setting out expectations and guidance to support those who so often run towards risk on behalf of others. All that sits alongside the central truth that has been reflected throughout the debate: volunteers lie at the very heart of search and rescue in the UK, and nowhere is that more evident than in mountain rescue. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in some of the most challenging conditions that our country offers: remote terrain, hostile weather, long and often complex incidents, frequently far from the spotlight and always without expectation of reward. They respond at night, in severe weather and in circumstances that demand both technical excellence and personal resilience, and many do so at considerable personal cost, stepping away from families and working lives at a moment’s notice, carrying responsibilities that most of us thankfully never have to shoulder. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who, as has been mentioned already, volunteers with the Patterdale Mountain Rescue Team. It is right that we acknowledge the pressures that volunteers face. As we have already heard, demand is rising, incidents are increasingly complex and volunteers are balancing that extraordinary service with the realities of modern life, including cost of living pressures and the cumulative emotional impact of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. Those challenges are real, and they deserve to be recognised honestly and respectfully. Despite those pressures, mountain rescue volunteers and volunteer search and rescue teams more broadly continue to respond with professionalism, humility and compassion. They are not a peripheral part of our emergency response system; they are one of its greatest strengths, and they exemplify public service in its truest sense. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Minister responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am proud of the volunteers and supporting organisations that form such an important part of the UK search and rescue community. I pay tribute to those who respond on the frontline and to those working behind the scenes to ensure these life-saving services continue to be there whenever they are needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) asked a number of questions in support of Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which I know does vital work in his area. I concur that Winter hill and Rivington pike offer many beautiful walking routes. He raised a number of questions about the high cost of insurance, access to rehabilitation services, and medical supplies. Although those issues are not within my Department’s remit, I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of relevant ministerial colleagues who can write to him on those matters. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) called for greater support for mountain rescue, and I hope I have set out how the Government are responding to the needs of the mountain rescue community. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) represent some of the UK’s highest and most popular mountain regions. They rightly drew attention to the dangers of exploring not only the fells and ridges, but caves and quarries, particularly if doing so without proper equipment and without knowledge and guidance. Social media does bring our wild places to wider attention, but we know that it is also leading to more people, particularly younger people, putting themselves in danger. That means that we need to look carefully at the channels that we use to ensure that safety guidance and warnings reach the people who need to see them. There is of course experience in Government of doing that—I speak as the Minister with responsibility for road safety, where we are trying to reach young men aged 17 to 24, who are particularly at risk. We are using completely different channels than perhaps we would have used in the past, because we know that we can reach them better through social media or YouTube or other methods. Perhaps the same can be applied to the sorts of warnings we are offering about the hills, mountains and caves. I conclude by once again thanking hon. Members for raising these important issues. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for securing today’s debate and giving the House the opportunity not only to debate Government support, but to recognise and celebrate the remarkable contribution of our mountain rescue volunteers.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. As I said, we are working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure we have a coherent approach. I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, for our proposals to tackle pavement parking. Of course, the issue is not just safety on the street, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West highlighted, but having the opportunity to walk, wheel, cycle and run in our green spaces and parks, on canal towpaths and on greenways. Natural England’s “Green Infrastructure Planning and Design Guide” offers detailed guidance on creating accessible green spaces and, for teenage girls specifically, emphasises the need to design spaces that are not only safe and inclusive but also comfortable and welcoming. Sport England is also running campaigns challenging prejudice to make clear that sport is for everyone. That has included the “This Girl Can” and “Let’s Lift the Curfew” campaigns; the latter included 320 local events in October to amplify women’s voices and overcome barriers that prevent women from being active outdoors. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for raising this important issue. It has been wonderful to see the level of contribution and the interest that has been shown in the debate. I look forward to continuing to work with her, with other hon. Members here this afternoon, and with my colleagues across Government to take further action on this important issue and ensure that for our daughters the opportunity to go out and walk, run and cycle is different from how it perhaps has been for our generation. We can, must and will do better.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am proud of the passengers and accessibility duty and pleased that it was welcomed by accessibility groups. Am I right in saying that there is no comparable statutory duty that applies to Network Rail or the TOCs—in other words, that this would be an entirely new requirement? Alex Robertson: You are right that we are introducing a new duty and that that is extremely important in terms of accessibility. The general point I would make is that it is important that Parliament and the Government set out their intent in the legislation. How that is enacted and delivered will depend on a lot of things that are not in the legislation, such as the culture of the railway and how disabled passengers are engaged in the co-creation and delivery of it. As the passenger watchdog, we are very conscious that we have a duty to make sure that we do that as well. It is a definite step forward, but whether it delivers on the ground for disabled passengers in the way that is intended depends on a lot of things that are yet to come. Emma Vogelmann: An important consideration is the Transport Committee’s finding that the reason accessibility standards are failing and disabled people are having really negative transport experiences is that there are no statutory obligations. I completely agree that the Bill is a big step forward, but the duties themselves are very vague and do not necessarily at this point look at enforceable rights and corporate actions. Ben Plowden: It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has made his point very well. We will also continue to encourage safer road user behaviours in order to improve safety for all vulnerable road users, including horse riders, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and road workers. Our flagship road safety campaign, THINK!, will continue to do that, alongside the use of social media channels and other partner organisations. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency also does important work to promote awareness of horse and rider road safety. The DVSA publication, “The Official DVSA Guide to Driving: the essential skills”, contains a section on horses, and horses also feature in the hazard perception tests that all drivers have to take to obtain their licence. We have already dealt with a number of the statistics. In 2024, there were 63 collisions involving ridden horses, in which 71 people were seriously or slightly injured. That is according to STATS19 data, and it is completely unacceptable. We know that, through targeted action on speeding, drink and drug-driving, and mobile phone use, alongside the education piece we have already discussed, those tragedies can be prevented. Experts and campaigners have long called for a comprehensive strategy that treats road safety as a priority. Our new road safety strategy shows that this Government are not only listening but leading to build a safer future for all road users, including horse riders. Hon. Members will know that the strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035. I think that the vital work we will do—and I take on board all the contributions that have been made—will save lives on Britain’s roads and make them safer for absolutely everyone, including horse riders and their horses. In the short time I have left, I turn to some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Newbury asked about equestrian representation on the national road safety board. That is yet to be considered; however, he makes the important point that we must ensure we hear the voices of all road users as we undertake that work. I will certainly take that point away. There was a question about whether equine road safety is included in initial driver training for those who drive for work. I have already described how it is incorporated within the driving test, and I will consider what further work we can do to strengthen the guidance and advice that goes to those who employ drivers and riders. I was pleased to hear about the VR headsets in use in Leicestershire; I absolutely agree that understanding how frightening a close pass can be is really valuable. I saw a video produced by Cycling UK on close passes on social media just yesterday. Frankly, it sent a shiver down my spine. Vulnerable road users need that safe space. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) asked about speed limits. They are obviously a matter for local councils, but we are updating our guidance on setting such speed limits. I will take account of the point she made. A number of matters raised today fall outside my remit. However, I will ensure that my DEFRA colleagues are alerted to the concerns raised regarding the provision and management of bridleways, and indeed the issues my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised about uncontrolled dogs. I apologise if I have missed any of the questions raised; I will ensure that I work with my officials and write to Members if I feel that I have not provided them a sufficient answer in the time available. As I conclude, I again pass on my condolences to all those who have been affected by this issue. Improving road safety is one of my highest priorities, and this Department will continue to work hard to bring down deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I again thank the hon. Member for Newbury for raising this vital issue and congratulate him on what has been a very fulsome debate.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  We are no longer the safest. We have been dropping down the rankings, and progress has stalled compared with other countries across Europe. Sir Peter North’s review in 2010 estimated that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save an estimated 43 to 168 lives each year and avoid a very large number of serious injuries—a conservative estimate put it at 280. We are acting on the evidence. When it comes to drug-driving, we are looking at how we can make better use of testing. I know that too many people who have suffered as a result of someone drug-driving wait a long time for their case to come to court. It takes too long to process, which is why we are looking at things like roadside testing. Through our award-winning THINK! campaign, we continue to target publicity at those who cause the most danger: young men aged 17 to 24. At the end of last year, we did an anti-drug-driving campaign—the first in 10 years—using the sorts of media channels that get to those we are trying to target, including TikTok and Instagram. Finally, the shadow Secretary of State is right to speak about enforcement. That is why this Government are investing in additional police officers—an extra 3,000 police officers by March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are responding to the requirements of the police. We are giving them the legislation and the powers they need to crack down on those who cause danger on our roads. I am pleased to see that our strategy has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for roads policing, Jo Shiner. I welcome the right hon. Member’s other comments, and we look forward to reading the official Opposition’s comments in response to our consultations.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for bringing this debate to the House. It is extremely important to highlight the role of our dedicated lifeboat services, which seek to rescue any persons in distress or difficulty around our coast. It is important that we continue to celebrate these lifesaving services and recognise their contribution to search and rescue services across the United Kingdom search and rescue region. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave volunteers who are a critical part of the UK’s maritime search and rescue provision. I am very happy to join all those hon. Members here today who have highlighted the volunteers on their own independent lifeboats and, indeed, RNLI lifeboats. The hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) highlighted Hayling Island lifeboat station; my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) highlighted the Pett Level independent rescue boat; the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) drew our attention to Lyme Regis and its independent rescue boat; my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) referred to the boat at Runswick Bay; my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) referred to the Ferryside and Loughor boats; the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) referred to the Gosport and Fareham inshore rescue service; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted independent lifeboats on Strangford lough, Lough Neagh and the Lagan; and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) highlighted the RNLI in her area—I have witnessed its work myself while on holiday, and obviously the RNLI’s headquarters are in Poole. We heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) about the lifeboat service in her constituency; the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the lifeboats at Sea Palling and Mundesley; and we heard about the lifeboat at Caister from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). I apologise if I missed anyone and I know that there are many other independent lifeboats around the country that I have not mentioned. I feel somewhat guilty for not having done so, but I know that they will be doing incredible work too, and they similarly deserve our thanks. I am sure that all hon. Members across the House will be aware of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—a charity that provides lifeboat and lifeguard services across the UK, Ireland and the Crown dependencies—and the role that its brave volunteers undertake, but this debate is a welcome opportunity to call attention to our independent lifeboats, which are not part of the RNLI but provide vital lifeboat and lifesaving services in their local communities. We are very lucky also to have volunteer life brigades, volunteer lifeguards and His Majesty’s Coastguard volunteers, all of whom regularly risk their own lives to save others at sea and around our beautiful but sometimes treacherous coastline. Those volunteers undertake search operations and water, mud and cliff rescue 24 hours a day, sometimes in the most terrible circumstances and conditions. Indeed, the conditions in which they deploy to save and protect others are often challenging and potentially life-threatening. We recognise and greatly appreciate their service, and I know that all Members of the House will join me in thanking them. Our volunteer lifeboat services in the UK have a long and proud history spanning more than 200 years. The saving of lives at sea and on the coast, and the volunteer ethos of these services, is a cornerstone of British society. While the RNLI is recognised as a world leader in lifeboat services and operations, the UK is also very proud to have approximately 40 independent lifeboats declared to His Majesty’s Coastguard—and others besides, as we have heard. Those organisations provide lifesaving services around the clock in support of our maritime and coastal emergency service. His Majesty’s Coastguard’s own volunteer coastguard rescue officers are also proud to maintain the traditions of voluntary lifesaving and have worked alongside their colleagues in the lifeboat services for over 200 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about the issues in his constituency and the potential interest in establishing a rescue service on the River Thames. His Majesty’s Coastguard is responsible for search and rescue on the lower River Thames to Teddington. Beyond that, inland water safety is the responsibility of the police. However, should small boat operators want to form a rescue service, His Majesty’s Coastguard can provide advice and guidance, and the rescue boat code is a good benchmark for the formation of rescue boats. I am sure that the responsible Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with further information should he so wish. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central also asked about the safety of boaters, who take part in an increasingly popular activity. Inland search and rescue is the responsibility of the police, but the fire services have water rescue capability and His Majesty’s Coastguard search and rescue helicopters can also be asked to support those services. The work undertaken by our independent lifeboats is often not fully recognised. Each is run by dedicated volunteers who provide a vital lifesaving capability to offer assistance to any person who may be in difficulty around our coasts and countryside. As we have heard, independent lifeboats operate in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, both on the coast and inland. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly highlighted the challenges our independent lifeboats face. In common with all search and rescue services, they are responding to an increasing number of call-outs. As so many hon. Members highlighted, they also face significant challenges to maintain their operations. We know that volunteers not only crew the lifeboats but undertake magnificent fundraising efforts to provide the resources they need. They of course require our recognition and support, and a number of bodies and initiatives work to support them. In September 2022, the National Independent Lifeboat Association was formally launched, with support from Members of Parliament, the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. NILA was founded with the intention of supporting our independent lifeboats and providing a cohesive voice for those smaller but vital organisations. His Majesty’s Coastguard continues to help, support and guide the development of the association, which aims to provide ongoing support to the individual charities through the provision of a national voice, including by representing them in the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Operators Group. UKSAR is the representative organisation for search and rescue in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is an amalgam of Government Departments, the emergency services and a number of search and rescue charities and voluntary organisations. Those authorities and organisations are committed to a cohesive and co-operative partnership in support of an effective, cost-efficient national SAR capability. UKSAR is chaired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on behalf of the Department for Transport and it has various workstreams that look to support all volunteer SAR groups, including independent lifeboats and many others, such as mountain rescue and lowland rescue, which I had the pleasure of meeting recently. The workstreams cover a broad spectrum, including interoperability, national operating guidance, medical response, volunteer support and recognition of SAR organisations. As we heard, NILA is currently a probationary member of the UK Search and Rescue Operators Group, while it continues to establish and move to full membership. Importantly, probationary status does not limit NILA’s access or influence, or the benefits it receives as part of UK Search and Rescue. NILA has done fantastic work representing independent lifeboats since its founding only a few years ago, and it must be commended for that work. HM Coastguard and UKSAR will continue to support NILA as it moves towards full membership. I understand that following discussions between NILA trustees and its sponsor, HM Coastguard, NILA concluded that remaining a probationary member at this stage was in its best interests, but it is clearly on a journey towards full membership. UKSAR has worked with the DFT to ensure that all SAR responders, including independent lifeboats, will be recognised in ongoing work, including the revision of section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 to allow the appropriate use of emergency warning devices. It will also support wider workstreams, including, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) highlighted, allowing potential vehicle excise duty exemptions—I assure him that that work is in hand. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and a number of others raised the issue of the rescue boat grant fund. As we heard, the fund provided grants to inshore and inland rescue boat charities to support major capital purchases. The Department was able to subsequently extend the fund with a further £1 million for an additional round in 2019-20. But at the end of that period, the then Government closed the fund because its specific objective of enhancing capacity was considered to have been met. While the Department does not currently have any plans to reintroduce the rescue boat grant fund, the Government regularly make new grants available to charities, and the process of identifying suitable opportunities, checking eligibility and making applications has been simplified through a single online portal. His Majesty’s Coastguard provides guidance and support to all its declared independent lifeboats through its local management teams and declared facility officers. Since April 2015, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has allowed search and rescue charities, including independent lifeboats, to recover VAT on the purchase of goods and services used for their non-business activities. Earlier this year, the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services was established, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—a constituency that is quite challenging to say. My hon. Friend could not be in the debate today, but I know the APPG is supported by many MPs. The aim of the group is to advocate for legislation and policies that support and strengthen the volunteer rescue sector, ensuring that volunteers are equipped, protected and empowered to carry out their lifesaving work effectively across the UK in all emergency and disaster response situations. I am sure that we all look forward to a further opportunity to debate and discuss those issues in the House. The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) rightly spoke about the reduction in charitable and corporate giving. As I am sure she will appreciate, this issue falls outside my portfolio, but I will ensure that the concerns she expressed today are heard by the Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). The hon. Member is right to raise the importance of addressing what we can do as a Government to support the growth of charitable giving and philanthropy. I am very proud to be speaking on behalf of the Department responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am very proud of the volunteers, and their supporting organisations, who form such an important part of that provision. I pay tribute to those organisations and the individuals who work both in response and behind the scenes to provide lifesaving services in whatever circumstances, to whoever needs them. I hope I have managed to answer the questions and concerns of hon. Members, but if not, I know that the Minister for Maritime and Aviation will be reading our exchanges—I am afraid he is visiting another part of the UK today—and will reflect on them. I am sure that he would happy to respond to any questions in writing, if I have not covered them. I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley for raising this important issue and providing the opportunity for us to debate and celebrate the contribution of our lifeboat services to search and rescue.