On the 20th allotted Opposition Day, 24 March 2026, the Conservative opposition raised Oil and Gas and Defence as the topics for debate.
1 Oil and gas: 
"That this House calls on the Government to remove the Energy Profits Levy, end the ban on new oil and gas licences and approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields to increase secure domestic energy supply; recognises that the North Sea provides half of the UK's gas supply, supports 200,000 skilled jobs across the UK and generates billions of pounds in tax revenue; further recognises that three quarters of the UK's energy needs are met by oil and gas, that the UK will continue to use oil and gas for decades, and that the North Sea is the UK’s most secure and lowest-carbon source of oil and gas; notes that without action to make the sector more investable, the UK risks importing 82% of its gas by 2035 at higher cost and with higher emissions; and further notes that independent analysis by Stifel shows that the Energy Profits Levy will cost the Treasury more than it raises and that reforming it would generate an additional £25 billion in tax revenues within 10 years."

The Motion was rejected: Ayes 108, Noes 297 and the Prime Minister's motion was resolved: 

"That this House welcomes the Government’s approach to the future of the North Sea, which maintains existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, as well as introducing Transitional Energy Certificates while accelerating the transition to clean energy; notes that new licences to explore new fields would take many years to come online and would make no difference to energy bills; recognises that oil and gas prices are set on international markets; and further welcomes the measures announced by the Government to go further and faster on national energy security by reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and expanding secure, home grown clean energy."
2 Defence
"That this House regrets that the Defence Investment Plan has still not been published despite the Government promising Parliament that the plan would be published in Autumn 2025; notes that the Government’s delay has frozen procurement and has stopped the UK from learning lessons from its long-standing support for Ukraine and left the UK vulnerable as the world becomes more dangerous; believes that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 should not be proceeded with because they are a threat to morale, and that the Diego Garcia Treaty should not be ratified to ensure that the UK continues to have sovereignty over its military base; calls on the Government to publish the Defence Investment Plan as soon as possible; and further calls on the Government to increase spending on the UK’s armed forces, specifically delivering 20,000 more troops over the next Parliament, paid for by restoring the two-child benefit cap, and redirecting net zero funding to defence, to ensure that the UK spends three per cent of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament."

A closure motion was moved, and the House agreed to put the motion to a vote, which was rejected: Ayes 98, Noes 306.

The Horticultural Trades Association HTA) held a drop in: "Introduction to UK Environmental Horticulture" on 24 March 2026.

The HTA represents around 1400 UK businesses across the breadth of the UK environmental supply chain. Member businesses range from growers and retailers to landscapers and service providers, who collectively deliver the gardens, green spaces and green infrastructure that delivers for the economy, environment, and our health and wellbeing. The HTA raised the following issues which affect their members: 

Border costs and a UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement

Around 80% of HTA member businesses import non-UK sourced plant material. Supply chain costs have significantly increased since Brexit, particularly in 2024, with some businesses absorbing up to 25% higher costs and facing increased administrative burdens. businesses will need timely and practical guidance to understand what the changes could mean for day-to-day operations across environmental horticulture.

Energy Bills

Horticultural businesses, already struggling with high electricity costs, will see a further increase in their energy bills from April 2026 because the cost of Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) charge is expected to nearly double, increasing by £3.68 billion to £7.52 billion. Bills will be further exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East which is already having an impact on oil and gas prices. Despite operating at similar energy intensities to other sectors, horticulture is excluded from the Energy Intensive Industries (EII) and Network Charging Compensation (NCC) schemes, threatening the viability of glasshouse growers and businesses using supplementary lighting.

Transition to peat-free

The HTA backs a supported transition to a peat-free future for horticulture, but the need to recognise that particularly in professional growing, is complex.

The Bill returned to the House of Commons on 23 March 2026 after passing its third reading in the Lords as amended on 12 March 2026. 

From April 2029, a primary and secondary Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) charge will be applied where employer pension contributions are made via salary sacrifice arrangements that exceed £2,000. Salary Sacrifice contributions for pensions will continue to be free of income tax.


The changes made in this Bill do not affect employee pension contributions made via other pension arrangements which are already subject to Class 1 NICs. The existing income tax relief regime for pensions is unaffected by the changes introduced in this Bill, employer contributions can continue to be made NICs free, and existing NICs reliefs (e.g. for employees above State Pension age, and provision of the Employment Allowance) will continue to apply.


There were 5 amendments put to the vote and I voted to support the motions to disagree with the Lords amendments which were rejected;  


Lords Amendment 1, which would have exempted basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales, and Scotland from a Class 1 NICs liability on employer pension contributions made under salary sacrifice arrangements:  Ayes 280, Noes 161 





Lords Amendment 2, which would have exempted salary sacrificed employer pension contributions over the £2000 limit from being included in student loan repayment calculations, :  Ayes 279, Noes 167. 












Lords Amendment 3, which would have made the regulation making powers in the Bill subject to the Parliamentary approval, except those solely increasing the contributions limit, Ayes 280, Noes 164.








Lords Amendment 5, which would have changed the initial contribution limit to £5,000 in Great Britain, Ayes 281, Noes 167.





Lords Amendment 6, which would have exempted small and medium-sized enterprises, and small and medium-sized charities and social enterprises, from the provisions of the Bill in Great Britain, Ayes 278, Noes 164.



All amendments were rejected because they would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons as the Commons have exclusive authority over financial matters. The Bill was returned to the House of Lords for further debate.

Together with 61 other MPs I signed Peter Lamb MP's letter to Ofcom Chief Executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, calling on her to protect men and boys from “manosphere” influencers online, by setting out guidance for platforms to monitor and guard against the specific online harms they face.

The full content of the letter is below:




"As Members of Parliament, we are gravely concerned about the growing risks individuals, particularly children, face when using a range of online platforms.


In November, we were pleased to see Ofcom fulfil its statutory duty to address to produce guidance addressing how platforms can take action against the specific and disproportionate harms affecting women and girls online. However, we are disappointed to hear that Ofcom has so far refused requests from several organisations to undertake similar guidance on the harms facing boys and men online.


While we understand that Ofcom is not compelled to produce this guidance under the Online Safety Act, we do not believe that the Act precludes Ofcom from undertaking this work.




We therefore urge Ofcom to recognise that there are specific harms that disproportionately affect boys and men online and take action to reduce the incidence of these by recognising the gendered dimension of these challenges. Given there are several types of online content where research shows men and boys are significantly more likely to be at risk, or to face different kinds of risk to women and girls, providing parallel guidance on specific ways platforms can act to reduce the harms facing men and boys would improve overall online safety.




Men and boys appear to be more at risk, in particular, for financial harms. According to the Gambling Commission, 53% of 11–17-year-old boys see gambling adverts online each week, compared with 31% of their female peers. 70% of cryptocurrency owners are male, and organisations working with teenage boys increasingly report this to be an issue among under-18s, with FCA research showing 8% of 13-16-year-olds owning cryptocurrency. Sextortion victims are much more likely to be male (91% according to the Internet Watch Foundation) and men are slightly more likely to encounter scams and fraud overall.


In terms of the harms that are more evenly faced by men and women, we believe a gendered lens would still be useful in understanding the different ways in which harms such as mis- and disinformation, pornography and misogynistic content reach men and women online. This would allow platforms and policymakers to gain a fuller picture of the overall harms facing boys and men online and a clearer understanding of how these can be acted upon in a targeted and effective way.


We are confident that addressing the harms faced by men and boys online will have a significant impact on women’s safety too. The consumption of misogynistic and violent pornographic content online has serious implications for violence against women and, particularly where men are the higher earner within heterosexual partnerships, financial harms carry significant risk for their female family members.




We would therefore like to ask to Ofcom if they will reconsider their decision not to produce guidance on online harms affecting boys and men."





 

As Chair of the APPG on Portugal I was pleased to welcome to Parliament on 19 March 2026 a group of 16 early-career diplomats, 8 from the UK and 8 from Portugal.

The meeting was organised to complement the UK-Portugal Joint Diplomats Training programme run by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and to help the diplomats learn about the work of UK MPs, how we influence international affairs and diplomacy, and how the APPG on Portugal fits into parliamentary democracy.

The Group were:

From the UK: Kate Nuttall; Iona Sinclair; Jack Watson; Lou Virrey; Ariane Watson; Kieran Dollard; 
Pukar Sharma-Daub; Tara McGough.

From Portugal: Débora Simões; Andreia Leitão; Diogo Caeiro de Jesus; André Francisco Soares Carvalho Alves Teixeira; Miguel Pacheco; David Sant'Ana Crisóstomo; Ana Clara Ribeiro; João de Almeida Dias.

Also present at the meeting were 2 other members of the APPG, Lord Rogan and Sir Julian Lewis MP who were also able to provide the Group with an insight of the work in the Lords and Select committees.