To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2024 - Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 262 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 171 Noes - 265
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2024 - Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 251 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 39 Noes - 257
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2024 - Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 261 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 171 Noes - 265
Division Vote (Commons)
25 Mar 2024 - Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 252 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 257 Noes - 38
Division Vote (Commons)
19 Mar 2024 - Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 293 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 218 Noes - 305
Division Vote (Commons)
19 Mar 2024 - Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 293 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 305
Division Vote (Commons)
19 Mar 2024 - Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 296 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 219 Noes - 306
Division Vote (Commons)
19 Mar 2024 - Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Tom Hunt (Con) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 298 Conservative No votes vs 0 Conservative Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 224 Noes - 301
Written Question
Energy: Conservation
Tuesday 19th March 2024

Asked by: Tom Hunt (Conservative - Ipswich)

Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, if her Department will update its information on energy efficiency online to include the potential costs savings of (a) circulator pumps and (b) hydraulic balancing.

Answered by Amanda Solloway - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury

The ‘Welcome Home to Energy Efficiency’ advice site focuses on longer term changes consumers can make to their homes to make them more sustainable and help reduce energy costs.

The content of the site is regularly reviewed and updated by the Department’s policy teams to ensure the information on specific measures and schemes is accurate and that emerging new schemes and technologies are included.

The government was clear in the government response to the consultation on the standards now known as Boiler Plus, that hydraulic balancing is an expected practice that should be undertaken when a new boiler installed.


Written Question
Prostate Cancer: Screening
Tuesday 19th March 2024

Asked by: Tom Hunt (Conservative - Ipswich)

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for what reason there is no national screening programme for prostate cancer.

Answered by Andrew Stephenson - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) does not currently recommend screening for prostate cancer in the United Kingdom due to the inaccuracy of the current best test, called Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). A PSA-based screening programme could harm men, as some of them would be diagnosed with a cancer that would not have caused them problems during their life. This would lead to additional tests and treatments which can also have harmful side effects.

The Government understands the importance of improving evidence around prostate screening and therefore we are providing £16 million of funding to Prostate Cancer UK's £42 million trial, which is aimed at helping us find a way of catching prostate cancer in men as early as possible.

The UK NSC will consider the evidence for six possible approaches to targeted prostate screening for those at higher risk. The UK NSC will publish its recommendations when complete. The Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme provides general practices with information to counsel asymptomatic men aged 50 years old about PSA testing for prostate cancer.