What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Sea Shanty café on Ynys Môn is desperate for hope. Paying 20% VAT is simply unsustainable. Hospitality is a major employer on the island, but our businesses are being squeezed by rising costs. Cutting VAT to 10% would be a quick win, driving growth by giving businesses some breathing space and protecting jobs. Will the Chief Secretary consider that?
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place alongside her team. Guildford borough council’s latest green-belt assessment found that 92% of its green belt now meets the Government’s grey belt definition, and its assessed housing need has been doubled by the Government from 562 to 1,168 homes a year. That has left many of my residents worried about the loss of green spaces, about unsustainable development without appropriate infrastructure and about the loss of the distinctive historic character of their villages. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of planning policy on green-belt land in my constituency, which falls within the Guildford borough area? Can she outline what steps her Government will take to protect green spaces for communities by ensuring that developers are directed towards genuine brownfield sites first, rather than development being concentrated on land around Guildford that was previously protected by the green belt?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that newly formed local authorities will not be forced to have a strategic mayor in order to benefit from devolution. However, the key to success will be ensuring real fiscal devolution to support and deliver services and economic growth for residents. Will the Minister set out how the Department will ensure that for non-mayoral strategic authorities, including the emerging foundation strategic authority in Surrey, where my constituency is based? How will she ensure that our area receives the financial resources to make meaningful funding decisions at a regional level, including by accessing funding streams currently available only to mayoral strategic authorities?
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I have almost lost track of the number of times I have stood in this Chamber and warned the Government about problems with their local government reorganisation plans—yet here I am again. It appears that the Government have finally listened, but they have done so too late and the damage has already been done. Thousands of residents have been denied their right to vote over the course of this process, because of plans that many of us in this Chamber warned were on a very uncertain legal footing. Councils have poured enormous amounts of time, effort and money into proposals they were repeatedly assured were legally sound, only to discover that they are now being abandoned. The abortive costs are likely to be substantial. Worse still, a number of authorities were relying on reorganisation as part of a strategy to address serious financial concerns. Those councils are now being left in limbo. In my own area of Surrey, councils were forced down a reorganisation route that now appears to be effectively abandoned by the Government and questionable on a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Surrey MPs and the new authority leaders to discuss how our county can avoid the risks and uncertainty that the Government say have prompted this decision elsewhere? The Government need to acknowledge the significant democratic harm caused by this episode and take responsibility for it, including by issuing an apology, so will the Secretary of State set out clearly what happens next for communities and local authorities left in limbo by today’s announcement? Will she also publish the legal advice so that Parliament and the affected communities can understand what went wrong with the original process?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing the debate so thoughtfully. For months, I have been campaigning for legislation to combat the alarming trend of nightlife filming. Women are being filmed in public without their knowledge or consent, with the footage then shared online for millions to view. Collectively, such content has been viewed more than 3 billion times in just three years. Algorithms are not neutral; they elevate what captures attention, which is often what is extreme, polarising or degrading. Nightlife videos are accompanied by misogynistic comments and abuse, driving engagement and generating profits for the video creator. That means that misogynistic content is not just present; it is incentivised and rewarded. For victims, the impact is devastating. They are ridiculed and humiliated, they face reputational damage, and they are left fearing for their safety in public. Yet, once again, the law is scrambling to catch up with emerging forms of misogynistic abuse. I saw this during my campaign to make the disgusting act of upskirting a criminal offence, which led to the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019. At the time, there was a clear gap in the law and an urgent need to act, but even then it was obvious that we were responding to one manifestation of a much wider problem. Today, we are seeing increasingly sophisticated forms of online abuse, from artificial intelligence-generated deepfake imagery to co-ordinated harassment campaigns.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that disgusting footage and the events that led up to the video being made. All of that reinforces the message that people act with impunity because they think that is the way they can behave towards women. Making misogyny a hate crime would ultimately, at its root, stop that. It will not change everything, but it will at least challenge the attitudes that some members of the public still display towards women or minority groups. On sex-based harassment and violence, my hon. Friend is right, and I thank him for raising the matter. This is happening at a pace and scale that we have not seen before. Technology has made it easier to commit these acts, and social media platforms have made it easier for them to spread. However, the underlying issue has not changed: violence against women and girls is an epidemic in the UK and, to be honest, not just in the UK—it spans other countries and continents. One in four women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime and one in four have been raped or sexually assaulted since the age of 16. Those are not isolated crimes; they are part of a wider pattern. We always use these numbers, but each instance is a tragedy—it is something that ruins a life. In December, the Government published their new violence against women and girls strategy. Its focus on prevention, education and early intervention is welcome and long overdue. The strategy must remain a priority for the new Government. The Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Act to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in some crimes is a welcome step in the right direction, but they must go further. That means amending the Sentencing Act 2020 so that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. Not long ago, following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard, there was strong political momentum behind doing exactly that. The Labour party itself committed to making misogyny a hate crime, yet now it is in government, it has gone quiet. Instead, we are left legislating against each new form of technology-facilitated abuse as it emerges, without addressing the hostility towards women that underpins them all. Misogyny must be recognised in hate crime legislation. This matters for three reasons. First, it would help us properly understand the scale of the problem. Without consistent recording, misogyny remains largely invisible in official data, despite being a common factor in many forms of abuse. Secondly, it would improve accountability. Where crimes are motivated by hostility towards women, that should be reflected in how they are investigated and prosecuted, just as it is for other forms of hate crime. Thirdly, it would recognise what many women already know: that these experiences are not random; they are rooted in attitudes towards women that continue to shape behaviour both offline and online. Recognising misogyny as a hate crime would not on its own end violence against women and girls, but it would be an important step towards treating this as a connected problem rather than a series of unrelated offences. If we are serious about prevention, we cannot ignore the role that misogyny plays. If we continue to avoid naming it, we will remain stuck in a cycle of reacting to harm rather than preventing it.
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning women fleeing domestic abuse. Their recovery should be subject to a longer-term strategy; it is not just about finding crisis accommodation. Often, women face their abusers for many years and do not get any support. Does he agree that we need to look at the longer-term effects, too?
It is pretty clear that young people fall into all sorts of traps, and we do not want our prisons to be full of young offenders who have displayed misogynistic behaviours and attitudes, but sometimes the law can act as a regulator of this type of behaviour. Does the hon. Member agree, therefore, that changing the law is a powerful tool in our toolkit for changing behaviour altogether?
The Minister is listing a series of measures, which we all welcome, but I do not hear her actually committing to making misogyny a hate crime. It does not sound like the Government are really considering that. Could she explain why?
Councils such as Dorset sold their housing stock many years ago. Their social housing is entirely operated by housing associations; they therefore have no HRA, making it more expensive and complex to influence the social housing network in their areas and support constituents living in poor-quality, overcrowded social homes. What additional measures are being considered to make sure we do not end up with a two-tier system between those with an HRA and those without?
Over the past year or so, Poole has seen planned protests by groups calling themselves patriots that have been travelling to the town and specifically targeting the RNLI headquarters because they, like firefighters and other emergency crews, rescue those at sea without fear or favour. Concerns have been raised with me that no arrests were made this weekend, despite serious intimidation, injuries to the police and criminal damage, in sharp contrast to the treatment of elderly people holding placards. What message does it send to our brave RNLI rescue crews if the police stand aside during these events while they put their lives at risk day and night?
In Dorset, we have lost 44 dentists in the last five years, and there has not been a single new contract for 10 years. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that his new plan would reverse that by enabling us to see exactly where the gaps are in the system?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument. The principle here is inherently good. The Government already hold the information needed to identify households in difficulty, and letting that information reach the people who can act on it, with proper safeguards, is exactly what the Digital Economy Act was meant to enable. We have seen in open banking what happens when consumers’ interests are put at the heart of responsible data sharing. There is real potential to apply the same thinking more widely, such as with property data. I hope the Minister sees the regulations as a template rather than a one-off. Households across the country, including in Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring, are still carrying debt, much of which was built up during the energy crisis through no fault of their own. That debt is a drag on everything else in their lives. That is only set to worsen as the energy price cap rises. If the debt relief scheme—although not part of these regulations—can support those in need, it should happen as quickly as possible. We must also tackle the root causes of energy prices. We should look at Lib Dem policies on, for example, the link between electricity and gas prices to make sure that cost is tackled. I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to hear about privacy and protection of the data being at the heart of this, but I would love to hear more about holding suppliers to account to ensure that they are using the data for the purposes, and being protected accordingly. She addressed the question about the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but I would also like to ask what mechanisms there are to share what is learnt and about what is working with other Departments running fuel poverty and vulnerability schemes. We should be looking at the possibility of using smart data to deliver to our communities.
Despite swift action from Dacorum council to tackle a 6-acre unauthorised development in the Chilterns landscape, it had to choose between occupation and restoration, as tackling both would potentially have dragged the case out for years. What are the Government doing to help councils with powers to ensure that these cases can be tackled sooner?
I absolutely share the shock and anger of councillors and council officers at the announcement. At the heart of this are councillors who are working so hard to deliver frontline services, whether that is education, housing or social care. It is they who are battling this change. I am still uncertain about what will happen in May, so will the Secretary of State please reassure the people of Hertfordshire, and say what they will be voting for in May? Will councils be reimbursed for the money and time spent, so that the money can go to the services that are desperately needed?
My hon. Friend talks about co-ordinated campaigns and harassment. Over the weekend, I, like many people, saw the manhandling of a female protestor at the Reform conference and the horrendous comments made about that individual on social media. Does she agree that that was completely unacceptable, that we should condemn it and that it is shameful that Members from some other political parties are not here to talk about violence against women and girls and misogyny is all its forms?
I would like to put on the record some fantastic youth organisations, such as Harrogate Youth Council in my constituency, that do their bit to engage young people in democracy. My office manager will attest that I also do my bit by having an endless stream of work experience students through the office door—much to her frustration given the number of people who are interested. One of those students, Benjy, told me recently that he is really excited that in future young people will be able to vote, but he said that there was an unequal opportunity in education when it comes to accessing social media for young people. One way that young people will get information about voting will be through social media. What steps is the Minister taking with other Departments to ensure that young people can find information online?
The Chief Secretary talks about £150 million for investment in the north. How much of that funding is actual new capital expenditure from this Government, or is it simply a repackaged, reannounced sum of money for the north?
I would like to start by welcoming the commitment from the Minister at the Dispatch Box to bring forward a maternity commissioner, and by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her tireless campaigning on this issue. When I worked for her many years ago, I was all too aware of the scandal at the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, after sitting in on surgeries with her. Indeed, in my own constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, I have ended up with tireless campaigners coming to me when they face maternity issues at Leeds hospital. I turn to the amendments tabled in my name. The first is new clause 36, which would require the Government to bring forward a formal transition strategy and to report back to Parliament on what happens when NHS England is abolished. I have tabled the new clause out of concern for families who have lost loved ones at the hands of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. They have said time and again that they are concerned about the delayed appointment of a chair to the inquiry. They are really worried about that as we see the largest changes to the health service in a generation, and they do not want the inquiry to be lost. I press the Minister on whether she might be able to push that forward or get her colleagues to do so. New clause 43 would reduce inequalities in access to clinical research funding and trials. I have been working closely with Yorkshire Cancer Research, based in Hornbeam Park in my constituency. We know that funding for clinical research and trials across Yorkshire is about a quarter of what is received in London. If areas outside London and the south-east are getting less research funding, the logic follows that we will struggle to close inequalities in those areas.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is not here, is campaigning tirelessly on radiotherapy and radiography. The point I was making about those health inequalities is that regions such as Yorkshire have a high incidence of cancer and of poorer outcomes, so we need to close that funding gap to close those inequalities. New clauses 61 and 93, both in my name, pertain to NHS dentistry, and I have also added my name to and support many other new clauses. New clause 61 would have made sure that there is adequate provision of dental appointments in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Over the last two years in my constituency and across North Yorkshire as a whole, the number of people with access to an NHS dentist appointment is down from 50% to just 37%. When this arises in casework and at surgeries, the issue is often precipitated by those who work in A&E telling me traumatic stories of people reaching A&E as a result of emergency dental care or the lack of it. In particular, we have heard some harrowing stories from local children about their inability to focus in school. New clause 93 would require the Secretary of State to publish before Parliament a regular report on the state of NHS dentistry, including that unmet need, and also to pay particular attention to workforce capacity and distribution.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to see that, and I tabled new clause 93 to get the answers to some of those questions that not just constituents in my patch but those in hers are asking us as Members of Parliament. It is particularly frustrating that we are in the third year of this Labour Government, and although talk of dental contract reform kept cropping up at the outset, we have seen little progress since, so I would press the Minister on what more can be done to make sure those gaps are filled. On new clause 121, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and we have some fantastic care and world-leading practice for diabetes, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). This new clause would maintain existing national diabetes prevention, treatment and audit programmes, and would mean we see an explanation from the Government with regular reports in Parliament about how those are being continued. Overall, Members across the House have tabled a fantastic number of amendments. I hope the Minister will pay attention to them and can provide us with some responses.
The average house price in my constituency is 12 times average household incomes, so the desperate need for more social housing is plain for everyone to see. Westmorland and Furness Council does now have a housing revenue account, inherited from the previous Barrow borough council, but it is unlikely to spend any of that money—unlikely to build council houses—while the right to buy remains unfettered. If council houses are built in the lakes and the dales, they will be sold, and they will become Airbnbs and second homes before the year is out. What will the Government do to encourage the likes of my local authority to build with confidence that people can have affordable homes that they can guarantee will remain so?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the mayoral election in Cumbria will go ahead as planned and that the planned combined authority will be introduced without further hindrance, disruption or uncertainty? Will she also take this opportunity to review the other mistake that this Government have made on devolution in the last couple of years: the errors when it comes to what is referred to, wrongly, as “fairer funding”? Westmorland and Furness is the most rural unitary authority in England, and for that crime it has borne the penalty of a 31% cut in its funding from the Government, meaning that devolution no longer looks like devolution of power and instead looks more like a delegation of cuts for the people of Cumbria.
The current proposals for Devon were the brainchild of Exeter and Plymouth and were endorsed by the Conservative leader of Torbay council, and they resulted in a rural rump for Devon. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the rural rump of Devon will not rear its ugly head again?
North Norfolk has more than 2,000 people waiting for housing, a coastline that we are trying to prevent falling into the North sea and endless challenges from being an underfunded rural authority. Now it has been made to waste £600,000 on a local government reorganisation programme that the Secretary of State demanded and has now gone back on. One question will be about the future of devolution for Norfolk, but what people in North Norfolk will be thinking first is, “We want our money back.” Will she give it to us?
The Government talk a lot about how they will create economic growth. There is no way for them just to legislate their way to growth; there are, however, plenty of ways to legislate against it, as small rural businesses in North Norfolk know only too well. Will the Minister tell those rural businesses what she is doing to help them grow? More importantly, what things that get in their way will she stop doing?
Amendment 19 closes a dangerous gap in the Bill and commands the support of Members from across the House. It is right that clause 4 calls for the Health Secretary to reduce inequality of access to health services, but the Bill must explicitly cover rural and coastal health inequalities, or else less densely populated communities will always lose. At face value, it makes sense to measure success by the greatest number helped; however, in the long run, that is a false economy, as delayed diagnosis and treatment ultimately cost the NHS more. It is a little bit like access to high-speed broadband—we rolled out the first phase to the places where the most people could be connected, which rewarded the Government and providers with some impressive-sounding numbers while disguising failure in the margins. Rural and coastal communities are literally and politically at the end of the line, and are therefore reached last.
I absolutely agree. In order to achieve genuine equality of access, the Government must go outside-in; in other words, they must design provision around the hardest places to serve—my hon. Friend gives a great example—and then work inwards from there. “If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the remote outback, we can meet the needs of people living in rural and coastal England.” Those are the words of the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) when he was Health Secretary. Not only do I agree with him, but I challenge the current Health Secretary to turn her Government’s own words into law. We got it wrong with broadband; we cannot afford to get it wrong with people’s health. In North Norfolk, I see the struggle for health access and outcomes at first hand. People living on the coast start with half the access that those in inland areas have. Conventional service models assume that people can access healthcare from any direction, but for our coastal communities, half of the area is the sea. The sea may be beautiful, but it does not run a bus service, staff a clinic, or provide a patient catchment. Coastal communities, which may have sparse populations and poor transport, need more local points of care, not fewer. On top of that, the services we do have are burdened by exceptionally long waits. We are not unique in this; some of the poorest healthcare access and outcomes can be found in communities like mine. We know the challenges for health and wellbeing in these areas from the excellent work of Professor Sir Chris Whitty. He spelled out that we suffer from shorter life expectancy and higher rates of major chronic illness, higher rates of alcohol and drug-related harm, and more cardiovascular and chronic lung conditions. These are very serious problems, and they cannot remain an afterthought in national health policy. National systems must not mistake population density for severity of need. Besides, when problems are caught earlier and treated faster, it leads to better outcomes. That is one of the reasons why I was so frustrated to be told by the Government before recess that they have “no plans” to provide an urgent treatment centre at Cromer hospital in my constituency, although it would transform access to urgent care across North Norfolk. I am putting the Department on notice today: my constituents and I will continue pressing the case until Ministers reconsider. Let me tell the House what these inequalities mean in human terms. They mean that constituents like Kelly, who has been waiting more than 70 weeks for a hip replacement, are living every day in pain. Another constituent, Samantha, told me that she waited 30 weeks to see a gynaecologist. The NHS standard is 18 weeks. Appallingly, our wait times made a young woman so unwell that she was forced to sacrifice her education; during the wait, her symptoms worsened to the point that she had to step back from the degree that she was studying for. I heard from Ian, who has metastatic prostate cancer and requires treatment at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. It is a half-day trip for him by car to get the essential treatment that he needs. He told me that he considered using a local bus service, but that it would be an hour just to get there. He lives with a damaged bladder, due to his condition, and he told me that it makes life “very unpleasant”. I would go further and say that it is undignified and dehumanising.
I could not agree more. That is one of many respects in which rural and coastal communities around the country have much more in common with each other than with their inland neighbours just a few miles away. Theoretically available treatment becomes practically inaccessible if it requires a journey to be made without reliable toilet access, as in Ian’s case, and in cases where access to private transport is more limited, as in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises. Kelly, Samantha, Ian and so many more are entitled to the same access to good treatment and the same chance of good health as people living in urban and inland communities. It is absolutely right for the Government to pursue this Bill, and I support their aim wholeheartedly, but I challenge them to assess the Bill based on who is left behind, not just who can be helped. Accept this amendment, or explain why rural and coastal communities do not merit explicit protection.
The Chancellor promised growth in every postcode, which must include rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton, and not just our cities and towns, yet rural England’s productivity sits at just 69% of the non-rural rate, costing our economy billions in lost revenue every year. That is not just a rural problem but a national one. What is the Chief Secretary doing to create opportunity in the countryside and unleash the full potential of rural Britain?
As my hon. Friend will know, the chief medical officer’s rural health report is due later this year. Rural health cannot be seen as an afterthought. That is why I tabled new clause 120, which would create a farmer-friendly general practice scheme, similar to the veteran-friendly accreditation scheme; it would recognise GPs who proactively reach out to isolated farming communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must treat the rural health report’s recommendations as a genuine test of action, and not just warm words?
Devon is one of 14 areas where local government reorganisation is being reviewed and paused, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having listened to Liberal Democrats in Devon and perhaps also to her legal advisers. When the rapid review takes place, will the Secretary of State please consider the greater costs associated with delivering in the countryside, such as rural Devon?
Local councils across South Cambridgeshire spent time and money in good faith preparing for local government reorganisation according to the Government’s criteria and timelines. Businesses in one of the fastest growing areas of the country welcome the prospect of certainty with a final decision, yet further delay leaves them all in limbo. Does the Secretary of State agree that chaos is not good for local democracy and not good for investment? Will she meet me and local council leaders to understand the implications of this decision for Cambridgeshire?
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Some constituents are facing exorbitant service charges for retirement properties inherited from a family member that are proving impossible to sell. One of my constituents is paying £770 a month in service charges for an empty one-bedroom flat, after inheriting the home from their late mother. What steps will the Government take to regulate the sector and stop these companies ripping people off?
7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of planning policy on green-belt land in Esher and Walton constituency.
The Government changes to planning rules are of considerable concern to my constituents and are leading to speculative applications everywhere. Theoretically, the changes could mean that the whole of my constituency, which is 50% green belt and has seven stations, will be concreted over. My constituents are certainly not opposed to growth or house building, but they do not want to be ignored. The long-standing right of councillors to call in applications has been removed, which runs counter to the new Prime Minister’s values on devolution. That is why I wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 July. I have not had a reply to my question, so will she meet me to answer these questions directly?
My constituents in Esher and Walton, in Surrey, are left wondering whether they have been thrown under the bus by a Government who failed to be secure in the legal advice and the costs from the very beginning. This is incompetent. Will the Government release the legal advice? What are the legal implications for Surrey? What extra support will she give Surrey regarding the cost implications, given the gross underestimation of how much LGR would cost and the significant debt that Conservative Surrey has amassed in the two years that this has been going on under the unfair funding formula?
I was not in favour of the decision announced by the right hon. Lady’s predecessor before the summer break for a single unitary Gloucestershire. I would have preferred something more Cheltenham-centric. However, that decision seems to reflect the political consensus across the parties in Gloucestershire, so I have to ask the Secretary of State: is she in the business of overturning the political consensus across party locally in Gloucestershire? If not, will she just let us get on with it so that the councils can get on with doing the things that my residents want, including ensuring that there are no unwanted cuts to fire services because of cuts from Westminster to our budgets, that the town centre in Cheltenham is fixed up and that we get a tip reopened for Cheltenham? Those are the things my residents want. They are not so bothered about boundaries, even if they are concerned about Cheltenham losing its historic voice.
How is that far-right thugs in balaclavas were able to close Britain’s busiest port without the police receiving any prior intelligence? How is it that an apparently separate group with some commonalities was then able to blockade another site the next evening? Will the Minister tell the House whether she will review why the police were caught off guard? More shockingly still—or perhaps just as shockingly—no arrests have been reported. People have drawn comparisons this weekend with the hundreds of sign-holding protesters who have been arrested since July 2025 on other protests. Can the Minister understand why people are confused by the difference in approach? Can she also answer questions from Portsmouth Liberal Democrat council leader Steve Pitt about the lack of local consultation on identifying appropriate landing sites? That is a key question that needs answering, because it clearly caused problems in Portsmouth. Britain’s transport infrastructure cannot be left vulnerable to far-right mobs. It is a disgrace that this weekend, Reform MPs took to social media to fan the flames alongside people like Musk and Robinson. It is a disgrace that Members of this House support such vigilante action. It was the decision to leave the European Union, championed by those Reform Members and their allies in the Conservative party, that created the small boats crisis in the first place. We will only get a safe and controlled asylum system in line with British values if we join the EU migration and asylum pacts. That will also save taxpayers’ money. The Government are paying at least £500 million for a three-year agreement with France. More money will follow when the agreement is struck with Belgium. The UK’s contribution to join that pact, which would bring order and safety to the asylum system, would be significantly less than what we are currently pledging to pay in those agreements. Joining the pact must be top of the agenda when the Prime Minister meets EU leaders later this year.