5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   Business of the House

   I will be brief because my question has already been asked by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I met exactly the same group of hospitality business at Healing Manor in my constituency and Stallingborough Grange. The list of taxes, charges and levies the hon. Lady referred to reaches a total of 68, which is clearly unsustainable for many businesses. As well as the meeting with a Treasury Minister, which I understand has already taken place, may we have a debate on the subject—preferably in Government time—given that it affects constituencies across the country?

   Hansard source
2. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure

   It would be easy to see this conflict in purely geopolitical terms, but if I may be slightly philosophical for a moment, I would suggest that this is very much a battle between good and evil—between light and darkness. If seen in that context, it gives us a little bit more impetus to continue to do what the United Kingdom has been doing from the beginning of this war and to stay united across this House as much as possible, notwithstanding the comments on the temporary licences of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) with which I completely agree. Would the Minister like to join me in congratulating the new Government of Hungary on lifting the veto on the European peace facility, which will directly help Ukraine’s war effort? Is it not the case that the attacks on Poland, Romania, Moldova and the Baltic states are not an errant missile going astray but a probing of NATO and a testing of NATO and our resolve, and that that resolve must remain tough, strong and resolute? On the issue of Russian sanctions, which I have supported from the very beginning, is it not the case that the component parts of many of these ballistic missiles and drones are coming from North Korea, Iran and China—I thank Sir Richard Moore, the former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, for calling out China—and we need to take more action? Finally, may I put on record my condolences following the death of Sir Alex Younger, a former head of SIS who was a first-class public servant and dedicated his life to keeping this country and our allies safe.

   Hansard source
3. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Business of the House

   I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a boater, but if he is, I invite him to the Shropshire Union canal and, in particular, to visit the Shrewsbury and Newport Canals Trust and the excellent volunteers who do so much to help Shropshire tourism. May we have a debate on England’s canals and their importance for tourism and leisure, along with hotels, pubs, fishing and hiking? The overall offer alongside and connected to canals is worth a huge amount of money to counties such as Shropshire, but will the Government do more?

   Hansard source
4. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Clean Waterways: Thames Valley

   One of the sources of contamination that the Minister did not mention is human waste being discharged over the side from slum boats on EA land. The EA claims that its statutory obligation is only to register boats on its land when an application is received, and that it is discretionary. It basically does not police slum boats on its land. Will the Minister have a look at this issue and discuss it with the Environment Agency, so that slum boats on EA land can either be registered properly and policed, or moved on?

   Hansard source
5. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Topical Questions

   Agriculture offers enormous growth opportunities in the UK, and when it comes to precision breeding and plant protection, it is vital that the SPS deal maintains the UK’s right to diverge on the basis of its own scientific assessments, particularly in those sectors. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give such growth sectors in agriculture that that autonomy will be retained in any future deal?

   Hansard source
6. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure

   Eight years ago next month, Dawn Sturgess died in my constituency as a direct consequence of Russia’s attack, via Novichok, that aimed to take out Sergei Skripal. During that awful episode, it was quite clear that the work of our security services was instrumental in understanding the covert networks that Russia has across the globe. I pay tribute to Sir Alex Younger, who did so much to hold together an increasingly sophisticated capability to protect us in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister reassure us that continued investment will take place in whatever sophisticated surveillance of Russian assets across the globe exists, so we can ensure that we are one step ahead of Putin?

   Hansard source
7. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Business of the House

   Wiltshire council has assessed that the combination of the decision to stop the A303 tunnel at Stonehenge—despite £250 million already being committed to that, and spent—confirmation that the UK Health Security Agency will move to Harlow from Porton; the reduction to the rural grant; and Wiltshire having one of the lowest levels of police funding, as the police and crime commissioner tells me, means that Wiltshire’s GDP is at risk of falling by 6%. Could we have a statement from the Government on the effect of combined Government decisions on the Wiltshire economy, and what they propose to do to assist us through this time?

   Hansard source
8. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

   Business of the House

   May I welcome my guests to the Gallery? Part of our job at business questions is to act as a place of record, and this has been a grim week and a week of mourning for us all. First, we mourn for Henry Nowak. The whole House will know the terrible circumstances of his murder and will feel the deepest respect for the dignity of his family in the face of such a loss. We mourn, too, the tragic loss of the three Royal Navy crew killed yesterday when their helicopter crashed in Devon, and the loss of Lance Corporal James Freeman of the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died on Sunday during a training exercise in Erbil. We mourn the early death of Sir Alex Younger, as has already been mentioned in this Chamber. He was a friend to many in and around this House and did so much to protect this country in his long tenure as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. Finally, I hope I may record my personal sadness at the recent deaths of two true Conservative parliamentarians: Sir Alan Haselhurst and Sir Jeremy Hanley, who were both great public servants. In all these cases, we send our deepest condolences to their families, friends and comrades. I have two matters to raise with the Leader of the House. The first is a matter of housekeeping. Colleagues will know of my deep concerns about the current plans for the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster, the lack of scrutiny they have received to date, and in particular the prospect of an uncapped budget potentially running up to an astounding £20 billion to £40 billion. The restoration and renewal client board last met on 2 March. At that meeting, I requested information, and I understood that my request had been agreed. Three months later, nothing has happened, as far as I am aware. I cannot even check the status of my request, because the minutes have not been published in either of the two parallel and apparently unconnected places on the parliamentary website. This is just not good enough. It is a disrespect to the Chamber and to the Palace as a whole. Very soon, the Government are expected to bring forward a motion asking colleagues to endorse a programme that could cost more than the original budget for High Speed 2. Just think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker— I hope all Members will think about it. At present, colleagues are manifestly under-informed and under- prepared. Can the Leader of the House therefore reassure us that there will be proper time for scrutiny, both in the Public Accounts Committee and on the Floor of the House, and that at least three weeks’ notice will be given of any motion so that both Houses may prepare properly? Secondly, I raise a matter of both local and national importance. The Leader of the House will know that thanks to the Hay festival and now HowTheLightGetsIn, every year at the end of May, Hay and its environs in my constituency become the world capital of ideas. As Arthur Miller once described it, Hay is the “Woodstock of the mind”, but it is also Hay-on-Wye, and the Wye—one of the loveliest rivers in Britain—remains in deep ecological distress. I have been campaigning on this issue for six years and progress, alas, has been fitful at best. The previous Government published a River Wye action plan, with up to £35 million earmarked to help deal with poultry manure and nutrient pollution, only for it to be discarded after the general election. But Herefordshire council and neighbouring councils have been working hard with farmers, conservation bodies and local partners, most recently through a new charter for the River Wye, an evocative statement of shared purpose across the catchment. The root problem is a lack of joined-up collective action and a regulatory system that remains woefully insufficient. The river runs through England and Wales, but pollution does not stop at the border, and neither should policy. We have always needed one single approach that brings everyone together, and one source of authority for the river. That is why I am proposing statutory River Wye commissioners, an inexpensive cross-border body for the whole catchment that would be created by an Order in Council, with a single recovery plan, proper shared data, published milestones and the authority to bring all parties—businesses, farmers, campaigners, ecologists, planning, conservation and enforcement—to the same table. May we have a debate in Government time on River Wye commissioners? Perhaps the Government can pick up my River Wye (Cleaning) Bill, so that this wonderful river can be given the clear, accountable and empowered cross-border support that it so urgently needs.

   Hansard source
9. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·James Wild

   Cost of Fertiliser

   5. What steps she is taking to help support farmers with the cost of fertiliser.

   Hansard source
10. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Cost of Fertiliser

    North West Norfolk is home to the leading UK producer of liquid fertilisers, whose production depends on urea ammonium nitrate. With no domestic supply and conflict in the middle east constraining global markets, the United States is our primary reliable source. Will the Minister urge the Department for Business and Trade to suspend the 6% import tariff on US origin UAN in order to protect farmers and food prices?

    Hansard source
11. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Home-to-School Transport

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this important debate, and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions. When introducing the debate, the hon. Gentleman rightly advocated for his constituents, talking primarily about North Yorkshire. Although he left in some political barbs about his Conservative-controlled local council, he, like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), had the decency to recognise that the problem is not local, but is faced by all counties and councils. My right hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) highlighted the scale of the challenge in North Yorkshire, which is now the highest spending local authority in the country, at £52.5 million a year. When talking about North Yorkshire specifically, we must consider the context of the council having one of the worst outcomes in the country from the Government’s so-called “fair” funding review, as well as losing the rural services delivery grant. I am afraid to say that this Government have whacked rural areas quite broadly. Honestly, it is felt on the Opposition Benches that that takes a partisan flavour. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) made a fluid and passionate speech. I am not familiar with the geography of his part of Kent, but it is clearly not sensible for councils not to take into account where bodies of water are—obviously, that is utterly ridiculous. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said that the failure of local authorities to build spaces locally is upstream of this issue, and that building places locally where children and parents want them would help remedy the problem. The speech from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) was one of the more moving contributions to the debate. He articulated the story of Lewis, which is disgraceful. I hope that in the Minister’s response, she will assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get the changes that he is campaigning for. The hon. Members for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for Woking (Mr Forster) talked about the necessity of safe walking routes to school. Often, councils mark their own homework in determining that, so I would be interested to hear how the Minister might be able to hold councils to account on upholding their statutory obligation. In this country, legislation is intended to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education due to lack of transportation, which all hon. Members here support. However, the reality is that growing demand and spiralling costs are causing councils to question the sustainability of their current policies. An estimated 520,000 pupils use local authority-funded home-to-school transport, which cost councils a staggering £2.3 billion in 2023-24—a 70% real-terms increase on the cost in 2015-16. Of that money, £1.2 billion was spent on transporting under-16s with special educational needs to school—a figure that has gone up by 106% in real terms since 2015. Home-to-school transport is about more than just getting children to school. The Public Accounts Committee found through its evidence gathering that for many children and young people, home-to-school transport is also about gaining a sense of independence, building their confidence and preparing for life beyond school; I know from speaking to my constituents that it is also relied on by parents so that they can go to work. However, the figures show that the rising cost of home-to-school transport is placing significant financial burdens on councils, which, they warn, is making delivery of their statutory obligations increasingly unsustainable. If meeting statutory obligations is becoming an increasing challenge, the non-statutory things that make our communities what they are all get squeezed. We also know that local authorities are consistently spending more on home-to-school transport than they have budgeted. In my time in the cabinet of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in the mid-2010s, the home-to-school transport budget was one that continually popped out with significant pressures. I know that it is many magnitudes different today. We have to look at how we can make home-to-school transport more sustainable for the future. We have had many discussions in this House about the pressure on the SEND system more broadly. While many questions remain, it is right that the Government are talking about reform. Children deserve the right support, and parents want a system that works for them and not against them. As Members have highlighted, the huge increase in the number of children with EHCPs, which went up by 166% between January 2015 and January 2025, has had a knock-on impact on demand for home-to-school transport. The National Audit Office estimates that around a third of pupils with EHCPs attend special schools. As those schools tend to serve broader geographical areas, it is more likely that their pupils will live beyond a statutory walking distance and therefore qualify for transport. A survey conducted by the Local Government Association suggests that the average cost per child of providing SEND transport is now nearly £9,000 per year. That is almost triple the average cost of providing mainstream transport, which is just over £3,000 per child. Effective SEND reform is essential if councils are going to be able to sustain school transport services for those who rightly require them. For SEND children, the Education Secretary has said that the Government will “respond to the challenges that local authorities are facing with home-to-school transport…by improving provision closer to home.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 75.] That is welcome in principle. However, we know that implementing that scale of reform will take a substantial amount of time. The bulk of the reforms will not be introduced until 2029 at the earliest. Local authorities and children who rely on their services need help now, not in three or four more years. In some instances, I am afraid to say that we are actually going backwards. In my own constituency, the much-needed Chiltern Way Academy Trust, a 100-place specialist school that was promised for west Windsor, was withdrawn from the Government’s free school programme. Instead, £5.4 million of additional high needs capital funding was offered and accepted by the Liberal Democrat-controlled royal borough. In my view, that is a deeply disappointing short-termist decision. I am sure that is a story replicated across many constituencies across the country. What are the Government are doing now to help local authorities cut the ballooning cost of home-to-school transport in the immediate term? What specific assessment has the Minister’s Department conducted of the longer-term impact of SEND reforms on the cost of home-to-school transport? The Public Accounts Committee has warned that plans to write off 90% of the historic deficit from overspend on SEND “fail to take into account burgeoning home to school transport costs.” I implore the Minister to urgently clarify what those funding arrangements will actually mean for home-to-school transport cost pressures. It is also worth highlighting that school places nearer to home could go a long way towards supporting young people to build their independence as they move into adulthood. While independent travel is not possible for everyone, it is right that the Government make every effort to support those who could use public transport to start building experiences while they are in school. The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport found that travel experience from daily to-and-from school transport could help children to become independent and use public transport. In some cases, helping children gain the tools that they will need is what true support might look like. Rather than launching attacks on individual councils for decisions to align their policies with DFE guidance and address rising, unsustainable financial pressures, we need to look at how we can support all councils to manage those pressures and make home-to-school transport sustainable for the future. That is not just an issue facing a handful of councils. The spiralling cost of home-to-school transport is a nationwide issue, and without urgent action from the Government, those pressures will only continue to grow.

    Hansard source
12. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

    I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Britannic Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, particularly as we welcome much in the direction that the Minister has outlined in his statement on behalf of the Government today. Too often, children’s social care is discussed only when tragedy strikes, yet for thousands of children, foster carers, kinship carers and care-experienced adults, these issues are daily realities. They deserve serious and sustained attention from those in all parts of the House. As Conservatives, we believe that strong families, strong communities and strong relationships are the foundation of a flourishing society. The Government have a duty to protect vulnerable children, but we must recognise a simple truth: the state can never replace the love, commitment and sense of belonging that family provides. One of the most powerful conclusions of the independent review of children’s social care was that every young person should leave care with at least one loving, enduring relationship in their life. That is not a party political aspiration; it is a profoundly human one. It should concern us all that so many care-experienced adults report having felt lonely and isolated during their childhood. Many of the themes in today’s statement build on reforms that have enjoyed cross-party support for some time, such as greater recognition of kinship care, stronger family networks, increased placement stability and better outcomes for care leavers. Those are objectives that Members across the House can unite behind. I particularly welcome the focus on kinship care. Having recently met kinship carers in my constituency, I have seen at first hand the remarkable role that they play. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends step forward in difficult circumstances to provide not only a home, but continuity, identity and belonging. I am proud that the last Conservative Government launched England’s first kinship care strategy. Kinship carers make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure that children receive the love and support they need, and they deserve recognition for that contribution. May I ask the Minister about the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Families rely on it and worry about its future. Will we see the results of that consultation? How will it interact with today’s announcements? We also welcome the focus on foster care. For too long, we have relied on the dedication of foster carers while asking them to navigate systems that can be fragmented and bureaucratic. If fostering hubs can improve recruitment, strengthen support and increase placement stability, they deserve serious consideration. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how those hubs will be distributed across the country. Likewise, the ambition to reduce the number of children placed far from communities is one that we strongly support. Every unnecessary move risks disrupting education, friendships and family connections. Stability matters. Almost half of foster carers say that they have had an unfilled space for a child in care in the past two years, often because they are waiting for a suitable match. What will today’s strategy do to improve matching and make the system easier to navigate for carers who are ready to provide a home? Conservatives have long understood the importance of society’s little platoons—the families, communities, faith groups and voluntary organisations that sit between individuals and the state. Many charities and community groups already provide extraordinary support to vulnerable children and care leavers, and their contribution should never be underestimated. We on the Conservative Benches also welcome the Minister’s determination to improve outcomes for care leavers. Too many still face a cliff edge when they leave care, with disproportionately poor outcomes in housing, employment and mental health. I would welcome further detail on the new metric to track the quality of the enduring relationships built by children in care. How will the Government measure such relationships? How will that be reflected in Ofsted inspections? Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be judged not by strategies or structures, but by outcomes. Will more children experience stable placements? Will fewer children be moved repeatedly? Will more young people leave care with secure housing, employment opportunities and strong relationships? Will local authorities have the workforce capacity to deliver these aspirations? Children who enter care have often experienced circumstances that most of us would struggle to imagine. They deserve not just safety, but hope; not just protection, but belonging. Where the Government act to strengthen families, support kinship carers, improve foster care and build lasting relationships, they will find us to be willing partners.

    Hansard source
13. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Jury Trials

    Sir Brian Leveson recommended removing the right to elect a jury trial in cases involving offences that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years. Cases would be heard by a judge, sitting alongside two magistrates, in a Crown court bench division. The Government’s proposals go much further. They seek to remove the right to jury trial for offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years. Cases would be heard by a judge sitting alone. Why have the Government departed from Sir Brian’s recommendations in two important respects, both of which make serious inroads into the right to be heard by a jury?

    Hansard source
14. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Jury Trials

    Given the Justice Minister’s conflicting remarks in the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee, and given the Solicitor General’s responsibility for upholding the rule of law, will she confirm whether a decision that a defendant on trial will face a judge, sitting alone, will be subject to judicial review?

    Hansard source
15. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Business of the House

    When it comes to planning policy, there is little I agree on with this Government. However, I hope that we can find some consensus on the point of retrospective planning applications. In the villages of Upton and Dinton in my constituency, land the size of football pitch was taken over the weekend and tarmacked, and mobile homes and caravans were installed, with no planning permission. It seems that a retrospective application enables those who breach the rules so egregiously not only to wash that away, but not to have to comply with things such as biodiversity net gain provisions, which a fresh planning application would. May we have a debate in Government time on how we shut down the ability for those who so egregiously breach the rules to obtain retrospective permission?

    Hansard source
16. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Jury Trials

    4. What advice she has provided to the Government on the potential impact of restricting the right to jury trials on the rule of law.

    Hansard source
17. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Jury Trials

    Imagine a scenario in which two individuals are both charged with the same offence and the factual matrix of each case is identical. However, the first defendant has a string of previous convictions, whereas the second has none. Under the Government’s proposal, the first defendant would be able to elect for a jury trial, depending on the length of the potential sentence, whereas the second would not. How does that align with the Solicitor General’s assessment of the rule of law?

    Hansard source
18. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

    As more and more fishermen and fisherwomen in Scotland and across the UK are struggling to keep their businesses afloat due to soaring fuel costs, they are marking the one-year anniversary of the Government selling our fishing industry down the river in their negotiations with the EU. Twelve years of access for EU boats to UK waters was signed away as part of that deal, and in return there is still no access to the EU defence fund. Fishermen and fisherwomen are yet to see a penny from the fishing and coastal growth fund, and we remain in the dark about whether we will get a gene-editing carve-out and practical transition period in the SPS agreement. A year ago, we Conservatives warned that Labour was trading away our precious UK fishing waters for little or nothing in return. Twelve months on, the evidence speaks for itself. We were right, weren’t we?

    Hansard source
19. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Business of the House

    Could we have a debate in Government time on performance and image-enhancing drugs? Last month, UK Anti-Doping released a survey that looked at 1,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 25; it showed that a third of them had taken IPEDs, and over 40% had seen repeated adverts for them online. This is a growing concern that I have been raising for the last number of years, and I am really concerned that the situation will get worse before it gets better. Could the Leader of the House use his offices to grant a debate on the subject in Government time, in which we could explore this issue as it relates to health, sport and education?

    Hansard source
20. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Pride Month

    Order. The hon. Lady has been here nearly two years. We must stop referring to Members by their names—it has been rife today. Members must be referred to by their constituencies, please.

    Hansard source
21. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Pride Month

    That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
22. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Business of the House

    The Government are missing a huge opportunity by not pushing development on brownfield land over green belt. My constituents believe this, and many Members across the House acknowledge it. In fact, if the Government wanted to, they could meet their housing target by prioritising development on brownfield land first. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is of the utmost importance, and that it should be debated on the Floor of the House at the earliest opportunity?

    Hansard source
23. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    The Backbench Business Committee met on Tuesday afternoon, with six of the eight Members who are due to be on the Committee. Our quorum is four, so I urge both the Government and our Liberal Democrat colleagues to ensure that we are up to full strength as soon as possible so that we can continue. We added a further 12 debates to our waiting list and attempted to use the time we have been allocated effectively. I understand that we will get a half day on Thursday 18 June, and I ask the Leader of the House for a business of the House motion so that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can give a Committee statement. That will be followed by a debate on the infected blood compensation scheme. The business in Westminster Hall on 11 June will be a statement from the Scottish Affairs Committee, followed by debates on freedom of religion and on secondary breast cancer. On Tuesday 16 June there will be a debate on community hospitals, and on Thursday 18 June there will be a debate on safeguarding human rights in supply chains, followed by another debate still to be confirmed. I understand that we are due for the estimates day debates soon; I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could announce when those will be. The Committee has set a deadline of Friday 12 June for requests for debates, so there is not much time. We invite requests from Select Committees and individuals, and we will determine those debates as soon as we can. Over the weekend was World No Tobacco Day. This afternoon we will be holding a celebration of 50 years of the all-party parliamentary group on action on smoking and health, a group I have had the honour of chairing for the last 11 years. All Members are welcome to join us in Dining Room A. We will also be celebrating the passing of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, so can the Leader of the House arrange for one of the Health Ministers to give a statement to the House on the next steps after the passing of the Act, in terms of regulations and the path towards a smoke-free England in 2030?

    Hansard source
24. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Cost of Fertiliser

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I regularly hear from farmers in my constituency. The shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), is today at the Royal Cornwall Show 2026, where he will no doubt hear about the challenges that farmers face as a direct result of this Government’s damaging policies. Add to that soaring energy and fertiliser costs, and it is no wonder that food prices continue to rise under this Government. Will the Minister demonstrate that she understands the urgency of this issue for farmers and consumers and urge the Chancellor to follow the Conservative plan to scrap the fertiliser tax—the carbon border adjustment mechanism—so that we can keep food affordable and back British farmers?

    Hansard source
25. 4 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    High Street Businesses: Government Support

    What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to make common cause with so many hon. Members. Our passion for our high streets—something we share, as proud representatives of our constituents—has come through in all the contributions to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for sharing that with us. I speak on behalf of my own wonderful high streets in Midhurst, Storrington, Arundel, Steyning, Petworth, Pulborough and Henfield —we are so lucky to have them, Ms Lewell. I hope that you will come and visit them, and the Minister always has an invitation to see the wonderful enterprises in my constituency. Here I fear that the consensus may break down a little, but I hope that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and his colleagues will join me in condemning the decision of my local Lib Dem district councils to increase parking charges and bleed the life out of our high streets—an unwarranted headwind, transferring economic life into the coffers of the town halls. I invite the hon. Member to join me in seeking to reverse that unwarranted decision. The Minister is a good man, and many of these measures were not of his making, but I fear that what we are seeing is the Government’s fundamental—albeit perhaps unintentional—misunderstanding of business: what it is to combine so many different factors of production, to take risks and to try to give back, through economic activity, to our communities. We heard many examples of that today. We heard about the difficulty for employers of making ends meet with the unwarranted increase in national insurance—not just the rate but, in particular, the threshold. Anyone who really understood the granularity of business, and the number and mix of part-time employees who were previously outwith the national insurance net, would never have made the decision to reduce the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000, encompassing at a stroke hundreds and thousands more employees. What do businesses do when faced with the anaemic top-line growth in the economy and the pressure on consumer household spending? They have to sit down on a Sunday afternoon and work through the shifts, trying to pare back hours and work out which employees they may let go. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) the challenges of making the business rates calculation add up. I accept that this challenging problem did not start at the last election—I am very ecumenical in that sense; it has been creeping up on us for a long time—but the first and best advice that I got was that when you are in a bit of a hole, you should stop digging. Rather than the permanently lower business rates that we were promised and that businesses relied on—many placed their votes accordingly —we have got permanently higher business rates. That started with a swingeing increase. The Government, under pressure from other parties represented in this House, listened—eventually—and have mitigated that increase through some welcome measures in the short term, but they have done nothing to provide the long-term relief that for many would mean they had a viable future as a business. I know that the Minister will have been given some brilliant lines to read out this afternoon, but I ask him, in all seriousness, to hear the will of the House on the perennial challenge of business rates, perhaps work on a cross-party basis and see what we can do over time to lance this very difficult boil. This is part of an overall picture of spending first and taxing second—certainly, that is the view of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, from his description of meetings with so many of his colleagues. The challenge is that we are just not seeing any top-line growth, any confidence in the economy, anything to make people think that it is a good idea to go and start an enterprise, to hire people, to take some risk in our high streets. We all want that for our communities. We want our high streets full of lively, independent, diverse shops catering to the needs of local people, not merely those catering to the lowest common denominator —vape shops—or, meritorious though they are, charity shops in perhaps too great an abundance. There is a real desire to work on the future of the high street, because we all care so much about it. We need the employment opportunities for our young people. We have heard about the challenges for the hospitality sector. VAT is of course one potential relief, but what people are telling me is, “Just do something. Stop piling more and more taxes and levies”—packaging taxes, bed taxes—“on us. Let’s have a little bit of a moratorium.” My party’s fully costed plan would go much further by taking 250,000 small businesses out of business rates entirely. I know that the Minister will disagree, but I am afraid that we would go back to the very settled status of employment law that was good enough for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It persisted for many years and gave many of our young people the opportunity to get their first foot on the ladder, particularly with starter jobs. Indeed, some hon. Members have spoken today about their own first experiences working in hospitality and retail. I will leave it there, but I am very keen to hear from the Minister what new hope he can inject into our souls and hearts—we want to take it back to our high streets to give people good cheer, so that they are no longer just surviving, but thriving. I leave the final word to the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary, a man infamous for his self-confidence and, I am told, more than a little ambition. Upon discovering that the nation’s growth plans are in the hands of the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), he said: “It doesn’t fill you with confidence.”

    Hansard source
26. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing the debate. When listening to his remarks at the beginning, the need to fix, or at least start to seriously address, transport isolation really resonated with me. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am going to talk about Aldridge train station. Mine is one a handful of constituencies that has a railway line but still does not have a train station. If we are serious about improving connectivity and the life chances of young people, we could improve so many things by simply getting on and delivering the train station. I think the Minister knows the history, but I will gently remind him of it. Perhaps he can pass this on to the Rail Minister in the other place, because I have suggestions on how we can fix things. To take a step back, we have a track in place. The council has secured the land for the car park and some exploratory work is ongoing, which I am grateful for. A business case was approved to reopen the line from Aldridge to Walsall, which would give us the connections we need into Walsall and beyond. I am not even pushing for the completion of the rail hub; I just want the link into Walsall, please. Andy Street made the business case and everything was going swimmingly until, sadly, we lost the mayoral election. I appreciate that that is democracy, but it is sad that Mayor Parker, the new Labour mayor, diverted the funds, meaning there was no money to deliver the project for Aldridge. Alongside that, we are waiting for a decision from the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway about an open access line that would enable a direct train service from Wrexham to Euston, coming through Aldridge. I back that service, but it must stop at Aldridge. It is incomprehensible that that line could be approved without a stop at Aldridge—I will not be the only one protesting if that is the case. Will the Minister urge the Rail Minister to work with me to deliver a railway station for Aldridge? It is not just about Aldridge; some people describe it as a village but it is actually a big village and a big community, and a station would serve a big area. I would like help in getting answers out of the mayor; the last time I wrote to him, he failed to respond. My ask to the Minister is simple: please work with me and let us get the train station delivered for the residents of Aldridge, as was promised a few years ago.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    Picking up on the point I raised in my contribution, if the Government are working with mayors and local authorities to deliver transport, will the Minister commit to working with me to get some answers from Mayor Parker to deliver Aldridge train station? Yes or no?

    Hansard source
28. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    South East Water: Disruption of Supply

    The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) asked a good question that the Minister touched on, but I want to press her further. Parts of Mereworth, Platt and Offham in my area were left not only without water, but without the support necessary for those who were most vulnerable, until two fantastic councillors, Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, both from East Peckham, really went in there and got into the fight with the water company to ensure that the water station was set up. What planning can the Minister help with to ensure that infrastructure is put in place? The water companies have got away with it for far too long. Let us not beat around the bush: South East Water has been the worst run company that I have ever come across and it is quite right that the leadership has gone. By the way, I have come across quite a lot of companies, so that bar is set quite high. The Minister has extraordinary discretionary authority to corral and coerce companies to act, so will she look at bringing forward a task group within regional areas to ensure that emergency water plans are in place? Otherwise this situation will happen again,

    Hansard source
29. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As you can see, a significant number of Members wish to participate. After the opening speech there will be an immediate time limit of three minutes per person. To discourage added minutes through interventions, I am not going to allow an added minute for any intervention. That does not mean you cannot intervene—you can—but the person speaking needs to know that they are not getting extra time as a result. I hope that is clear. I call Andy MacNae to move the motion.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    Order. The next ground rule is that we do not read interventions. I hope that is clear. An intervention is an intervention. It is not a pre-prepared speech to read into the record for the benefit of the local press. I call Andy MacNae.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    Order. It is quite clear that a number of Members who are not on the speakers’ list are seeking to intervene. That is fine, but please understand that you are expected to remain in the Chamber to hear the winding-up speeches.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Youth Mental Health Support

    I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members can participate only if they have had prior permission from both the Member in charge and the Minister. I know one or two other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Interventions, if they are taken, are permitted, but speeches are not, unless they have been cleared in advance.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    South East Water: Disruption of Supply

    (Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement following the disruption of water supplies throughout the area served by South East Water during the spring recess?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    South East Water: Disruption of Supply

    I thank the Minister for her obvious and genuine concern, and for the measures that she has sought to take. I join her in thanking the very many organisations that have sought to help us through this problem, and I include in that the employees on the ground at South East Water. Mr Speaker, you know that thousands of people in Herne Bay in my constituency and thousands more in Whitstable, in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), were left without water during the four hottest days of the year so far. That is totally inexcusable and totally unacceptable. Not only were households disrupted, but at the very time when they should have been having a glorious start to their season, guest houses, hotels, restaurants and pubs were shut, care homes had frightful problems, and a doctor’s surgery lost consultations, because they did not have water. There is no quick fix. The Broad Oak reservoir should have been built 50 years ago. It will take 10 years if we start tomorrow, but we have to try to make sure that in the coming months, because there will be more hot weather, this does not happen for a fifth time across Kent. Finally, I do believe that the water companies face a very real problem in the regulations as they stand. They are required by law to connect every new house to a supply, but they are not consultees in planning applications—we have to correct that. They have to be given a voice because they cannot spirit water out of thin air.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    As the right hon. Gentleman is going to talk about process, I would be very grateful if he could clear up one matter. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman’s integrity, and so I hope he will not dance around this subject, as has been done by others in the past. In the first tranche of documents there were a number of notes sent by private secretaries to the Prime Minister. If I were allowed to use a prop, I would open the documents to pages 3 and 8, where Members would see notes discussing the situation as regards how to appoint the ambassador, Peter Mandelson and so forth. Under those notes are big boxes headed “Prime Minister Comments”. The normal course of action when a Prime Minister receives a document of that sort is that he notes down his response to it. These boxes are totally blank. My simple question to the right hon. Gentleman is this: are they blank because the Prime Minister made no notes whatsoever or because any notes that the Prime Minister made have been redacted and removed? The Intelligence and Security Committee deals routinely with even more sensitive material, and every time there is a redaction in a publication, there are three asterisks to show that the redaction has taken place. Have there been redactions of the Prime Minister’s notes on these memorandums that were sent to him for decision?

    Hansard source
36. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    I want to clear up the point about precedents. It may be that I am wrong about this, but I do not think there is any precedent for the House deciding that the Intelligence and Security Committee specifically should look at material that was to be redacted before it went to the public. The Intelligence and Security Committee, as the Minister well knows, was founded in 1994. Since that time, there has never been even one leak from the Committee. So there is no comparison between making things available to the Intelligence and Security Committee—the only parliamentary body entitled to see highly classified material, and one which never leaks—and to any other body. While he says, “This is all led by officials. It is okay for the officials to see it, but not to release it to anyone else,” the reason the ISC was chosen for the motion is that it is within the ring of secrecy, and that is unaffected by any precedents regarding bodies that do not have that special status.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    I think it is worth just putting on the record the actual words from that due diligence note, which can be found on page 11 of the first volume. It talks about a 2019 report commissioned by JPMorgan: “The report cited Epstein’s personal records which showed contact beginning in 2002 and continuing throughout the 2000s. After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was business minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.” That is from a document which it is not in doubt the Prime Minister saw, yet he went ahead with making this appointment.

    Hansard source
38. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    At the beginning of her speech, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said most powerfully that what happened in relation to Epstein should alone have been a sufficient bar for anything to go further, but even if that had not happened, it was already in the due diligence document, purely on foreign policy grounds: the Prime Minister was told that Mandelson gave a speech at the University of Hong Kong where he claimed that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary remain intact there. In November 2024, I personally challenged the proposed appointment on the grounds that Mandelson had said in a radio interview that the basis for a settlement with Ukraine would be that Ukraine should give up to Russia all the land that Russia had so far occupied, and that Ukraine should give up any hope of ever belonging to the NATO alliance. These were political grounds that should have ruled him out. The Prime Minister knew about them, but nothing seemed to prevent him from following through on his intent to appoint such an unsuitable individual.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s analysis because the whole point of what we have been saying from the Opposition Benches is that the Prime Minister himself knew about these points: he knew what Mandelson had done in relation to Epstein; he knew what he had said in relation to justice in Hong Kong; and he knew what Mandelson had said in that radio interview because I had challenged him about it. I must say, although it may not meet the high standards of court litigation, that when the Prime Minister brushed aside my challenge to him on 21 November, he sat down with a very notable and ingratiating grin, and I turned to the person sitting next to me and said, “He’s definitely going to appoint Mandelson.” It was his decision.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    Surely that information would be precisely the kind that could be safely entrusted to the ISC, and it ought to have been entrusted with it.

    Hansard source