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

1. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

   Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

   Lebanese Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that, for too long, has caused harm to the Lebanese people, undermined the Government of Lebanon and threatened Israel. It is also part of a terror network that threatens our interests and security, and those of our friends in the middle east. The House should be in no doubt that Hezbollah continues to undermine efforts to secure peace in the region, and fails to comply with the terms of the 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire. What is the Minister’s assessment of Hezbollah’s actions when it comes to violating the ceasefire, and of the support that it has received from Iran? Does he agree that the interests of peace are best served by Hezbollah being permanently disarmed? The current conflict has caused terrible hardship in Lebanon and Israel, and the UK Government must use their influence and diplomacy in the region to help bring this to an end. We must see this conflict come to an end. Can the Minister tell us what direct discussions have taken place with representatives in Israel, Lebanon and the US Administration on the terms of a lasting ceasefire? What are the British Government doing to support the disarming of Hezbollah? What contributions and practical efforts are being made to fully implement the UN Security Council resolution 1701? Much of this leads back to the architect of so much disturbance in the middle east—Iran—so I will conclude my remarks by joining the Minister in condemning the strikes that took place today in Kuwait. Iran cannot carry on persisting in the way it is as a state sponsor of terrorism.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

   I will now announce the result of today’s deferred division on the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 153, so the Ayes have it. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

   Order. Regardless of whichever picture Mr Martin would wish to carry, it is always decent for Members to ensure that they are in the Chamber long enough before intervening on someone who is giving a speech.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   I echo the Prime Minister’s words on Lance Corporal James Freeman and about the Royal Navy helicopter crash in Devon. I also send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Henry Nowak. The circumstances around Henry’s wrongful arrest and tragic murder must be a wake-up call to the entire country and our institutions that every life matters, and it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to bring people together, not divide them. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Alan Haselhurst—Lord Haselhurst—who died on Monday. Sir Alan served Parliament for over 50 years, eight of them in the Lords and 40 years as my predecessor as MP for Saffron Walden, while from 1970 to 1974 he was the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich. He was respected on all sides of this House, and was elected multiple times as your predecessor as Deputy Speaker, before he concluded in the other place. Apart from serving his constituents, Sir Alan’s greatest passion in Parliament and perhaps in life was cricket, as you said, Mr Speaker. He was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket, a role which he encouraged me to take up and which I graciously declined, telling him I knew absolutely nothing about cricket. However, I think colleagues should know that Sir Alan’s intense lobbying is the reason that Sky Sports can be found on the parliamentary TV network. There is so much to say, but just to let everyone know, he was a good and kind man and he will be very much missed. My thoughts are with his wife Angela, his children Mark, David and Emma, and his grandchildren. May I ask the Prime Minister by how much the welfare bill has risen since he came to office?

   Hansard source
5. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   The Prime Minister does not seem to know the answer, so let me tell him: benefits alone have risen by £20 billion since he came to office. The Prime Minister has promised welfare reforms—we heard him say it just now—so why was there no welfare reform Bill in the King’s Speech?

   Hansard source
6. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   We need to bring down the benefits bill. The Prime Minister complains about the shadow Chancellor. The bill went up because of the pandemic and even then Labour Members were asking us to spend more. It is not the shadow Chancellor who is the problem; it is the actual Chancellor. She is not even in her place. The reason there is no welfare Bill is the Prime Minister has given up, and he has given up because Labour Members have given up on him. On Sunday, the Welfare Secretary was asked 12 times on national radio if he would make cuts to the benefits bill and 12 times he could not answer. So I will ask the Prime Minister: is he going to cut the benefits bill?

   Hansard source
7. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   The Prime Minister keeps saying he is bringing in welfare reforms. None of those things is going to cut the bill. Even his own Timms review explicitly says—this is their review; this is in the terms of reference—that this is not about generating proposals for further savings. The Prime Minister had a chance to cut benefits. Last year, I remember the Government were planning to cut benefits and on the Floor of the House they U-turned. What did he do when he had a chance? He caved. He caved to all the MPs behind him who do not want benefits brought down. That is why they are sitting silently behind him. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Welfare Secretary that that was the moment he lost his authority?

   Hansard source
8. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   He says he is proud of what they are delivering—I am glad to see that the Prime Minister still has his sense of humour, given we all know that he is losing his job soon. He has no authority, and we know why: his MPs will not let him do anything. The Welfare Secretary said in private what the Government will not dare say in public. He said: “Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’” Last week, Tony Blair said: “If the Conservative Party repeats its offer of working together on welfare, Labour should accept”. Today I am repeating that offer to the Prime Minister. Is he ready yet?

   Hansard source
9. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   The truth is that unemployment has risen every single month since they came into office. Mr Speaker, you can listen to their cheers get weaker and thinner with every passing moment. The fact is, despite his huge majority, the Prime Minister does not have the votes to reform welfare. There is a solution—a Conservative solution—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all jeering now, but I do not know why they are supporting the Prime Minister; he is more than happy to release their text messages while all of his have disappeared. Disappearing messages from a disappearing PM. There is a Conservative solution: benefits bill down, taxes down, growth up. Everyone in this House knows that the Prime Minister is just a caretaker keeping the seat warm for the Mayor of Manchester. But it does not matter who is in charge; Labour MPs will keep asking who they can tax to pay more benefits—it is in their DNA. The truth is that the problem is not this passive Prime Minister; the problem is the Labour party.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    South East Water: Disruption of Supply

    Mr Speaker, as an Essex MP, may I endorse your lovely tribute at PMQs to Sir Alan Haselhurst? He will be much missed, even though he did achieve a respectable innings of 88 years in his time on this earth. I strongly endorse the suggestion of my right hon. Friend from across the Thames, the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), about making water companies statutory consultees for planning applications. When there is an application for a large number of houses, the implications can be severe not just for fresh water, but for foul water and in particular for sewage. In my constituency, our sewage capacity is very nearly maxed out, and the implications of getting that wrong are frighteningly obvious. I can see that the Minister is helpfully nodding. Can we please change the law to make water companies statutory consultees, so that they can give expert advice on whether new planning proposals are feasible in reality?

    Hansard source
11. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Draft Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    Thank you, Mr Twigg, for your chairmanship. Fortunately for Members, I will be brief. The regulations before the Committee, together with the Minister’s comments and the assurances in the accompanying documentation, show that the legislation is limited in scope. Maintaining the current regulatory standard while updating it to be wholly in line with our post-EU relationship is clearly the right thing to do and the right step for the Government to take. Appropriately, the measure does not change the regulatory burden but retains the existing standards. I have some questions for the Minister about the change and what the Government intend to do regarding ASPA—the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act—after June. As the explanatory memorandum recognises, any further changes will require primary legislation. I recognise that this challenge has been noted across Government, and that certain Departments are taking steps to respond to it. Is the Minister confident that the Home Office will have the capability to make the changes it needs to? The consideration of animals in scientific procedures can often be fraught, with strongly held views on the subject. Given the sometimes arbitrary division of responsibilities between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps is the Minister taking to work across Government and with DSIT to ensure that the right regulations are in place to meet targets such as the 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates by 2030?

    Hansard source
12. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Improving the UK Visa System

    Thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing today’s debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. As he has highlighted, his thoughtful and comprehensive report sets out a series of practical proposals to close loopholes and strengthen our legal migration system. At a time when immigration remains one of the most important issues facing the country, any serious attempt to examine the system as a whole and identify where improvements can be made deserves careful consideration. Whatever view one takes of his recommendations, nobody could accuse my hon. Friend of lacking ambition. His 30 proposals provide a clear direction of travel, including tightening loopholes, strengthening incentives and ensuring that our immigration system works in the interests of the British people. Policy decisions matter. The Oxford Migration Observatory noted that the recent decline in net migration was driven largely by policy changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Those measures included restrictions on dependants, higher salary thresholds and tighter work visa requirements. They showed that when Governments are prepared to take difficult decisions and close obvious loopholes, migration can be brought down without compromising the principle of attracting talent. Those measures addressed mistakes that had been made, and it is notable that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), acknowledged those mistakes early in her leadership and accepted the need for change. She also rightly recognised that, since the change in leadership at the Home Office, the Government have taken some steps in the right direction. While many Labour MPs appear reluctant to support tougher measures, we have consistently said that where the Government bring forward sensible proposals to strengthen the immigration system, we will support them. I hope that the Government move quickly to implement their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain and to increase the qualifying period for settlement. Such reforms are long overdue.

    Hansard source
13. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Improving the UK Visa System

    There are real challenges in our immigration system, with real costs and pressures on our public services. We have to do something about it. What might be halfway for somebody at this point in time is day one for somebody else. We back the Government. We will look at what they bring forward and take it from there, but we are determined to support them where sensible measures are brought forward. As today’s debate has demonstrated, immigration policy cannot be reduced to a single issue. Settlement matters, but so do work visas, family routes, student migration and enforcement. The system must operate as a coherent whole. Focusing on one area while weakening another risks undermining the overall objective. That brings me to one of the recommendations highlighted in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. This is an issue on which I would welcome clarification from the Minister: the proposal to make remote English-language testing the default method of assessment. It raises a broader question about the future direction of the immigration system: in seeking efficiency and convenience, are we risking the robustness and integrity of existing safeguards? For many years, the Home Office has relied on a small number of trusted providers delivering secure English language tests in controlled environments, but the Government now intend to move increasingly towards remote assessments.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Improving the UK Visa System

    There is a role for the British Council, but when it comes to remote testing, we have had a standard that the public has confidence in, and although this might be more efficient, it might undermine public confidence in the process. As has been said, organisations such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants are moving back to in-person examinations in order to protect test security and integrity. Is the Minister confident that the safeguards proposed will be sufficient? Although it may seem to be a technical issue, it illustrates a wider concern. Every change to the immigration system should strengthen and not weaken public confidence. Those of us who spent many hours serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 debated numerous proposals to strengthen the Government’s response to both legal and illegal migration. Unfortunately, many of those measures were rejected. One proposal that continues to warrant serious consideration is the introduction of an annual migration cap approved by Parliament. The Government have repeatedly opposed such a measure, but they are quick to celebrate any fall in migration figures. If migration levels matter—and clearly, they do—Parliament should have a greater role in scrutinising and setting expectations around them. Such a system would provide greater transparency and accountability. Parliament would have oversight of visa numbers across different routes and Ministers would be required to justify the choices they make.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Improving the UK Visa System

    The idea that we, as a Parliament, have the right to scrutinise the decision-making process, to decide how many people should come and by what means, is a real positive. It is a real positive for public confidence and it improves transparency, so I support the idea of a cap for that very reason. It would be for us to debate and decide in this very House who should and should not come to this country.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Improving the UK Visa System

    That is a very good question. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a lot of mistakes were made along the way. We have looked at what worked well. In fact, much of the reduction in those legal migration numbers is, as we have said, a result of the moves made by the last Government. We are looking at this afresh. We have talked about leaving the European convention on human rights and we have come forward with a real plan that would allow us to control our borders. Alongside greater accountability, we must continue to close temporary visa loopholes and move towards a system focused firmly on attracting high-skilled talent. That requires robust salary thresholds, clear eligibility criteria and, crucially, a determination to equip people already living in this country with the skills that employers need. At present, we find ourselves in an absurd situation where vape shops on our high streets have been able to sponsor visas on the basis that they require skilled migrant labour. At the same time, the National Farmers’ Union is forced to lobby the Home Office for greater flexibility on seasonal agricultural workers. Whatever view one takes of individual visa routes, that cannot represent a coherent approach to immigration policy. I recognise the challenges associated with relaxing restrictions in any area of the system, but there must be consistency. If the objective is to prioritise highly skilled migration, the system should reflect that objective in practice. The fact that some of the businesses currently able to sponsor visas appear far removed from that aim suggests that further reform is needed. For too long, Governments of different colours have relied on immigration to fill shortages that should also be addressed through training, apprenticeships and investment in the domestic workforce. The answer is not simply to import labour indefinitely; it is to build skills at home while ensuring that, where genuine shortages exist, our visa system can respond effectively and competitively. On that front, the Government’s record is disappointing. Rising unemployment, particularly among younger people, demonstrates the need for a more serious focus on training and workforce development. This improvement needs to be reflected in the numbers. The recent immigration data, while a step in the right direction, still shows significant non-EU migration, higher than in the equivalent period in the 2010s. That is accompanied by still large numbers of people, including British nationals, leaving. We need a visa system designed to support a high-skill, high-wage economy, not one that allows people to game the system. I recognise that the Government remain sceptical of many of the proposals put forward. Nevertheless, I hope Ministers will give serious consideration to the recommendations outlined in the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Reducing migration numbers matters, but so too does restoring confidence that the system is fair, controlled and working in the interests of the British people.

    Hansard source
17. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. My constituency has 11 railway stations, the largest port in the country and an international airport, so people might think that it would be of major interest to the Department of Transport, with the focus entirely on the Brigg and Immingham constituency. Sadly, it is not as easy to get around the constituency as people might imagine. In addition, five railway stations in the Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency also serve my constituents. Nevertheless, getting around my area is not as easy as it should be. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), has outlined our long-running campaign—it has been running for 15 years now—to secure a direct service from Cleethorpes, through my constituency, to London. There are five trains a day from King’s Cross to Lincoln, and it would take a small amount of money to run those Azumas through my constituency before they finish their journey in Cleethorpes. However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Department for Transport has made endless objections and said that such a service cannot be delivered. The Father of the House also mentioned the service from Gainsborough to Cleethorpes, which passes through Brigg. Brigg, a town of 5,500 people, should have better rail connectivity than it does. It has a railway station, and there used to be a roof over all of it. It was a fantastic station—very much like Gainsborough Central used to be—but sadly it is a pale shadow of its former self and now has only one platform, although, unlike Market Rasen station, it has a bridge to allow people to get over to the other platform, even if that other platform is out of use. Improving rail connections through to Cleethorpes is important. It would help the leisure sector considerably. The service from Cleethorpes through my constituency to Barton-upon-Humber is a two-hourly service. The Barton Cleethorpes community rail partnership, which is very active and takes a close interest in the operation of the service, has been campaigning to increase that to one service every hour. I urge the Minister to consider that proposal if he can. Let me return to the Brigg service. We hear much about the creation of Great British Rail, but Northern Rail, which runs the service from Gainsborough to Cleethorpes, has been in public ownership since 2020, so the Minister could have delivered on this. I acknowledge that previous Ministers could also have done so, but it is his job now. I challenge him to say, when he responds to the debate, that he will consider and deliver the proposal.

    Hansard source
18. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

    I join the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—she is just returning to her place—in seeking to support capacity building in the Lebanese army, which is absolutely right. I also join the Minister in recognising the courage of the President and Ministers in the Lebanese Government, particularly in their public condemnation of Hezbollah and even, indirectly, of Iran. Could he confirm that it is the view of the British Government that not all those who follow the Shi’a tradition of Islam, in both Lebanon and Iran, necessarily support Hamas, Hezbollah or the evil Iranian regime? I put on record my condemnation of both Hezbollah and Iran, which have basically caused this latest conflict in Lebanon. It is absolutely clear that Israelis should be able to live in peace, without fear of being bombed by drones or missiles. Does the Minister share the view of the French envoy to the United Nations that Israel needs to learn the lessons of its occupation of Lebanon in the year 2000? Does he also recognise the words of Danny Danon—as the Minister will know, he is the Israeli envoy to the UN—when he said that Israel is not seeking to expand the conflict or retain territory in Lebanon? If that is indeed the position and policy of the Israeli Government, it is welcome, but it does seem at odds with some of the public utterances of the current Israeli Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
19. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to ask about the process of the appointment, rather than the process of the release of the papers, which I think he is about to move on to. I have previously spoken in this House about the process in the future, and I think the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has made not-dissimilar comments. Whether we have a future Conservative Government—hopefully—or another Government, we should have pre-appointment scrutiny of senior posts, both ambassadorial appointments and, I would argue, permanent secretaries of Departments. That would be a safer way of doing things. On senior appointments to the ISC—there are lots of current ISC members present in the Chamber, as well as former members such as myself—the Paymaster General will know that the appointment is made by the Prime Minister, but the double-lock mechanism ensures that the House has a say and can veto appointments if necessary. I am not necessarily asking for that mechanism, but certainly the relevant Select Committee should carry out pre-scrutiny for senior appointments of ambassadors and other senior officials, whether they are political appointees or not. I think that would help the whole House, whatever our politics.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023

    6. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023

    In the Secretary of State’s wide consultation, did he consult General Sir Nick Parker, who suggested that there should be no further criminal investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions unless there is new and compelling evidence that was not available at the time of the event?

    Hansard source
22. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for seasonal hospitality businesses in coastal areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. This debate concerns a set of issues that affect about one third of UK constituencies directly—constituencies with a coastline, including estuaries. It is therefore not a niche set of issues that affect only my constituency on the Isle of Wight, although they are vital for my constituency. It is a set of issues that go to the heart of so many constituencies in our island nation and so many out-of-the-way communities with long-standing structural challenges. I am grateful to cross-party colleagues who are attending this debate.

    Hansard source
23. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I agree with my hon. Friend; I will join him in that call. Indeed, he has dealt with an element of my speech nice and early, so I thank him for doing so. According to UKHospitality, the sector accounts for around 10% of all UK jobs nationally. In tourism-led coastal communities it provides as much as 50% of local employment. On the Isle of Wight, tourism accounts for 38% of economic activity and is the biggest employment sector locally. When the sector suffers, coastal communities suffer in a way that is greater than elsewhere. Coastal areas have faced challenges for decades, with cheap competition from holidays abroad, changing holiday preferences, an increase in the relative cost of travel, older population demographics, fewer job opportunities, and a lack of investment in infrastructure. High streets have suffered from dereliction and neglect, with all the societal challenges that follow.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is ahead of me: I will address the issue of business rates and VAT presently. There are plenty of green shoots, however, in many of the communities, and brilliant local leaders trying to drive change, such as Lawrence Bates at the Wildheart Animal Sanctuary in Sandown, and Ian Boyd, founder of the Common Space. Start-ups and small businesses in hospitality are a major driver of regeneration and innovation, for example the Point in Bembridge, Braai in Brading, and the Sandown Boulevard street food market. But the Government have a role in creating an environment for hospitality to thrive.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is also ahead of me: I will address the tourism tax in my speech. As I say, the Government have a role in creating an environment for seasonal hospitality to thrive, but in my view this Government have done the opposite. I do not accuse the Government of setting out to make life harder for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas, but I do hold them responsible for being careless about how their policies, in particular taxation, have fallen on communities such as mine. It is time for the Government to recognise that and make amends.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I agree with the hon. Member that there needs to be long-term support, but also immediate relief. Again, he pre-empts some of the points I am going to make—I realise that my introduction was perhaps a bit longer than it should have been, considering that other Members are making all the excellent points that I am about to. Since the 2024 Budget, the hospitality industry has lost more than 100,000 jobs. Between January and March of this year alone, the equivalent of three hospitality businesses closed every single day. The sector was hit with a £3.4 billion annual cost increase from that Budget. The 2025 Budget added more through business rate changes and wage increases. It is therefore hardly a surprise that we have seen job losses on this scale. The Government are refusing to take responsibility. How can they do the right thing now if they do not recognise the harm that is being caused and felt from their own tax policies? Some of the most significant damage done by the Government is to the employment opportunities for young people. Youth unemployment is up; indeed, it is now higher than in the period coming out of covid. The Government’s hike in national insurance, extending it to more part-time work, and changes to the minimum wage that reduce the competitive advantage of employing young people are also major drivers of that unemployment. It is not just theory; we are seeing the real-world consequences in the data and in our communities.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I would urge the hon. Member to do all that she can to encourage her ministerial colleagues to improve the lot for young people. The fact remains that youth unemployment is going up and coastal communities are suffering. I would welcome any intervention that the hon. Member can bring about through her powers of persuasion. In coastal communities, hospitality provides flexible, accessible, seasonal work that simply does not exist in the same volume anywhere else in the local economy. More than half the sector’s workforce is part time. For many young people—students, carers, people managing health conditions—that flexibility is what makes work possible. Job postings for temporary hospitality work were down by 25% in 2025, year on year. For many people, summer jobs are their first job. They are jobs that give a young person in Ryde, Shanklin or Ventnor their first pay slip and their first employer reference. There are 67 pubs in Isle of Wight East, four breweries, and 1,200 jobs in the sector, generating £40 million for the local economy. Nationally, the pub and brewing sector contributes £34 billion and generates £17 billion in tax. Those are not small numbers. Of course, pubs are about more than just pints. A third of drinks sold in hospitality are spirits, such as Mermaid Gin on the Isle of Wight. When distillers suffer, pubs suffer and vice versa. The Bugle Inn in Brading sadly closed its doors for the final time just four days ago. Jasmine and Daniel were clear about the reasons why: “We have become another victim of the current pub crisis. In the past 2 years, many of the taxes we pay to the Government have increased drastically, our gas and electricity has increased by almost double, the cost of ingredients has increased, some by as much as quadruple, wages have risen rapidly and business rates have increased.” They go on to say: “We have made the decision to leave the industry that we love and close the Bugle down.” The Pointer Inn, in Newchurch, has taken aim at the Chancellor herself: “The absolute legend Rachel Reeves”. It also took aim at her “nice pub tax”, adding an AI image of what the pub might look like shortly. Then there is the Hare and Hounds, which is located just outside Newport and dates back to the 1730s, but has now been shut. I turn to the holiday tax, or the visitor levy, which has already been referred to. This is an overnight visitor levy, which is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Coastal tourism visits have already fallen by 10% since April last year. Analysis by Oxford Economics suggests that if a 5% levy of the kind operating in Edinburgh was fully introduced by 2030, we would see a £1.8 billion reduction in tourism spending, 33,000 jobs being lost and 9 million fewer nights being spent in accommodation. These are not small margins. In coastal communities, where summer trading keeps businesses viable through the winter, the damage would be concentrated and severe.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    The hon. Gentleman is right, we need both. Our tourism and hospitality sector is one of the most highly taxed tourism and hospitality sectors, compared with our European neighbours, who already have a cost-competitive advantage.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I understand that the hon. Lady is trying to sell her own Chancellor’s policies, but this support is pretty thin—a short, indeed temporary, VAT tax giveaway, set against the severe damage done by two successive Budgets, which runs into the tens of billions of pounds. On business rates, the hospitality sector pays 10% of all eligible business rates but accounts for only 2% of relevant economic activity. That equates to an overpayment of £1.8 billion. The Government legislated for a 20% discount; what they have delivered is a 5% discount. Without a sector-wide solution, 963 restaurants and 574 hotels could face closure this year, and we are already seeing closures.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I agree with all those comments. The Government should do all they can to support this sector. I say again that coastal communities face some of the biggest structural challenges, in terms of both demographics and geography, of any of our communities. That is why the Government should have a particular focus on these areas. I will finish by speaking briefly about transport. A House of Lords Select Committee identified in 2019 and again in 2023 that poor transport connectivity is holding coastal communities back. The Isle of Wight knows that better than most places. The Government have made no specific investment plans for transport in coastal communities. Instead, for the Isle of Wight, the Government have increased the already rip-off costs of crossing the Solent by car—of course, the Isle of Wight is completely reliant on ferries for transport to and from the island—and have done that by introducing a new emissions trading scheme tax, which they have not applied to Scottish islands with smaller populations and have not applied in full to Northern Ireland with a bigger population. It is insulting and inexcusable. The Government say that they want coastal communities to succeed, but a whole string of policies and tax-and-spend decisions do not support that aim. Indeed, many directly undermine it. I therefore call on the Government to support seasonal hospitality in coastal areas by scrapping their plans for the overnight visitor levy, introducing a national insurance holiday for businesses employing young people and those not in employment, education or training, and scrapping business rates for thousands of hospitality businesses up and down the country permanently. The Government should stop trying to convince businesses, whose rates are going up, that they are going down—businesses know what their rates are. They should urgently publish the promised visitor economy growth strategy and disapply the ETS tax on car ferry travel to the Isle of Wight, bringing it in line with every other UK island that will pay nothing. Our hospitality businesses are resilient and have survived a great deal, but resilience has limits. I hope that the Minister can offer the House and my constituents some genuine reassurance this afternoon.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

    I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, it falls short of what we are calling for, but I thank her for her consideration. I urge her to continue to consider providing more support and better relief for those living in coastal communities.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    It is a great pleasure to be the last Back-Bench contributor. I actually mean that, because unlike some debates which we have all been in, this one has been characterised by knowledge and a really serious approach to the subject in hand. I have learned a lot, and I am grateful for many of the contributions made. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made quite a good point when he said that he was surprised there were not more people in the Chamber to take part in the debate. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Chamber is relatively sparsely populated is that this feels like old news. It is easy to lose the sense of wonder and shock at the seriousness of the allegations that led to the Humble Address. It is old news that Peter Mandelson was grossly unfit for public office—we have known that for decades. Tony Blair knew it, because he sacked him for dishonesty not once but twice. We have known for years that Peter Mandelson was a byword for double-dealing—after all, his nickname was the Prince of Darkness, and that did not come from nowhere. We have known for years, unfortunately, of his continued friendship with his best pal, Mr Epstein—that they were such close friends, and that Mandelson was so on Epstein’s side that he stayed in Epstein’s house even when Epstein was in prison for child sexual offences. We say that too often without stopping to realise what it actually means. It is an extraordinary statement. We knew that. The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson despite knowing those things and despite having advice on vetting from his then Cabinet Secretary. He ignored that advice. This, of course, is the Prime Minister who famously said that he was going to put “country before party”. On this occasion, he appeared to put party before national security. It is pretty serious. Some months ago, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Government attempting through obfuscation to cover up this scandal. They whipped their Back Benchers to vote down the release of relevant documents, which was such a grubby move that it fomented such revolt among Labour Members that the Government were forced into a climbdown. Then there were not one but two stolen phones. I accept that perhaps that happened, but there were also no messages from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no messages from the Deputy Prime Minister—although we know that no one tells him anything, so perhaps we have not missed anything there—and no messages from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, either. We also had the use of disappearing messages, with no record kept by the Prime Minister, in direct contradiction of Cabinet Office guidance for the retention of records. All that was found out drip by drip, one painful and damning piece of evidence after another, as a result of the Conservative-led Humble Address. Yet we are still not at the end. It is clear from the documents that have been released that there are obvious continuing gaps in disclosure. Messages have been leaked to the press, including The Guardian and The Spectator, which are not included in the release to Parliament, even though they were ordered to be. The Intelligence and Security Committee—an organisation of eminent Members of the House from across the parties—has given its opinion that the Government are interpreting exclusion of material on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations “far too broadly”. I am sorry to say this, but it feels that the Government are still at it, because they are withholding documents. We have talked a lot about the vetting file. If that file is too difficult to disclose, at least its conclusions should be shared with the ISC, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested. It is important that the Government have no legal authority to take decisions not to disclose. As the Intelligence and Security Committee said, “while Government may believe that there is good reason to withhold certain documents, it does not currently have the authority to so do.” It is not for officials to decide what is released to Parliament; Parliament decides. If the instruction—a direction from the high court of Parliament to officials—is thought by officials to be too widely framed, it is the responsibility of Ministers to come to this House and persuade Parliament to change its mind. They have not done so. One of the things that really worries me about this Administration is that officials appear to think that they can decide what is and is not supplied to Parliament. That undermines the administration of this country by democracy. Parliament is where decisions are taken; we are the people who decide what authority is granted to the Executive. For officials to then decide, perhaps for good reason, that they will not comply with the direction of the high court of Parliament undermines our entire democratic process. They do not have the legal authority to make that decision. It is for the Government to stand up for Parliament, and if they think that Parliament has made too wide a direction, they must come and persuade us of that, and they will no doubt get a vote to correct it.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

    I would never accuse the Government of being too clever by half, and I am unable to put myself in their heads. However, I hear the hon. Member’s concern. We have this drip, drip, drip: the failed cover-up, the partial disclosure, the embarrassing exposures and the continued unauthorised retention. When will the Government realise that this is not going to stop and that this painful, weeping sore will remain open until they finally deliver what the Humble Address requires of them?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    I welcome the Minister to her new role. As she has set out, the draft regulations will make targeted changes to the UK’s money laundering regime, which is central to efforts to fight economic crime and terrorist financing. Since its introduction, there have been various changes underpinned by the international standards to which the Minister referred. The consultation on improving the regulatory system and the effectiveness of the money laundering regulations began under the last Conservative Government, so I am happy to confirm to the Minister that the Opposition will support the draft regulations. However, I have some questions to which I would be grateful for a response. The draft regulations will amend the customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence provisions so that they apply to “unusually complex” rather than just “complex” transactions, as well as to “unusually large” transactions. They will replace the broader grey list of “high-risk third countries” with the tighter “Call for Action” black list, so that North Korea, Iran and Myanmar are automatically covered. However, Syria and Yemen, for example, will no longer be covered. We support a risk-based proportionate approach, but what reassurance can the Minister provide that this change will not undermine efforts to tackle illicit finance? This is a rare example of deregulation from this Government. Having sat in a Committee Room going through 536 pages of the last Finance Bill, I simply say, “More, please!” Given the Government’s warning that firms may respond with overly cautious gold-plated compliance, what steps are being taken to ensure that the savings of £178 million a year to which the Minister referred will be realised? Where a bank goes insolvent, the draft regulations will allow accounts to be opened for transferred customers before full due diligence is complete, with checks being carried out “as soon as practicable”. That makes sense, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank. However, the Treasury recognises in its explanatory memorandum that this measure does not deal with all the associated issues. How will the Minister and the Government deal with those issues? On crypto, the draft regulations align with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 reforms, which is welcome, to apply due diligence checks. I note that the draft regulations will allow for a nine-month implementation period before those obligations apply. In a fast-moving sector, is the Minister confident that that will not open a window of vulnerability? How are the Government engaging with the sector to ensure that it is ready for these changes? On trusts, the changes will both expand and narrow the trust registration service. Given the complexity in this area, and the Government’s admission that previous rules missed some trusts, how will HM Revenue and Customs prevent sophisticated actors from structuring around the rules, while ensuring that smaller, legitimate trusts can comply? The draft regulations will explicitly require agents to carry out due diligence when selling off-the-shelf companies. The quantitative data on the prevalence and misuse of those companies is limited, since neither Companies House nor HMRC systematically tracks that activity, so there is a clear gap in the data. I appreciate that for that reason the Minister will not be able to provide an exact figure, but does she have an estimate of how widespread the abuse is around the tens of thousands of companies, if not more, that are registered each year? As a result of the changes, the Government estimate that £1.5 billion-worth of net benefits will be delivered over the next 10 years, but the impact assessment, which I am sure all hon. Members have studied closely, makes it clear that much of the evidence is qualitative and that the costs have not been robustly quantified. The Treasury has not attempted to monetise some of the proposals to provide a broader analysis of the impact. Colleagues who served on the last Finance Bill Committee will be aware of the interest that the Opposition take in impact assessments. Can the Minister explain why more of the benefits that are supposed to come from these regulations have not been monetised in the way the due diligence checks have? How confident is she that they will deliver the promised savings over the next decade? Finally, the Minister will know that when changes of this magnitude come in, they affect the sectors involved and the 95,000 companies that will be required to carry out some or all of these checks. They are looking for clear guidance to help interpret the regulations. Perhaps she could give an indication as to when such guidance will be provided to the sector. As I say, we launched the consultation on changing the regulations, and we support the direction of travel, but I hope the Minister will be able to address some of my points.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    South East Water: Disruption of Supply

    We have had a few days of hot weather, and yet again we have had water outages in my constituency and across Kent, on top of what we saw earlier this year and last year. Residents, businesses and livestock owners are frustrated, but they are also really worried, because getting water is the most basic thing in this country. It is right that the chief executive and chair of South East Water have gone; my anger with them was particularly about their response and how they have handled these outages. However, there is a longer-term problem with water infrastructure and supply that will not be fixed overnight. In my constituency, 20,000 more houses are in the pipeline for the next few years, and thousands more in the surrounding area. Is there enough water for those thousands of additional houses in rural Kent?

    Hansard source
36. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    South East Water: Disruption of Supply

    South East Water has openly and publicly admitted that it cannot supply drinking water for all the future homes that are planned for Kent. What is the Minister’s response to that specific concern, and is she having conversations with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government?

    Hansard source
37. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The importance of connecting our small towns, villages and wider urban areas is evident from the number of Members who have taken part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing it. What unites the vast majority of travel needs across our small towns and villages is the importance of personal vehicles and—not instead of—affordable, reliable and useful public transport. Those two elements are critical to connecting small towns. The 2024 national travel survey showed the dominance of the car and other private vehicles, particularly in rural areas. That was alongside buses, which are paramount to supporting local travel. However, I am afraid that under the current Government, there is a mentality that, despite some worthy funding promises and powers to local authorities, risks damaging links to our small towns. The 2024 travel survey showed that car trips made up 76% of distance travelled. The 2022 survey paints an even stronger picture for those in small towns. Those in rural towns and fringes used their car to travel twice the distance of those in urban conurbations. People in even more isolated areas used their car to travel nearly three times the distance of those in most urban areas. It is critical that the Government’s policies reflect this fact and support drivers in going about their everyday lives. Any other approach would impose self-inflicted damage on our small towns by disrupting the mode of transport most widely used, which in turn contributes to economic growth. Although I recognise that the classifications are different, as it uses the more traditional rural urban classification system, some of the proposals in the Government’s integrated transport plan, published this April, highlight a complete misunderstanding of the public’s transport needs. The plan says: “we will consider how we set clear expectations that local authorities and developers should maximise sustainable transport interventions before considering any increase in road capacity.” That is accompanied by comments in the section on rural and suburban areas that give the impression that cars should only be used as a last resort—a statement devoid of real life. It is the state telling people what it thinks they should want, not listening to what they actually want. Talking about them being relied on in this way completely misses why many people choose to use vehicles—they are making a choice. Supporting public transport and improving it to enhance links between our small towns is clearly also important—no argument there. In my constituency, I am a supporter of delivering the Haddenham to Thame greenway. However, we cannot do so by sacrificing or denigrating motor vehicle usage. That is indicative of why the Government struggle so much with economic growth. Rather than considering what they can do to improve one form of transport, their integrated transport strategy appears more comfortable trying to encumber drivers either by not increasing capacity or by putting in place policies such as bus priority routes, which in larger areas have done a great deal to restrict the ability to enter towns and some cities. It is easy to talk about this issue broadly and for it to sound like hyperbole, but we can all reference local examples of our failure to take a balanced and practical approach to transport spending. In Buckinghamshire, the Aylesbury spur of the East West Rail project was originally viewed as an integral part of the scheme. It was removed from the plans during a major cost-cutting exercise about eight or nine years ago, yet the case for restoring it remains as strong as ever. It would vastly improve connectivity between Winslow and Aylesbury, both of which are expected to grow significantly in the coming years, while strengthening onward links to London and the north. Importantly, it would do so in a way that supports economic growth, which the Government repeatedly tell us is their overriding priority. Better connectivity means greater access to jobs and opportunity. That example, along with the excellent examples from my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), demonstrates the wider point. The challenge facing small towns is not that people have too many transport options; it is that in too many places they do not have enough. The answer is not to make driving harder in the hope that people will choose another mode of transport; it is to improve all forms of connectivity, whether road, bus or rail.

    Hansard source
38. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Small Towns: Transport Links

    I agree with the fundamental point that the state of the roads in this country is getting worse and worse. The Government crow about the amount of money they have given to Buckinghamshire, my local authority, for pothole repairs, but it is absolutely and completely inadequate to fix the problems. Conservative-run Buckinghamshire council is spending £120 million—tenfold what the Government have given in a grant—to get the roads fixed. Anyway, let me get back to my point—it was a good try. We need to allow people to make the choices that best suit their circumstances. Indeed, the condition of our roads is why the Conservatives have proposed targeted measures to repair potholes and limit damaging policies such as 20 mph by default, which have cropped up in authorities both in urban areas and where small towns are situated. Furthermore, the bus fare increases that we have seen under this Government pose significant challenges to increasing demand. Although the Government have been reticent to admit it, the fare cap increased on their watch by 50%, and in many areas there have been further increases in the price of buses. That is simply factual. Those decisions impact bus users in our small towns, and it is this Labour Government who are putting the price of buses up. It is inevitable that increasing costs disincentivises travel between these areas. Some authorities are taking on the cost of bus services, and it remains to be seen whether a balance can be struck and services can be improved in a way that persuades people to use bus routes. This is occurring at the same time that the Government are taking on their project of rail nationalisation, after a period of significant passenger growth over the past three decades. We can debate the challenges around rail and whether the solution could ever be nationalisation, but that increase in numbers is irrefutably beneficial when we consider connections between small towns. I therefore hope the Government consider the measures put forward by the shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which highlight the importance of passenger growth in the Government’s proposals. Small towns do not need transport policies that pit one mode of travel against another. They need practical solutions that improve mobility across the board.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Improving the UK Visa System

    Order. A Member has come in rather late and did not apply to speak in the debate, so I suggest that he does not speak. I call Daniel Zeichner.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Improving the UK Visa System

    Order. Given the number of speakers here, it is going to work out at about four and a half minutes each. I am not going to bring that in strictly for now, but if everybody is considerate of that, we will be able to get through.

    Hansard source