bills

THE GREAT British break might not be so great very soon after it was announced that the overnight ‘holiday tax’ is set to be pushed forward.

Included in the King’s Speech was the dreaded new levy on staycations and one Butlin’s boss has hit back saying it will have big ‘consequences’ for families.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

Plans to introduce the ‘Overnight Visitor Levy‘ for staycations in England was first announced late last year, and was spelled out again in the King’s Speech two days ago.

Essentially, the government’s plan is introduce levy overnight accommodation like hotels, B&Bs, campsites or holiday homes.

It would allow local authorities in England to charge visitors an additional fee on overnight stays which is similar to systems already used in parts of Europe.

GRUBS UP

Best pubs, fish and chip shops and cafes in Sussex – by Sun readers & locals

GO SEA IT

£9.50 holiday spot with shipwrecks, seals offshore & horseshoe-shaped waterfalls

According to UK Hospitality, the new tax could add £100 to a two-week family stay based on £2 per person per night.  

Unsurprisingly, the plans have not been met with positivity.

Matt Rake who is a resort director at Butlin’s in Bognor Regis – said the tax would have “consequences”, especially for working families.

He said: “It’s disappointing that the government is pressing ahead with the holiday tax despite how clear businesses, consumers and the hospitality sector have been about the potential consequences.

“In the Spring, the government said families being able to pay for a holiday should never be too much to ask, yet today they’ve confirmed the introduction of a measure that will hurt working families hard.

“We know how important domestic tourism is for Bognor Regis and the local businesses here. Holidays and short breaks support jobs and investment across our community throughout the year.”

He added that in a recent poll, 73 per cent of people would reduce or cut back on holidays in England if extra costs were introduced.

The ‘holiday tax’ was formally announced in the Autumn Budget in November 2025.

And two hundred bosses from firms including Butlin’s, Haven and Parkdean Resorts have written to the Chancellor hitting out at the plans.

KATIE Price has touched down on home turf from her Dubai visit to see husband Lee Andrews.

Though it wasn’t the happiest of trips for the former glamour model, 47, who has been accused of refusing to stump up for her cosmetic surgery bills while in the UAE.

The Sun exclusively revealed she hasn’t settled her debts – despite hubby Lee claiming to be a billionaire.

The mum of five flashed a smile as she arrived in the UK’s Gatwick Airport, wearing a tight-fit grey crop top which clung to her curves and black joggers.

She pulled on a trendy pair of sunglasses and styled her hair poker straight, looking fresh from the long-haul trip.

Katie – who flashed her huge wedding ring in the Arrivals terminal – was accompanied by an assistant who wheeled three bags of luggage alongside her.

PRICE’S PROMISE

Sad reason Katie Price won’t ditch husband Lee despite his string of lies

NO PRICE

Katie Price accused of refusing to pay surgery bills and blocking Dubai business

There is ongoing speculation that her husband Lee, 43, is unable to leave the United Arab Emirates city after allegedly forging his ex-girlfriend Dina Taji’s signature to secure a £200,000 loan – something he’s strongly denied.

Back in April, Katie appeared to confirm he is subject to a travel ban

As such, she is the one doing the graft with the long haul flights.

Though this time around, Katie’s spouse has been slammed by a popular UAE-based aesthetic clinician for failing to cough up the money for the cosmetic work they’ve had in recent months.

Katie Price surgery boxout

KATIE Price’s love for surgery is no secret – here’s the details

1998 – Katie underwent her first breast augmentation taking her from a natural B cup to a C cup. She also had her first liposuction

1999 – Katie had two more boob jobs in the same year, one taking her from a C cup to a D cup, and then up to an F cup

2006 – Katie went under the knife to take her breasts up to a G cup

2007 – Katie had a rhinoplasty and veneers on her teeth

2008 – Katie stunned fans by reducing her breasts from an F cup to a C cup

2011 – Going back to an F cup, Katie also underwent body-contouring treatment and cheek and lip fillers

2014/5 – Following a nasty infection, Katie had her breast implants removed

2016 – Opting for bigger breasts yet again, Katie had another set of implants, along with implants, Botox and lip fillers

2017 – After a disastrous ‘threading’ facelift, Katie also had her veneers replaced. She also had her eighth boob job taking her to a GG cup

2018 – Katie went under the knife yet again for a facelift

2019 – After jetting to Turkey, Katie had a face, eye and eyelid lift, Brazilian bum lift and a tummy tuck

2020 – Katie has her 12th boob job in Belgium to correct botched surgery and a new set of veneers

2021 –  In a complete body overhaul, she opts for eye and lip lifts, liposuction under her chin, fat injected into her bum and full body liposuction

2022 – Katie undergoes another brow and eye lift-and undergoes ‘biggest ever’ boob job in Belgium, her 16th in total

2023 – Opting for a second rhinoplasty, Katie also gets a lip lift at the same time as well as new lip filler throughout the year

2024 – Katie has her 17th boob job in Brussels after revealing she wanted to downsize. She performed at Dublin Pride just days later and surgeons warned the lack of recovery posed a risk of infection

Lee allegedly refused to pay the bill, however he insists the work was ‘complementary’.

The clinic specialises in facial contouring and liquid rhinoplasty among other surgical and non-surgical treatments.

In response to a recent Sun post about Lee using fake money to scam women, the clinician has shared his own experience with the couple.

Just days ago, the beauty clinic owner claimed that he had not received any money and was still chasing the couple.

But in a surprise move, he alleged that he had been blocked, without any explanation for their failure to pay.

He said: “This is expected as they both left without paying for their treatment and after multiple sent invoices, I was blocked.

“Although no mention of being unhappy with the results was ever brou- ght to my attention.

“What Katie is experiencing with her treatment is perfectly normal.”

But Lee has denied these claims when the The Sun reached out to him.

He has insisted that Katie was left “unable to move her mouth” following the procedure and disputes the charges.

SIX in ten Brits say free roaming is their top priority when choosing a phone plan – with a third being stung by additional fees.

A study of 2,000 adults revealed of the 34 per cent who had been charged, 22 per cent had to fork out £50 or more extra from a single trip – with 1.5 million travellers facing bills of over £100.

Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) admitted they had no idea different charges applied to varying countries in Europe.

Almost half (48 per cent) who were hit with surprise additional costs due to roaming said it had negatively affected their holiday as a result.

The research was commissioned by iD Mobile, which has teamed up with the former King of the Jungle and I’m a Celebrity… South Africa returnee, Harry Redknapp, to beat the sting of holiday bill shock.

A spokesperson for the network provider, which offers inclusive roaming as standard in 50 European destinations, said: “Being hit with a huge roaming bill when you return home is genuinely frustrating.

MAKING WAVES

UK’s biggest aquapark is reopening this week – and is getting a new 39ft slide

GROUNDED

UK airline goes into liquidation after 3 years due to fuel crisis & rising costs

“Our research shows just how many people are unsure about roaming charges, how they work, and where they apply.”

The study also found, of those who have been charged with unexpected roaming fees, 90 per cent were shocked by the amount.

Meanwhile 54 per cent said they do not understand how such charges are calculated on their current mobile phone plan, including what they are charged for calls, texts and data when abroad.

Over a quarter (28 per cent) said they did not understand what mobile roaming is and how the charges would work when travelling abroad.

When using their phone abroad, 42 per cent said it left them feeling anxious, regularly checking their usage (29 per cent) or actively limiting what they do to avoid unexpected costs (13 per cent).

Tactics to avoid unexpected fees included switching off mobile data entirely (40 per cent) and not sending photos or videos to family and friends (20 per cent).

The study also found 30 per cent felt disconnected from friends and family while on holiday abroad, according to OnePoll.com figures.

In a bid to stay connected, for 21 per cent, finding Wi-Fi would be the first thing they would do.

ATM withdrawal or foreign transaction card fees were the most unexpected costs (25 per cent), as well as hotel extras for pool towels, Wi-Fi and safe hire (16 per cent).

A spokesperson for iD Mobile, which partnered with Harry Redknapp for a campaign video which features the football star fighting the sting of roaming bills with his ‘Roaming Sting Repellent’, added: “People feel it when it comes to using their phones abroad.

“Many travellers don’t know what’s included in their phone plan, or when charges might apply, until they’re already away.

“That confusion is clearly influencing how people behave on holiday, with some cutting back on phone use entirely to avoid the risk of unexpected costs.

“No one should have to worry about being stung by their phone bill while trying to enjoy a well-earned break.”

Jada Pinkett Smith is asking a judge to make Bilaal Salaam cover the $49,000 in legal fees she racked up fighting claims he made in a December lawsuit.

According to a motion filed April 20 and obtained by The Times, Pinkett Smith is asking that Salaam pay $49,181.23, consisting of “reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred” in connection with Pinkett Smith’s successful special motion to strike Salaam’s complaint, “plus further fees and costs associated with this motion.”

Salaam — Will Smith’s former best friend of 40 years who also goes by Brother Bilaal — filed a lawsuit against the “Bad Moms” actor in December, alleging emotional distress and seeking $3 million in damages.

Salaam claimed that in September 2021, he attended a private birthday party for Will Smith at the Regency Calabasas Commons. According to his lawsuit, he was in the lobby of the movie theater when Pinkett Smith approached him with about seven members of her entourage and threatened him. Salaam’s suit claims that Pinkett Smith told him he would “end up missing or catch a bullet” if he kept “telling her personal business.” She also allegedly pressured him to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

In November 2023, Salaam appeared on the “Unwine With Tasha K” podcast and alleged that he walked into Duane Martin’s dressing room and saw Will Smith having a sexual encounter with the “All of Us” actor. He also made claims about Pinkett Smith’s sexual habits.

Pinkett Smith swiftly responded during an appearance on “The Breakfast Club” and said that Salaam started the rumors as part of a broader “money shakedown” and that his claims were “ridiculous and nonsense.”

“It’s not true and we’re going to take care of it,” she said. “We’re about to take legal action.”

Salaam beat Pinkett Smith to the courthouse and sued her in December, but Pinkett Smith asked the judge to toss the case in February.

According to the motion filed this week, the former “Red Table Talk” host argues Salaam should pay her hefty legal bills because she “prevailed on her anti-SLAPP motion” and the court struck all allegations relating to media statements “that formed the basis for Plaintiff’s three causes of action, as well as additional allegations regarding a cease-and-desist letter.”

WASHINGTON — The House voted Friday to spend more than $41 billion on dams, highways, airports and various military and university projects.

In a rush to finish its work next week and avoid having to return after the November elections, House members voted overwhelmingly in favor of a transportation spending bill and another energy and water spending bill, together amounting to $33 billion.

Also passed by voice vote was an $8.4-billion appropriations bill for military construction projects, including $3.3 billion to build new housing for families of military personnel and nearly $1 billion as the second installment in closing more than 80 military bases over the next few years.

The bills were produced by House-Senate conference committees that reconciled versions passed earlier by each chamber.

Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, complained that members of Senate and House appropriations committees had included about $90 million in projects paid for by the Energy Department for home-state universities.

“Eight of those 10 projects happen to be in states or districts of people who happen to be on the conference committee,” he said. “We’re allocating money not based on anything other than who’s in the room divvying up the money.”

But his motion to eliminate the projects was defeated, 308 to 108, as the chairman and top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee’s energy and water subcommittee said all the projects are justified.

“There’s nothing unusual about this,” Rep. Tom Bevill (D-Ala.), the panel’s chairman, said. “We need more labs; we need more scientists; we need more emphasis put on these programs.”

Among the 10 recipients of the funds are research centers at the University of Alabama and the University of Indiana.

Among the projects hurt in the deficit-cutting effort was one of President Bush’s favorites–the proposed $8-billion super collider atom smasher in Texas.

Bush’s request of $318 million to begin construction of the giant particle accelerator had been approved earlier by both the House and the Senate. But it was slashed to $243 billion by their negotiators last week.

Earlier this year, tickets to see SZA perform at the Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 a piece.

In San Francisco, tickets to see Sam Smith at the newly renovated Castro Theater went on sale for $120, only to be quickly snatched up by scalpers and resold for upwards of $600.

Those are some of the stories that California lawmakers are citing as they advance two plans to change the ticketing landscape. One caps the extent to which resellers can mark up the original ticket price while the other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t yet own.

Democratic Assemblymembers Issac Bryan of Culver City and Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying bills that they say would protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive ticket sales.

Both measures are backed by the ticket market’s dominant seller, Beverly Hills-based Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. Its support has some worried that the bills will help the company crush its competitors and jack up prices.

A federal jury in New York this week found that the company illegally acted as a monopoly in a victory for, among others, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who with colleagues in other states sued the company two years ago and kept going after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now awaiting penalties.

Despite these headwinds, the ticket bills are sailing through the Legislature.

Supporters say the legislation has nothing to do with the antitrust case against Live Nation and helps consumers. Opponents disagree.

“The state Legislature should really be standing up for consumers instead of advancing bills that are there to help a monopoly that has been caught on record calling its fans stupid and has bragged about robbing them blind,” said Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights advocacy group.

Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying against the measures, a sign that they view the proposals as a threat to their business.

Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, wrote to CalMatters, stating, “Passing laws that hand the Ticketmaster monopoly more power and don’t actually make tickets more affordable is the last thing California’s leaders should do.”

But Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, argues that they will regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging the face value — or below face value — exchange of tickets.

“Ultimately, that is what these bills will do, in addition to making sure that the tickets are actually real,” he said. “That is a good thing for California consumers. It’s a good thing for artists and it’s a good thing for these small businesses and nonprofits that make up the independent stages across the state.”

A Live Nation spokesperson said in a statement to CalMatters, “The resale lobby constantly tries to change the subject by pointing fingers at Ticketmaster, even though it has less than 25% of the resale market. This has nothing to do with anyone’s monopoly, but rather is about protecting fans from scalpers and the resale sites that cater to them.”

The company has spent roughly $165,000 on lobbying efforts this legislative session, including to support Bryan’s bill.

‘Unlikely allies’

Bryan’s Assembly Bill 1349 would ban the sale of speculative tickets — or tickets that are not in the possession or ownership of the people who list them online. In an April hearing, Bryan said the bill protects consumers from predatory mark ups.

“This bill is so important that, after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together,” Bryan said, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. “In fact, this bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together, brought the National Independent Venue Association and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together.”

Several secondary ticket sellers are fighting the measure, including StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. The three companies have spent roughly $1.1 million dollars on lobbying efforts this legislative session, which included opposition to Bryan’s bill.

People watch fireworks during Bad Bunny’s halftime show from a parking garage outside Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 8, 2026. Photo by Jungho Kim for CalMatters

Opponents including Robert Herrell, executive director for the Consumer Federation of California, argue that the bill strengthens Live Nation Ticketmaster’s grip on the ticketing and live entertainment industry. According to them, the measure would give Live Nation complete control over the ticket even after it has been purchased — meaning, for example, that consumers could lose the ability to sell it or give it away.

“There’s no consumer choice in the matter,” said Herrell. “They can keep people out of shows if they want to. There have been situations where, if you bought a ticket on the secondary market, you’ve been denied entry into a show.”
Proponents say Herrell and other opponents are mistaken. They say they are not trying to prevent transferability but rather, they want to protect fans from speculative costs.

“We want those rooms full,” said Ron Gubitz, executive director of Music Artists Coalition, which is co-sponsoring both bills. “So you have to be able to transfer a ticket. We just want it to be in a way that’s safe, trustworthy and not creating this run on the market that exists now.”

Gubitz pointed to a recent Bruno Mars concert, where tickets were on StubHub for $400 to $2,000 before they were on sale through Ticketmaster.

“That’s crazy,” he said. “That’s a speculative ticket that Bryan’s bill is trying to stop. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not fair to anybody, except for the secondary (market). It seems great for them.”

Price caps in a free market

Haney’s Assembly Bill 1720, also known as the California Fans First Act, would put a 10% cap on resale event ticket markups, inclusive of the ticket fees. In other words, a reseller could not charge more than 10% higher than the original ticket price.

In an interview with CalMatters, Haney said artists, independent venues and downtowns are currently being “screwed over and exploited” by scalpers and brokers.

“We can’t allow the status quo to continue if we want to ensure Californians have access to affordable tickets to see their favorite artists or if we want independent venues or the broader landscape of musicians and artists to thrive in our state,” he said.

Haney rejected the idea that his bill would strengthen the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly, saying that the company is one of the biggest operators and profiteers of the secondary ticket market and would therefore be subject to the same restrictions as any other platform or broker.

“I don’t think it’s a free market to allow folks to come in and buy up all these tickets and then create scarcity and then you’re now required to buy your ticket at a much higher price from someone who had nothing to do with the event,” he said. “This is not something we would ever allow for airplane tickets or even dinner reservations.”

The bill has been criticized by opponents like Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at Progressive Policy Institute, who said price caps notoriously distort the market, describing them as “anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-artist.”

“If you shut down the resale market with price caps then guess what? Ticket buyers have no place to go but right back to Ticketmaster,” said Moss. “If (Live Nation) succeed(s) in decimating the resale market, then they steer millions and millions of fans back to their own ticketing platform where they charge monopoly ticket fees and where fans are hostage to their glitchy online platform and all of their data, privacy and security concerns that we always hear about in the news.”

Those concerns didn’t stop the bill from passing out of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism last week with a 6-1 vote. The bill also passed out of the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection on Thursday with a 9-4 vote.

Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow for CalMatters.

BRITS have been warned to book their summer getaways now or face a massive spike in prices as the Middle East conflict sends fuel costs soaring.

The boss of easyJet today sounded the alarm after revealing the war has already cost the budget airline £25million in fuel hikes.

The Luton-based carrier has been hit hard by rising oil prices after Iran tightened its grip on tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Holidaymakers are being told that if these high costs persist, the extra bill will be passed directly onto passengers through higher fares across the entire industry.

EasyJet reported that the conflict has created “near-term uncertainty around fuel costs and customer demand” as families hesitate to book.

Official figures show that bookings for the peak summer months of June through to September have already dipped compared to last year.

PLANE BAD

Spanish airport to CLOSE for over a month with all flights cancelled

PINT-SIZED

My favourite up-and-coming EU country has £2.60 pints and summer highs of 30C

The airline is braced for a massive headline loss of between £540million and £560million for the six months leading up to the end of March.

Investors reacted with panic to the news as shares in the company tumbled by as much as 9% in early trading on Thursday.

EasyJet chief executive Kenton Jarvis admitted the firm has struggled.

He said: “Our H1 financial performance worsened year on year, impacted by the conflict in the Middle East and the competitive environment in some markets.”

Despite the gloom, the airline boss insisted that planes are still taking off as normal following the busiest Easter period on record.

He added: “Following our busiest Easter holiday period ever, the operational ramp up into peak summer continues as planned.”

Mr Jarvis claimed the company has the cash reserves to survive the crisis.

He said: “EasyJet’s financial strength from our investment grade balance sheet and £4.7billion of liquidity mean we are well placed to navigate current geopolitical challenges while remaining focused on our medium term targets.”

Experts are worried that the war could eventually lead to fuel shortages and forced cancellations, but the airline insists airports are currently “operating as normal” with supplies secured until mid-May.

Everything now rests on whether the crisis in the Middle East escalates or cools down in the coming weeks.

A quick resolution could see prices drop, but a long-term war could see holiday demand dry up as fuel is rationed around the world.