5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Pavement Parking

   I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady. The Government have had a year to take action, and they have not. I have not been in the House as long as she has, but I was here in the last Parliament and I was a member of the Transport Committee for the entirety of it. I, too, sat around the horseshoe with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and indeed the Minister for some of that time. I certainly recognised the challenges of pavement parking and pushed for solutions in the last Parliament as well. I fully acknowledge that we are five years on, and that some of those years were under a Conservative Government, but action is required now. If we are to have a serious debate, the onus is on the present Government to come forward with the necessary actions. One of the issues that I notice in my constituency is the challenge of pavement parking in a lot of our new build areas and estates, where the planning system has quite deliberately tried to restrict parking. Guess what? That has created chaos on the streets in its own right, because people still require the same number of cars to get about, particularly in rural communities. Someone cannot do the family shop for a family of five on the back of a bike. We all recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. A blanket national ban is not going to be practical everywhere, but we cannot accept inertia. We cannot ask people with disabilities, carers or families to keep waiting while this problem goes unaddressed. I call on the Minister to come forward with practical steps and a realistic timeline, and then to commit to that and solve the problem.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Property Taxes

   My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the massive impact of these tax rises on so many families and businesses up and down the country. Will he comment on how we can have a Deputy Prime Minister who has admitted avoiding paying the tax that she owed and who continues in office? And this, from a party that called for the resignation of people for far lower offences! Does that not expose the rank hypocrisy that seems to run right through this Government?

   Hansard source
3. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Property Taxes

   I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. In the Labour manifesto on which he will remember he stood along with his colleagues, it was suggested that there would be tax rises under a Labour Government. I think the figure was £7 billion. In the event, £40 billion-worth of rises came forward in the autumn. Will he commit the Government to being more transparent in future in preparing the markets for tax rises, and, indeed, the people who have to pay them?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Hospitality Sector

   My hon. Friend might have been like me: the first job I ever had was as a porter, and then a barman, at the Crown and Mitre hotel in Carlisle. These are opportunities for people who are coming into the labour market for the first time or trying to get back into the labour market. The hospitality sector offers opportunity to people who otherwise have none, and that opportunity has come under devastating attack from this Government.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Hospitality Sector

   On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have any advice for those in the hospitality industry listening to the Minister, who is so afraid to deal with the issue at hand that he has to resort to this ad hominem attack on our Front-Bench colleague.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

   I, too, want to acknowledge all the work that my hon. Friend has done. He has been absolutely tenacious on this issue. I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, so I know. I had the calls, the questions on the Floor of the House and the meetings. I hope I can help the Minister here today, because a lot of the heavy lifting has been done in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care. One of the key questions that my hon. Friends raised was about the amount of compensation. Why has it not been increased, at least by inflation, in decades? A lot of that was put forward in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health, and a lot of the work has been done and should have come to fruition by now, a year into the new Government. The other issue was about people fearful of being clocked out and not having enough time to be compensated. We need the clock to start once they are in the system and not when they are out of it. Work has been done on that as well.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Hospitality Sector

   My hon. Friend is rightly articulating that hospitality businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. Epping Forest has fantastic local pubs, such as the Theydon Oak, the Forest Gate Inn and the Bull, and fantastic restaurants such as Mila and the India Grill in Loughton. They are all really suffering under the punitive taxation regime from the Labour Government—the jobs tax and the business rates rises. Does he agree that everything they are doing is damaging our local communities?

   Hansard source
8. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Property Taxes

   Is not the difference now that we are seeing stagflation—high inflation and the economy not growing as it should be? We are therefore seeing job losses and unemployment going up every month under this Labour Government. Unless they do something drastically different, it will only get worse, and that will impact on our growth prospects and therefore on the prosperity not just of our nation but of the individuals who work and try to thrive here.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Property Taxes

   Is that not exactly the point—that the top 1% of earners pay almost 30% of income tax? If we lose them, we damage the people who need the support and the investment from the very taxpayers we have just scared off. Should not the reverse be happening? We should attract more people into this country to spend more money, so that we have more money for such services through tax collection.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Property Taxes

    Was it not the current Prime Minister who said “not a penny more on your council tax”? Is the shadow Chancellor aware of how that worked out?

    Hansard source
11. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Hospitality Sector

    One thing that is not picked up in the figures is the fact that cafés and businesses up and down Hinckley and Bosworth are having to reduce the man-hours that people are working to reduce their staffing costs because of the taxes that are being put in place. This is a real problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not getting the growth that we want in this country because people are having to deal with this toxic concoction of legislation and tax?

    Hansard source
12. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Hospitality Sector

    Wales has introduced a tourism tax, or is planning to do so. In light of what we are talking about today, can the Minister rule out the UK introducing a tourism tax in the upcoming Budget?

    Hansard source
13. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. He has been a tireless advocate for bereaved families and communities affected by tragedy. His determination to keep these issues before Parliament commands respect across the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to the campaigners and families themselves. From Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the infected blood scandal to the Post Office Horizon affair, they have shown extraordinary courage in pressing for truth and accountability. Their persistence is the reason why we are here today, and it must not be forgotten. The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 is the clearest example of why the call for a duty of candour has become louder over the years: 97 lives were lost and countless other people were traumatised, and it was very powerful for us all to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who was there on that day at a young age. In the years that followed, there were inquiries, judicial reviews and inquests, yet for far too long, the true circumstances of what happened were hidden. In 2017, Bishop James Jones was asked to reflect on the experience of the Hillsborough families. His report set out in stark terms the lessons that need to be learned. He said that it was vital that the state ensure “proper participation” of the bereaved at inquests at which public bodies are represented. He identified four strands to achieving that: first, publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families when public bodies are represented; secondly, an end to the practice of public bodies spending limitless sums on their own representation; thirdly, a culture change so that public bodies see inquests not as a reputational threat, but as an opportunity to learn; and finally, changes to procedures and the training of coroners so that bereaved families are placed truly at the centre of the process. His report also served a reminder that legislation alone is not enough. As others have mentioned, we already have a statutory duty of candour in parts of our system—particularly the NHS—but too often that duty has become a tick-box exercise, satisfying process rather than securing trust. If the Hillsborough law is to mean anything, it must embed a genuine culture of truth-telling and accountability, as well as changing the law. It is against that backdrop that the idea of a statutory duty of candour has emerged and persisted. Sir Brian Langstaff, in his recent report into the infected blood scandal, reinforced the same point: too often, institutions have closed ranks, failed to disclose information openly and thereby compounded the suffering of victims and families. The King’s Speech in 2024 committed the Government to bringing forward a Hillsborough law, including a statutory duty of candour and provisions on legal representation. The stated aims were to improve transparency and accountability and reduce the culture of defensiveness, and to ensure that failures such as those on Hillsborough or infected blood are not repeated. Conservative Members are sympathetic to those aims, and it is worth remembering that some steps have been taken. Part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the creation of an independent public advocate to give victims and families a stronger voice in the aftermath of major incidents. The previous Government also worked with police chiefs, prosecutors and fire leaders to establish the Hillsborough charter, which commits signatories to put the public interest above organisational representation.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

    I will go on to talk about some of the other steps that we did take. Labour Members might reflect on the many things that, in opposition, they called for, demanded and promised to deliver, but that they are finding considerably more challenging to get done in government. That is our experience of Government in many respects. As I said, there are other things that we did. On legal representation, the then Government removed the means test for legal help and representation at inquests, particularly in relation to the exceptional case funding scheme, and measures were introduced to promote candour in policing. The offence of police corruption was created in 2017, and in 2020 a new duty to co-operate was written into the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. As the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby highlighted, however, more needs to be done. In its 2023 report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights looked closely at equality of arms at inquests. It highlighted that during the first Hillsborough inquests, public authorities and senior police officers had multiple legal teams, all funded from the public purse, while bereaved families received no public funding at all. As I said, changes we have made would mean that that would not happen again in future in the same way. The Committee concluded that this inequality hindered the effective involvement of families, and risked damaging the ability of inquests to get to the truth. Yet, as recent events have shown, the issue is not straightforward. As detailed in the letter the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby published earlier this year, the Government’s draft Bill was rejected by Hillsborough families, who argued that its proposed safeguards against dishonesty by public servants were not strong enough. The Prime Minister has met them on several occasions, both since taking office and previously in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, and has emphasised that any legislation must command their confidence. As yet, however, no Bill has been introduced to Parliament. In April, further reports suggested that draft legislation did not include provision for funding parity. Campaigners expressed real concern, and Ministers in the House of Lords offered reassurances, but admitted that there was concern in Government about the overall availability of legal aid funding. Further reports over the summer suggest that resistance in the Treasury is slowing progress. The Justice Secretary has apparently made it clear that her Department could not fund the costs within existing budgets, and the Ministry of Justice was said to have sought over £1 billion in additional legal aid funding. In July, the Prime Minister made the point that although he was fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a duty of candour, he wanted to take the time to get it right before putting it to Parliament. On the same day, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby brought forward his private Member’s Bill on candour and accountability. The desire for progress is strong, but the practicalities remain contested. We are sympathetic to the principle of a statutory duty of candour. We agree that bereaved families should not face the state’s lawyers without adequate support of their own, and we recognise the force of the campaigns that have led us here. However, we also understand the difficulty of translating principle into workable law. How do we ensure fairness for families without creating unmanageable costs and adverse unintended consequences? Those are not small questions, and they deserve careful thought. In closing, I return to where I began: the families. Families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, families devastated by Grenfell, families affected by infected blood and families ruined by Horizon—they have all faced unimaginable grief and years of struggle to uncover the truth. We cannot undo their loss, but we can ensure that the state learns, that institutions are held to account and that families in the future are treated with the openness, honesty and fairness they deserve. Families and victims deserve nothing less.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, got to enjoy everything that UK hospitality has to offer over the summer. Fifteen local pubs received nominations in my community pub awards. I visited places including the Bull Inn in Battle, the Castle Inn in Pevensey, the Swan Inn in Dallington, the New Inn in Westfield and Sidley working men’s club. Many of them told me how hard-hit they have been by Labour’s jobs tax. UKHospitality estimates that 80,000 jobs have already been lost, and the British Beer and Pub Association says that a pub a day will close this year. Can the Prime Minister name a single pub landlord who thinks that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Employment Rights Bill will help, rather than just make things worse?

    Hansard source
16. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Property Taxes

    My right hon. Friend is explaining the situation in his usual powerful way. If, as seems likely, the Government impose capital gains tax on a person’s principal private residence, will he, as mitigation, consider whether there should at least be indexation allowance to provide some relief from the horror that I fear is about to be inflicted on my constituents? He will remember that the Finance Act 2008 abolished that relief on other property. I suspect that the Government will not be sympathetic to such a suggestion given what happened in 2008, but it would at least take the edge off the imposition of taxes on the sale of a person’s principal private residence.

    Hansard source
17. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Hospitality Sector

    The hon. Lady is trotting out a whole load of helpful suggestions, of which the hospitality Minister is no doubt taking careful note for the time when he makes his representations—which he said he would not be making—to the Chancellor. Does the hon. Lady agree that he could also make recommendations to the Deputy Prime Minister, especially in relation to the Unemployment Bill, that would have no particular cost attached? I am thinking of the “banter ban”, which even the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said is absolutely bonkers, and is likely to make hospitality venues even less attractive to those who need to use them.

    Hansard source
18. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Hospitality Sector

    On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Stephen Montgomery, who is the director of the Scottish Hospitality Group, that the very circumstances he is setting out have brought the industry to the brink, and that unless the Government start listening, it is going to go over a cliff edge?

    Hansard source
19. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Hospitality Sector

    I am sad to say that the number of payroll employees in this country has fallen by 149,000 in the past year. We now have unemployment inching up towards 5%, with youth unemployment much higher than that. Why do I mention that in the context of a debate about hospitality? It is because a disproportionate number of jobs—tens of thousands—have been lost in this sector. It is absolutely fundamental to employment, along with the retail and care sectors. It is a shame that hospitality was not deemed worthy of a chapter in the Government’s industrial strategy, because if it had been—or, indeed, if the Government had an employment strategy—they would not have done what they did in the Budget. The hospitality sector is incredibly important. It is important to me personally, as it happens; like many others, I had my first job in hospitality. Actually, it was where I spent most of my career before I became a Member of Parliament. More importantly, hospitality is important to my constituency, as it is to just about every constituency in the country. In my case, it employs around 2,000 people across some 200 establishments, including a number of historic heritage pubs. Hospitality is important to our nation partly because of all those jobs, but also because an important part of the hospitality sector is overnight hospitality, which is fundamental to tourism, which in turn brings in such important export earnings. I do worry that with all this talk of tourism taxes, it is starting to sound like people think that tourism is, in some way, a problem to be mitigated. Tourism does have issues, of course, but fundamentally, tourism—especially inbound tourism—is an exceptional opportunity to be grabbed. It is not just about the number of jobs; it is about who those jobs are for. This sector is a key source of first jobs and jobs for people coming back to the labour market, including those who are the very furthest from work. I think of some of the great work done by hospitality businesses—including by one of my old employers, Greene King—with people leaving the criminal justice system, for example. Of course, we are talking disproportionately about part-time workers. The sector has suffered terrible blows from the big increase in business rates, and the two effects through national insurance contributions, both in the rates and in the threshold, have disproportionately affected part-time workers. We hope for some relief in the delayed Budget when it eventually comes, but there is something Ministers could do now ahead of the Budget to mitigate the situation. I am talking about the Employment Rights Bill. I know that zero-hours contracts have had a sort of totemic importance for Labour Members ever since their last leader made it so, but we have to get past the idea that a zero-hours contract is necessarily trying to exploit workers; it is not. The NHS has many bank workers in hospitals on zero-hours contracts. Students will often work on zero-hours contracts so they can stay in their jobs, even when they move between home and university. The two things the Government could do to mitigate the situation are to lengthen the reference period to reflect seasonality and to make sure that it is an opt-in right, rather than something that has to be offered repeatedly.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Hospitality Sector

    If we are going to exchange numbers, does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed since the autumn Budget, and that 84,000 hospitality workers have lost their jobs? That is one in every 25 since the autumn Budget alone—and that was when the autumn Budget was actually in the autumn. Does he agree that that is having an impact on our high streets and the very viability of our local town centres and that it needs to stop? The Government need to stop holding our hospitality sector responsible for everything that happens in the local economy.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Hospitality Sector

    The hospitality industry is often the unsung hero of our local communities. We often do not appreciate it enough and we take it for granted. It is everywhere: it is in every village and every town, and in every corner of our constituencies. This opportunity to debate the importance of the hospitality industry is extremely timely given the challenges it is facing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said, the hospitality industry offers many people the first opportunity to get into a first job. It offers opportunity for those who want flexible working, and it offers opportunity for career progression for those who wish to move into management and maybe aspire to own their own hospitality business one day. As the proud representative of Bridlington and The Wolds, hospitality is vital to my constituency. I represent two seaside towns—Bridlington and Hornsea—and a huge rural inland area, all of which is reliant on the hospitality industry that is part of the tourism we so enjoy. Five million visitors come to Bridlington alone every year, all of whom enjoy hospitality of some sort in the pubs and the cafés, with the fish and chips and the ice creams. All of these businesses are under serious pressure. We have heard about the 84,000 job losses across the sector nationally, and the pressures felt by individual businesses from the rise in national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Bill and other measures taken by the Chancellor in her first Budget. One particular area on which I want to concentrate—it was raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—is the serious issue of VAT, particularly on the pub and restaurant sector. I was told by a local landlord of a very successful pub in my constituency that he has 500 covers a week, and still struggles to make a profit, because although he is buying food without VAT, he has to charge it to the customer. That puts a serious squeeze on his ability to achieve a profit, even though he is running a successful business. Of the 500 people who come in for a meal every week, the Government is taking the first 100 covers. VAT is quite a hit on such businesses, and I think the Minister should make more significant representations to the Chancellor on that specific point. I know he says he is approached by every sector about VAT, but it seems to be a particularly acute problem for pubs and restaurants.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Hospitality Sector

    It is not for me to say whether the Minister will or will not, but he should do so, and he should be shouting much more loudly on behalf of the hospitality sector.

    Hansard source
23. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Hospitality Sector

    There we go. Let us hope the Chancellor listens this time. Another point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), was on the tourism tax in Wales. This has caused significant concern in my coastal communities of Bridlington, Hornsea and the other coastal villages. As the Minister said, the tourism industry is already heavily taxed and people are already feeling the pressure. We certainly do not want to see any sort of tourism tax expanded from Wales into the wider United Kingdom. It really is not possible for these businesses to continue in the current climate. As we have heard, over a third are unable to make a profit in the hospitality industry and yet our local pubs are the lifeblood of our communities. They are so important. We saw that during covid, when we were not able to go to the pub and the impact that had on communities for people to be able to mix, particularly those who live alone whose social contact is perhaps limited to visiting friends for a pint after work in the evening.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Hospitality Sector

    Absolutely. As I say, hospitality is the lifeblood of our local community and we should be doing more to look at this as a special case, because it really, really is damaging when we see pubs close. When a village loses a pub, it loses part of its heart and soul. We absolutely need to protect these businesses. They want to make money, but they are not out there trying to fleece their customers. They want to make a living; they do not want to make millions out of what they are doing. Our landlords and landladies are a fantastic part of our communities, so we should be doing more to support them. The Chancellor, when we eventually get to our Christmas Budget, has a chance to say to our hospitality businesses across the country that we do value them, that we do accept there are pressures that have been created by the rise in national insurance contributions, that there are pressures through the Employment Rights Bill, that there are pressures they already have through the existing VAT rate and that we want to help. Now, I know the Chancellor says, “Where are you going to cut money, if you take money away from those particular taxes?” I say, let us be inventive. Let us have a look at what we value. This is not about service delivery; this is about whether, if we reduce taxes, we might, as we have heard, get more take from the overall tax bill. If more people are going into pubs, restaurants and cafes and spending more money because it is more affordable to do so, the Treasury might actually end up with more money. I ask the Minister to use this opportunity. Please do make representations. He does not have to make them public, but please shout loudly for our hospitality industry.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Hospitality Sector

    Order. I remind Members that there are 45 of you wishing to speak. Interventions must be a lot shorter. I am sure the shadow Minister has got the hon. Gentleman’s point.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Hospitality Sector

    May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and perhaps encourage all Members to ensure that they stay on topic and in scope this afternoon?

    Hansard source
27. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Hospitality Sector

    Order. The interventions are very long. The Minister has now taken longer than the shadow Minister did in opening the debate. I am sure he will bring his remarks to a conclusion very soon.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Hospitality Sector

    Order. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. Members might like to think about the length of interventions, or indeed whether interventions are needed at all, given that plenty of colleagues still wish to speak.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Use of Drones in Defence

    My background is in armoured infantry and warfare, and I completely concur that the weak spots of a tank are probably underneath it or to the rear. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out with the Armata tank, we should consider the use of drones to immobilise, and not just the engine block. The weak spot of any tank is its tracks, which are very easily disabled—that is the point of an anti-tank mine. During the second world war the Russians trained dogs to find food under tanks, so that they could then strap explosives to them, send them under German tanks and detonate them. Should we be looking at the protection that we provide to the side of a tank, to further protect its tracked infrastructure and prevent it from being mobility-killed?

    Hansard source
30. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Use of Drones in Defence

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The nature of warfare has changed. During the last three years of conflict driven by the war in Ukraine and, perhaps controversially, two years of Israel Defence Forces operations in Gaza, we have seen a paradigm shift in the nature of warfare—a tangential move away from the manoeuvre warfare that has shaped military thinking since the blitzkrieg illustrated the potential of speed and firepower. The previous Conservative Government recognised the direction of travel and introduced the UK defence drone strategy prior to the election, in February last year. Backed by an investment of £4.5 billion, the intention was to enable the rapid experimentation, testing and evaluation of uncrewed platforms. The past year has seen the publication of the strategic defence review, which reflects the continued change of focus. It makes much of the need to adopt a high-low mix, combining exquisite capability with attritable capability such as drones—for high-low, read “expensive-cheap”. At the recent Royal United Service Institute land warfare conference, the opening address of General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, directly referred to the change to a high-low mix in the British Army. He said: “I want 20% of our lethality to come from the survivable layer, 40% from the attritable, and 40% from consumable. That does not mean I want 1/5th the number of crewed platforms in the Programme of Record, it’s that I want each one to be five times more lethal, survivable and sustainable…And I want to spend 50% of our money on the 20% of crewed and expensive, and 50% on the remaining 80% of attritable.” We have all seen footage of first-person view drones and how they have been used in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. As a former infanteer, the sight of individual soldiers being stalked slowly by drones hovering just behind them, and menaced and killed at will, strikes fear into my heart for the future of being an infantryman. This is, hopefully, a temporary situation, and in much the same way that the improvised explosive device was in conflict with electronic countermeasures—ECMs—so too will drones find themselves, in time, at the mercy of counter-unmanned aircraft system solutions. Last week, there was an article in The Washington Post about the measures the Ukrainians are taking to combat Russian drone threats, which include going as far as using a biplane with a crew member firing them out of the air with a shotgun. That is the sort of inventive stuff that is currently going on in the east—we would not believe it if we saw it in a movie. We have already seen the RAF and the Army begin to employ agile combat employment such as the penetrative threat of drones, as illustrated by the bold attack by Ukraine on airfields deep inside Russian territory mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). There is, however, very little in place to prevent a copycat attack against our forces in the UK. If RAF Brize Norton can be breached by civilians on scooters, it can be easily breached by a swarm of drones. What price our air-to-air refuelling or heavy lift capability? That is not easily replaced and fairly easily defeated on the ground. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that we have permanent counter-unmanned aircraft systems capability at all operational flying bases? Agile combat employment will get us only so far and, as we have seen, it takes only a couple of litres of red paint to destroy a jet engine. In Ukraine, we have seen that survivability is key: how we fight a vehicle is as important as how we physically protect it or conceal it. Before any talk about thermal camouflage or, increasingly, multispectral camouflage, we should consider how the age and capability of the kit we have makes it vulnerable to a drone threat it was never designed to encounter. The strategic defence review outlines the British Army’s intention to move to a dynamic high-low capability mix, as I alluded to earlier, of 20-40-40: that is 20% crewed platforms to control 40% attritable—preferably survivable—platforms, and 40% consumables such as shells and missiles, also including attritable one-way effector drones. For such a fundamental doctrinal shift in manoeuvre warfare around which the entire Army would need to be restructured, a single sub-paragraph on page 110 of the SDR does not really cut it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on how he plans to extrapolate such a paucity of strategic intent. At the lowest consumable level, handheld off-the-shelf drones are a plentiful, cheap and effective tool. They are low cost and high volume. Our funding of capability in Ukraine should really be seen as an investment; it is not cynical to suggest that the current conflict is a helpful proving ground for our own future capability. First-person view drones have quickly become a stalwart of the modern battlefield and sit within what the Ministry of Defence considers to be tier 1 and tier 2—those that are consumable or attritable. It is those drones that will see the quickest development, the biggest leaps in capability, and the most effort going into combating them from an anti-personnel perspective. We have already seen the development of a counter-UAS ECM that has led to the impractical horizontal development of fibre-optic drones. The pace of development should force us to ask what the capability will be like by the time British troops are required to use them in anger.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Use of Drones in Defence

    I think AI will increasingly become a mainstay of the battlefield, and how we employ it will become incredibly important. My concern is about the control of AI and knowing that the target we are trying to prosecute is indeed still viable right up to the last safe moment. Once we lose control of a drone and it becomes AI-capable, in theory it could switch to a more preferential target, which may be a good opportunity, or it may be a catastrophe that ends up as front-page news. We need to think carefully about how we employ drones. On the overall development of drones, another important factor to consider is how we employ the warhead. It is only a matter of time before we look at options such as the replacement of Javelin—I was a Javelin platoon commander when I was in the Army—which has a two-stage warhead, with the first stage penetrating the armour and the second stage going inside the vehicle, exploding and detonating to kill the crew. The application of something like a two-stage warhead to an FPV drone is going to become an increasingly potent threat. It will be interesting to see at what point that emerges on the battlefield. At tier 3—a level up—we have those platforms that are firmly considered to be survivable. The entry into service of Protector RG mark 1, replacing Reaper, illustrates how the Royal Air Force is moving further into the world of uncrewed air systems. With a ceiling of 40,000 feet and a mission endurance in excess of 30 hours, it marks the next evolution in our drone capability. With an ongoing project to enable it with the low-collateral Brimstone 3, it will be a potent weapons delivery platform, although that project is currently rated at amber. Indeed, the introduction of remotely piloted aircraft systems—RPAS—as its own stream within RAF pilot training illustrates the complexity of how drones will be used going forwards. We have already seen the SDR outline the desire to introduce a hybrid carrier air wing, with crewed and uncrewed platforms operating alongside one another from our carrier strike group. That leads us into the category of exquisite capability. The elephant in the room is GCAP—the global combat air programme—a trilateral endeavour with Italy and Japan that aims to deliver a sixth-generation fighter by 2035. I do not wish to derail the debate by talking about the merits and pitfalls of sixth-generation fighters, and whether by the time they arrive we will still need or want an exquisite capability, given how precious we are already about our fifth-generation F-35s, but there is a key issue with the platform as an exquisite capability. The intention of GCAP is not to have massed squadrons of fighters flying into dogfights over Russia. Those days are long gone; in future, we should expect most, if not all, engagements to take place beyond visual range. Any near-peer conflict will involve formidable air defence that will render the low-level bombing runs of yesteryear the stuff of Hollywood. No, the intention is to operate GCAP as a system of systems: a crewed platform where the pilot is less of a pilot and more an integrated part of the system—effectively, a weapons platform operator co-ordinating the battle space—and where the uncrewed autonomous collaborative platforms, or loyal wingmen, operate as a squadron and conduct the task as an attritable but very expensive asset that can complete the mission without risk to aircrew, impervious to being disabled by ECM, and operating networked to GCAP itself. The RAF’s autonomous collaborative platform strategy aims to have ACP as an integral part of the RAF force structure by 2030, and we have started to see that being rolled out in recent weeks. This is a concept that I do not believe we can fully afford. The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority already has the future combat air system rated at red—that is not just GCAP but the ACP strategy that accompanies it. It would be one thing to achieve an ACP capability, and another to develop and deliver a sixth-generation fighter, whether on time or decades late, but to deliver both seems fanciful based on the Ministry of Defence’s procurement track record. In a world where the infantry are still using armoured vehicles that came into service the same year the Beatles released their debut single—closer to the end of the first world war than to today—with no current plans to replace them, I cannot envisage a situation where we have a sovereign fighter jet that ranks as the best in the world and a squadron of drone fighters operating alongside it. We urgently need to start managing our expectation. The Government talk a good game on RPAS but, for all the talk of increasing the defence budget, our drone strategy looks an incoherent mess. I am sure the Minister will set me straight on whether that is accurate. We are pouring money into exquisite capability while watching the war in Ukraine spiral-develop capability that we have no idea how to use in the last 100 yards. The pace of technological change that is driving the evolution of the threat environment is such that unless we leverage the spiral development capability that already exists here, coupled with the expertise that now exists in Ukraine, British forces will be left behind.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Use of Drones in Defence

    If we are talking about those low-end, attritable systems being introduced at Army or Marine level as section-level capability, like a light machine gun, at what point will we look at redesigning our entire military capability in terms of logistical supply of batteries and parts for those? We all know that soldiers already carry too much kit, and carrying more batteries for drones will be key in that. How can we effectively redesign the section attack to incorporate drones? As I said in my speech, this is a fundamental shift in how the Army fights battles. I appreciate that the Minister is doing everything he can to introduce drones into the ecosystem, but it seems to me that we are making huge changes here. This is almost the same as introducing the machine gun and then wondering why we do not know how to fight it properly when we get to the battlefield. I would be interested to hear what we are doing to further that.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Use of Drones in Defence

    Recently, we saw the ACUA Ocean Pioneer granted a licence by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Do we think that by pushing out more civilian licences to enable more companies to develop those autonomous platforms, including for things that have maritime applications, drones will be enhanced more quickly? I appreciate that a drone can be set up and flown relatively easily, but getting something that floats in the water, particularly something sizeable that has a civilian application, is quite difficult. Do we think that advancing the number of licences given to companies working on autonomous maritime capability would be an advantage?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Hospitality Sector

    The hospitality sector is all too often overlooked, yet it is one of the most vital pillars not just of our economy, but of our communities. My constituency has 215 registered businesses in accommodation and food services, contributing at least 4,000 jobs—nearly one in 10 local jobs. The sector really matters to Cheshire’s economy. Each year, it contributes £370 million in Cheshire East, and £390 million in Cheshire West and Chester. Hospitality, however, is being punished with higher taxes and even more regulation. Since being elected, I have been meeting and listening to our local business owners, and I hear the same message time and again: times are tough, and they need policies that deliver stability, champion growth and secure the future of the sector—none of which this Government have delivered. Instead, policy after policy has punished small business owners, especially in hospitality. Do not just take my word for it. Earlier this year, I sat down with Woody Barlow who runs the Swan in Tarporley and the Lion at Malpas, two of our fantastic local village pubs. Woody told me that the 2024 Budget hit his business hard through increased employer national insurance contributions and reduced business rates relief. What struck me most was his concern for his staff and community. He was not just worried about profits, but about young people. Their first job in a local pub can be vital; they learn soft skills, gain confidence and work in a team. I also met William Lees-Jones, managing director of JW Lees brewery, a seventh-generation family business, approaching its 200th anniversary. It supplies and runs well over 100 pubs across the north-west, not to mention its inns and hotels. William raised serious concerns about proposed changes to business property relief. The brewery has consistently reinvested its profits to grow and innovate, creating jobs, supporting communities and contributing to our economy. Before the Budget, it forecast the creation of 178 new jobs in 2025, but after the spring statement, William told me that he is not sure those jobs will be possible. Jake, at the Fire Station in Malpas, spoke to me about the impact of VAT, along with increasing wage costs, and how that threatens his ability to run a much-loved café at the heart of the local community. Add to that the surging cost of utilities and the anti-growth, anti-business measures in the Employment Rights Bill, and it is clear that the sector is under immense pressure. I want to emphasise just how important hospitality is in rural communities like mine. Yes, a pub is a place to grab a pint, and a café is a great place to get a coffee, but they are so much more. Just last Thursday, I attended the first “chatty café” at Tilly’s in Bunbury, a scheme that provides vital social contact, particularly for older people. I met Charles, who is 86 years old and travels from Crewe every week to have his breakfast and a chat at Tilly’s. For many in our rural areas, cafés and pubs are lifelines. They host community groups, offer local services and provide a space where people feel connected. With their unfair taxation, economic mismanagement and poorly thought-out legislation, this Government are putting pubs, cafés and restaurants, and the jobs that they create and support, at risk. I will continue to speak up for the hospitality businesses in Chester South and Eddisbury, and I thank them for everything that they do for our local economy and our communities.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Hospitality Sector

    I beg to move, That this House regrets the combination of catastrophic choices made by the Government causing the closure, downsizing and lack of hiring by pubs, restaurants, hotels and hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom, with an estimated 84,000 job losses over the last 12 months and an average of two site closures per day in the first half of 2025; further regrets the Government’s policies that have led to this such as the omission of the hospitality sector from the Government’s industrial strategy, increases in the cost of pavement licences, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75 per cent to 40 per cent for 2025-26, the increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions to 15 per cent and the lowering of the secondary threshold to £5,000, and measures in the Employment Rights Bill which will make hospitality employers liable for the behaviour of customers and others; and calls on the Government to publish a dedicated strategy for the sector, to consult with hospitality employers prior to any future changes to the National Living Wage, to amend the Employment Rights Bill to protect seasonal and flexible employment practices vital to the sectors’ contribution in providing a ladder into employment for young and often excluded groups and to introduce targeted support measures to prevent further business closures, job losses and damage to local communities. From the great British pub to the family-run restaurant, from the small seaside bed and breakfast to world-leading hotels, hospitality businesses are the beating heart of our communities, our high streets and our economy. Yet today, under Labour, they are hurting like never before. We were promised a Government for jobs, for opportunity and for prosperity. What have we got instead? A concoction of catastrophic choices causing a lack of hiring and the closure and downsizing of pubs, restaurants, hotels and hospitality businesses across the nation; a jobs tax that goes out of its way to savage the part-time, entry-level opportunities that hospitality offers in abundance; soaring business rates; and over 300 pages of additional job-killing red tape.

    Hansard source
36. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Hospitality Sector

    My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Opportunity is a word we are going to hear again and again, because of the huge contribution that the hospitality sector makes to the economy and to getting people on the ladder of opportunity with their first job in life.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Hospitality Sector

    The hon. Gentleman is trying to get his first opportunity, and I will give him that. We are going to have a good debate, and I will make some progress after this.

    Hansard source
38. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Hospitality Sector

    All I can suggest, and I say this in all seriousness, is that the hon. Gentleman should spend a lot more time in local pubs in his constituency, because the people there will talk about the horror show that is the Employment Rights Bill. They will talk to him about the soaring business rates, the reduction in relief under this Government and the national insurance job tax—that swingeing £25 billion attack on the private economy.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Hospitality Sector

    My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is about the numbers, and it is important that we should be instrumented. This is a sector that is extremely well instrumented, and groups such as UKHospitality do a great job at calling out the impact. But it is not just about the numbers, because behind every one of those numbers is a story: a family, a striver, a risk taker, an entrepreneur, a community or a high street whose life is being sucked out of it by this Government. Hospitality is where the character of our nation lives, in the welcome of a restaurant host, the laughter in a dining room and the clink of a glass, and it is the fact that that life that is being extinguished that is so tragic.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Hospitality Sector

    I do agree. My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. It has been an enormously difficult summer. The weather should have been a tailwind, but the tailwind was not significant enough to offset the headwind of the impact of that jobs tax. And who does it hit? Labour Members say that they stand up for opportunities for young people and the most vulnerable, but the change to national insurance thresholds in particular—the reduction from £9,100 to £5,000—has hit the part-time workers, the young mums trying to balance the responsibilities of family life and the young people trying to get their very first step on the ladder. In her first Budget, the Chancellor said that she had made her choices. Well, we warned her, businesses warned her and even the Office for Budget Responsibility warned her, and what has happened? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, 84,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the Chancellor took office. That is a Wembley stadium’s-worth of livelihoods shredded by this Labour Government, affecting the most vulnerable in society, those trying to juggle other commitments and young people trying to have their first shot in the world of work. If this Government are about protecting working people, I have to say they have a very odd way of showing it. It is not just us saying this. Last month, Kate Nicholls, the chair of UKHospitality, said: “More than half of all job losses since October occurring in hospitality is further evidence that our sector has been by far the hardest hit by the Government’s regressive tax increases.”

    Hansard source